| 1. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 2. |
- Baigent, Colin, et al.
(författare)
-
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection) : a randomised placebo-controlled trial
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 377:9784, s. 2181-2192
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients. Methods This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and I SRCTN54137607. Findings 4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0.85 mmol/L (SE 0.02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4.9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11.3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13.4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94; log-rank p=0.0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4.6%] vs 230 [5.0%]; RR 0.92,95% CI 0.76-1.11; p=0.37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2.8%] vs 174 [3.8%]; RR 0.75,95% CI 0.60-0.94; p=0.01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6.1%] vs 352 [7.6%]; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93; p=0.0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10 000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0.2%] vs 5 [0.1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0.5%] vs 18 [0.4%]), gallstones (106 [2.3%] vs 106 [2.3%]), or cancer (438 [9.4%] vs 439 [9.5%], p=0.89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14.4%] vs 612 [13.2%], p=0.13). Interpretation Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Held, Claes, et al.
(författare)
-
Vorapaxar, a platelet thrombin-receptor antagonist, in medically managed patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: : results from the TRACER trial
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 3:3, s. 246-256
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: This study characterized a medically managed population in a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) cohort and evaluated prognosis and outcomes of vorapaxar vs. placebo.Methods: In the TRACER study, 12,944 NSTEACS patients were treated with standard care and vorapaxar (a novel platelet protease-activated receptor-1 antagonist) or placebo. Of those, 4194 patients (32.4%) did not undergo revascularization during index hospitalization, and 8750 (67.6%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients managed medically were heterogeneous with different risk profiles, including 1137 (27.1%) who did not undergo coronary angiography. Patients who underwent angiography but were selected for medical management included those without evidence of significant coronary artery disease (CAD), with prior CAD but no new significant lesions, and with significant lesions who were not treated with revascularization.Results: Cardiovascular event rates were highest among those without angiography and lowest in the group with angiography but without CAD. In the medically managed cohort, 2-year primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischaemia with rehospitalization, urgent coronary revascularization) event rates were 16.3% with vorapaxar and 17.0% with placebo (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83–1.17), with no interaction between drug and management strategy (p=0.75). Key secondary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) rates were 13.4% with vorapaxar and 14.9% with placebo (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74–1.07), with no interaction (p=0.58). Vorapaxar increased GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding numerically in medically managed patients (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.99–2.15).Conclusions: NSTEACS patients who were initially medically managed had a higher risk-factor burden, and one-third had normal coronary arteries. Outcome in the medically managed cohort was significantly related to degree of CAD, highlighting the importance of coronary angiography. Efficacy and safety of vorapaxar appeared consistent with the overall trial results.
|
|
| 4. |
- Tricoci, Pierluigi, et al.
(författare)
-
Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:1, s. 20-33
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation.METHODS:In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization.RESULTS:Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS:In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).
|
|
