Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (3) (remove)
Dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) increases the risk of tPA-associated hemorrhagic transformation (HT) in ischemic stroke. To investigate the effects of DAPT in rodents, reliable indicators of platelet function utilizing a minimally invasive procedure are required. We here established a fluorescence-based assay to monitor DAPT efficiency in a mouse model of ischemic stroke with HT. Male C57/BL6 mice were fed with aspirin and clopidogrel (ASA+CPG). Venous blood was collected, stimulated with thrombin, labeled with anti-CD41-FITC and anti-CD62P-PE, and analyzed by flow cytometry. Subsequently, animals were subjected to experimental stroke and tail bleeding tests. HT was quantified using NIH ImageJ software. In ASA+CPG mice, the platelet activation marker CD62P was reduced by 40.6 ± 4.2% (p < 0.0001) compared to controls. In vitro platelet function correlated inversely with tail bleeding tests (r = −0.8, p = 0.0033, n = 12). Twenty-four hours after drug withdrawal, platelet activation rates in ASA+CPG mice were still reduced by 20.2 ± 4.1% (p = 0.0026) compared to controls, while tail bleeding volumes were increased by 4.0 ± 1.4 μl (p = 0.004). Conventional tests using light transmission aggregometry require large amounts of blood and thus cannot be used in experimental stroke studies. In contrast, flow cytometry is a highly sensitive method that utilizes small volumes and can easily be incorporated into the experimental stroke workflow. Our test can be used to monitor the inhibitory effects of DAPT in mice. Reduced platelet activation is indicative of an increased risk for tPA-associated cerebral hemorrhage following experimental stroke. The test can be applied to individual animals and implemented flexibly prior and subsequent to experimental stroke.
Background: Misconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base. Methods: We reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder. Results: We generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents. Conclusions: Many findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.