| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- O'Connor, C. M., et al.
(author)
-
Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure
- 2011
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 365:1, s. 32-43
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P=0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P=0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P
|
|
| 9. |
- Metra, M., et al.
(author)
-
Geographic Differences in Patients in a Global Acute Heart Failure Clinical Trial (from the ASCEND-HF Trial)
- 2016
-
In: American Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9149. ; 117:11, s. 1771-1778
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A growing number of countries and geographical regions are involved in major clinical trials. Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure is the largest trial in acutely decompensated heart failure (HF) with patients from 5 geographical regions: North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central Europe (CE), and Asia-Pacific (AP). Data from the 5 geographical, areas were compared including baseline characteristics, medications, 30-day outcomes (mortality and mortality or HF hospitalization), and 180-day mortality. Of the 7,141 study patients, 3,243 (45.4%) were from NA (average of 15.2 patients/site), 1,762 (24.7%) from AP (28.4 patients/site), 967 (13.5%) from CE (20.2 patients/site), 665 (9.3%) from LA (17.1 patients/site), and 504 (7.1%) from WE (14.4 patients/site). There were marked differences in co-morbidities, clinical profile, medication use, length of stay, 30-day event rates, and 180-day mortality by region. Compared with NA, the adjusted risk for death or HF hospitalization at 30 days was significantly lower in CE (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.64), WE (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.35 to 0.75), and AP (OR 0.62 95% CI 0.48 to 0:79) and numerically lower in LA (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.04) with similar results for 180-day mortality. In conclusion, in patients with acutely decompensated HF, major differences in baseline characteristics, treatments, length of the hospital stay, and 30-day HF rehospitalization rates, and 180-day mortality were found in patients enrolled from different, geographical areas. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 10. |
- Bhatt, Deepak L., et al.
(author)
-
Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of the effect of ticagrelor on health outcomes in diabetes mellitus patients Intervention study
- 2019
-
In: Clinical Cardiology. - : Wiley. - 0160-9289 .- 1932-8737. ; 42:5, s. 498-505
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the setting of prior myocardial infarction, the oral antiplatelet ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced the risk of recurrent ischemic events, especially, in those with diabetes mellitus. Patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes are also at elevated risk and might benefit from dual antiplatelet therapy. The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS, NCT01991795) is a Phase 3b randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ticagrelor vs placebo, on top of low dose aspirin. Patients >= 50 years with type 2 diabetes receiving anti-diabetic medications for at least 6 months with stable coronary artery disease as determined by a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention, bypass grafting, or angiographic stenosis of >= 50% of at least one coronary artery were enrolled. Patients with known prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety endpoint is Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding. A total of 19 220 patients worldwide have been randomized and at least 1385 adjudicated primary efficacy endpoint events are expected to be available for analysis, with an expected average follow-up of 40 months (maximum 58 months). Most of the exposure is on a 60 mg twice daily dose, as the dose was lowered from 90 mg twice daily partway into the study. The results may revise the boundaries of efficacy for dual antiplatelet therapy and whether it has a role outside acute coronary syndromes, prior myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
