915 resultados para Medical Research Council (MRC)
Resumo:
In 1975 two Cambridge scientists published a short article in Nature which announced the discovery of monoclonal antibodies. The article concluded ‘Such cultures could be valuable for medical and industrial use’. The interest which developed by the end of the decade in the industrial and financial possibilities of the new prospects opening up in biotechnology was to throw the apparent ‘failure’ to follow‐up the potentialities of this discovery into a public prominence rarely achieved by scientific discoveries. By the time Mrs Thatcher came to power it had become a scandal, another example of Britain's apparent inability to exploit effectively the brilliance of its scientific base. It was to explore both the process of scientific discovery and the conditions in Cambridge which nurtured it, and the issues which this particular discovery raised in the area of technology transfer (and the changes of policy that ensued), that the Wellcome Trust's History of Twentieth Century Medicine Group and the Institute of Contemporary British History organised this special witness seminar. It was held at the Wellcome Trust in London on 24 September 1993. The seminar was chaired by Sir Christopher Booth and introduced by Dr Robert Bud of the Science Museum. Those participating included the two authors of the Nature article, Dr César Milstein and Dr Georges Köhler, who received a Nobel Prize for their research, Dr Basil Bard (National Research Development Corporation [NRDC] 1950–74), Sir James Gowans (Secretary of the Medical Research Council [MRC] 1977–87), Sir John Gray (Secretary of the MRC 1968–77), John Newell (BBC World Service science correspondent 1969–79), Dr David Owen (MRC), and Dr David Secher (Laboratory of Molecular Biology [LMB], Cambridge). There were also contributions from Dr Ita Askonas (former head of immunology at the National Institute for Medical Research), Dr John Galloway (former member of MRC headquarters staff), Dr David Tyrrell (former Director, MRC Common Cold Unit), Professor Miles Weatherall (head of Therapeutic Research Division, Wellcome Research Laboratories 1967–75), Dr Guil Winchester (post‐doctoral fellow, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine), and Dr Peter Williams (former Director of the Wellcome Trust). The organisers would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for hosting and sponsoring the seminar. We would like to dedicate this publication to the memory of Georges Köhler, who sadly died in April 1995 before this could appear.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The endothelial nitric-oxide synthase (NOS3) gene encodes the enzyme (eNOS) that synthesizes the molecule nitric oxide, which facilitates endothelium-dependent vasodilation in response to physical activity. Thus, energy expenditure may modify the association between the genetic variation at NOS3 and blood pressure. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we genotyped 11 NOS3 polymorphisms, capturing all common variations, in 726 men and women from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Ely Study (age (mean +/- s.d.): 55 +/- 10 years, body mass index: 26.4 +/- 4.1 kg/m(2)). Habitual/non-resting energy expenditure (NREE) was assessed via individually calibrated heart rate monitoring over 4 days. RESULTS: The intronic variant, IVS25+15 [G-->A], was significantly associated with blood pressure; GG homozygotes had significantly lower levels of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (-2.8 mm Hg; P = 0.016) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-1.9 mm Hg; P = 0.018) than A-allele carriers. The interaction between NREE and IVS25+15 was also significant for both DBP (P = 0.006) and SBP (P = 0.026), in such a way that the effect of the GG-genotype on blood pressure was stronger in individuals with higher NREE (DBP: -4.9 mm Hg, P = 0.02. SBP: -3.8 mm Hg, P= 0.03 for the third tertile). Similar results were observed when the outcome was dichotomously defined as hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the NOS3 IVS25+15 is directly associated with blood pressure and hypertension in white Europeans. However, the associations are most evident in the individuals with the highest NREE. These results need further replication and have to be ideally tested in a trial before being informative for targeted disease prevention. Eventually, the selection of individuals for lifestyle intervention programs could be guided by knowledge of genotype.
Resumo:
Background Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for childhood anxiety disorders is associated with modest outcomes in the context of parental anxiety disorder. Objectives This study evaluated whether or not the outcome of CBT for children with anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders is improved by the addition of (i) treatment of maternal anxiety disorders, or (ii) treatment focused on maternal responses. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the additional treatments was also evaluated. Design Participants were randomised to receive (i) child cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT); (ii) CCBT with CBT to target maternal anxiety disorders [CCBT + maternal cognitive–behavioural therapy (MCBT)]; or (iii) CCBT with an intervention to target mother–child interactions (MCIs) (CCBT + MCI). Setting A NHS university clinic in Berkshire, UK. Participants Two hundred and eleven children with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had an anxiety disorder. Interventions All families received eight sessions of individual CCBT. Mothers in the CCBT + MCBT arm also received eight sessions of CBT targeting their own anxiety disorders. Mothers in the MCI arm received 10 sessions targeting maternal parenting cognitions and behaviours. Non-specific interventions were delivered to balance groups for therapist contact. Main outcome measures Primary clinical outcomes were the child’s primary anxiety disorder status and degree of improvement at the end of treatment. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 and 12 months. Outcomes in the economic analyses were identified and measured using estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYS were combined with treatment, health and social care costs and presented within an incremental cost–utility analysis framework with associated uncertainty. Results MCBT was associated with significant short-term improvement in maternal anxiety; however, after children had received CCBT, group differences were no longer apparent. CCBT + MCI was associated with a reduction in maternal overinvolvement and more confident expectations of the child. However, neither CCBT + MCBT nor CCBT + MCI conferred a significant post-treatment benefit over CCBT in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.62, p = 0.29; adjusted RR CCBT + MCI vs. control: adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.67, p = 0.20, respectively] or global improvement ratings (adjusted RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59, p = 0.05; adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.53, p = 0.13). CCBT + MCI outperformed CCBT on some secondary outcome measures. Furthermore, primary economic analyses suggested that, at commonly accepted thresholds of cost-effectiveness, the probability that CCBT + MCI will be cost-effective in comparison with CCBT (plus non-specific interventions) is about 75%. Conclusions Good outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment conditions. There was no evidence of a benefit to child outcome of supplementing CCBT with either intervention focusing on maternal anxiety disorder or maternal cognitions and behaviours. However, supplementing CCBT with treatment that targeted maternal cognitions and behaviours represented a cost-effective use of resources, although the high percentage of missing data on some economic variables is a shortcoming. Future work should consider whether or not effects of the adjunct interventions are enhanced in particular contexts. The economic findings highlight the utility of considering the use of a broad range of services when evaluating interventions with this client group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19762288. Funding This trial was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC–NIHR partnership (09/800/17) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 38.
Resumo:
Objective: To evaluate characteristics of physical activities in daily life in COPD patients in Brazil, correlating those Characteristics with physiological variables. Methods: Physical activities in daily life were evaluated in 40 COPD patients (18 males; 66 +/- 8 years of age; FEV(1) = 46 +/- 16 % of predicted; body mass index = 27 +/- 6 kg/m(2)) and 30 healthy age- and gender-matched subjects, using a multiaxial accelerometer-based sensor for 12 h/day on two consecutive days. We also assessed maximal and functional exercise capacity, using the incremental exercise test and the six-minute walk test (6MWT), respectively; MIP and MEP; peripheral muscle force, using the one-repetition maximum test and the handgrip test; quality of life, using the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); functional status, using the London Chest Activity of Daily Living questionnaire; and dyspnea sensation, using the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. Results: Mean walking time/day was shorter for COPD patients than for the controls (55 +/- 33 vs. 80 +/- 28 min/day; p = 0.001), as movement intensity was lower (1.9 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.3 +/- 0.6 m/s(2); p = 0.004). The COPD patients also tended to spend more time seated (294 +/- 114 vs. 246 +/- 122 min/day, p = 0.08). Walking time/day correlated with the 6MWT (r = 0.42; p = 0.007) and maximal workload (r = 0.41; p = 0.009), as well as with age, MRC scale score and SGRQ activity domain score (-0.31 <= r <= -0.43; p <= 0.05 for all). Conclusions: This sample of Brazilian patients with COPD, although more active than those evaluated in studies conducted in Europe, were less active than were the controls. Walking time/day correlated only moderately with maximal and functional exercise capacity.
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
This work was funded by the Medical ResearchCouncil (G1100357).We are grateful to Anne Saunderson, Joan Creiger and the staff of the Bruntsfield Suite, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, for their considerable assistance in patient recruitment. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by MRC grant G1100357.
Resumo:
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements The author's studies in this field are supported by MRC grants G1002118 (NS and RAA) and G110357 (RAA), MR/L010011/1 (PAF), the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 212885 (PAF) and the Wellcome Trust (080388 to PAF). AS was funded by a BBSRC CASE Studentship co-funded by AstraZeneca.
Resumo:
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Acknowledgements: We thank Ms Margaret Fraser, Ms Samantha Flannigan, and Dr Wing Yee Kwong for their expert assistance. The staff at Grampian NHS Pregnancy Counselling Service were essential for collecting fetuses. We thank Professor Geoffrey Hammond and Dr Marc Simard, University of British Colombia for helpful comments on the manuscript. Supported by grants as follows: Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (AJD); Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Executive, CZG/1/109 to PAF, & CZG/4/742 (PAF & PJOS); NHS Grampian Endowments 08/02 (PAF, SB & PJOS); the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 212885 (PAF & SMR); the Medical Research Council grants MR/L010011/1 (PAF & PJOS) and MR/K018310/1 (AJD). None of the funding bodies played any role in the design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, nor in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication
Resumo:
Funding: This study is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust and University College London (FM and HZ), the Medical Research Council grant (grant reference MR/L013142/1, FM), SMA-Europe grant (FM and HZ) and Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity grants (FM and JM). JEM is supported by Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. PS is supported by Bill Marshall Fellowship and The CP Charitable Trust at Great Ormond Street Hospital and UCL. SHP is supported by SMA Trust and Euan MacDonald Centre for Motor Neurone Disease Research.
Resumo:
Acknowledgments The staff at Grampian National Health Service Pregnancy Counseling Service were essential for collecting fetuses. We thank the Aberdeen Proteomics Core Facility (University of Aberdeen) for their expert assistance. Support for the study was provided by the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Executive, CZG/1/109, & CZG/4/742), National Health Service Grampian Endowments (08/02), the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no 212885, and the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/L010011/1).
Resumo:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the data management support of Grampian Data Safe Haven (DaSH) and the associated financial support of NHS Research Scotland, through NHS Grampian investment in the Grampian DaSH. S.S. is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (Ref 102729/Z/13/Z). We also acknowledge the support from The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research. The Farr Institute is supported by a 10-funder consortium: Arthritis Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Assembly Government), the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates) and the Wellcome Trust (MRC Grant Nos: Scotland MR/K007017/1).
Resumo:
Funding This work was funded by Arthritis Research UK (grants 17859, 17971, 19654), INNOCHEM EU FP6 (grant LSHB-CT-2005-51867), MRC (MR/K013076/1) and the William Harvey Research Foundation
Resumo:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS G.D.B. thanks the Wellcome Trust and MRC (United Kingdom) for funding.