The role of β-adrenergic receptor signaling in the proliferation of hemangioma-derived endothelial cells

Background

Infantile hemangioma (IH) is a benign vascular neoplasm that arises from the abnormal proliferation of endothelial cells and enhanced angiogenesis. Recently, propranolol has been found to be effective in the management of IH, suggesting that β-adrenergic receptors (β-ARs) may play an important role in the pathogenesis of IH.

Results

In the present study, we investigated the β-adrenergic signaling that is associated with hemangioma-derived endothelial cell (HemEC) proliferation. The results showed that both β₁- and β₂-ARs were expressed in HemECs. Stimulation of the β-ARs by isoprenaline induced cell proliferation and elevation of second messenger cAMP levels. The proliferation-promoting action of isoprenaline was abolished by a β₁-selective antagonist and was more effectively abolished by a β₂-selective antagonist; the mechanism for the action of the antagonists was a G₀/G₁ phase cell cycle arrest which was associated with decreased cyclin D1, CDK-4, CDK-6 and phospho-Rb expression. Pre-treatment of the cells with VEGFR-2 or ERK inhibitors also prevented the isoprenaline-mediated proliferation of cells. In agreement with the involvement of β-ARs and VEGFR-2 in the HemEC response, β-AR antagonists and the VEGFR-2 inhibitor significantly attenuated isoprenaline-induced ERK phosphorylation. Moreover, treating the cells with isoprenaline markedly increased VEGF-A expression and VEGFR-2 activity in a β₂-AR-dependent manner.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated that the activation of the β-ARs in the ERK pathway may be important mechanisms in promoting HemEC growth. Furthermore, stimulation of the β-AR may transactivate VEGFR-2 signaling and further increase HemEC proliferation.     

Feedback GAP: pragmatic,cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Background

Audit and feedback to physicians is a commonly used quality improvement strategy, but its optimal design is unknown. This trial tested the effects of a theory-informed worksheet to facilitate goal setting and action planning, appended to feedback reports on chronic disease management, compared to feedback reports provided without these worksheets.

Methods

A two-arm pragmatic cluster randomized trial was conducted, with allocation at the level of primary care clinics. Participants were family physicians who contributed data from their electronic medical records. The ‘usual feedback’ arm received feedback every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients meeting quality targets for diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease. The intervention arm received these same reports plus a worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) values were compared after two years as the primary outcomes. Process outcomes measured the proportion of guideline-recommended actions (e.g., testing and prescribing) conducted within the appropriate timeframe. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

Results

Outcomes were similar across groups at baseline. Final analysis included 20 physicians from seven clinics and 1,832 patients in the intervention arm (15% loss to follow up) and 29 physicians from seven clinics and 2,223 patients in the usual feedback arm (10% loss to follow up). Ten of 20 physicians completed the worksheet at least once during the study. Mean BP was 128/72 in the feedback plus worksheet arm and 128/73 in the feedback alone arm, while LDL was 2.1 and 2.0, respectively. Thus, no significant differences were observed across groups in the primary outcomes, but mean haemoglobin A1c was lower in the feedback plus worksheet arm (7.2% versus 7.4%, p<0.001). Improvements in both arms were noted over time for one-half of the process outcomes.

Discussion

Appending a theory-informed goal setting and action planning worksheet to an externally produced audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in patient outcomes. The results may be explained in part by passive dissemination of the worksheet leading to inadequate engagement with the intervention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645