4.4 Review

Down with the Erythropoietin. Long Live the Erythropoietin!

期刊

CURRENT DRUG TARGETS
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 1028-1032

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/138945009789577981

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years the use of erythropoietin has exploded, and the anaemia of patients with chronic renal failure has been practically resolved with the administration of rHuEpo (recombinant human, Erythropoietin). However, as a result of an intense commercial campaign, strong therapies with this growth hormone, prescribed to achieve surprising sporting performances, got athletes to run the risk of thrombosis and vascular accidents because of red blood cells increase. Erythropoietin represents a significant subject of research. In fact, besides the ability of stimulating erythrocyte production, it has many pleiotropic effects. Several studies allow the assertion that EPO, in different concentrations, has protective effects mainly on central nervous system and cardiovascular system through various mechanisms, among which a key role seems to be held by the ability to stimulate angiogenesis. The consequent problem is that anaemia therapy with rHuEpo in patients with cancer may accelerate the progression of neoplastic disease by promoting tumour angiogenesis and, thus, metastasization. The study of angiogenic process in tumours led to the synthesis of drugs that, blocking VEGF, exert an anti-angiogenic action, contrasting cancer spread. However, benefits are relatively modest. Is erythropoietin perhaps the further angiogenic hormone to block in tumour pathology? Therefore, Epo plays a role in Regenerative Medicine since it intervenes in a persistent natural regenerative activity of humans: angiogenesis. The understanding of the regeneration mechanisms of complex structures in the adult salamander has opened original lines of research. Regenerative Medicine tries to develop therapeutic pathways through the stimulation of natural regenerative processes in humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据