| 1. |
- Callen, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Medicine. - : Springer Nature. - 1546-170X .- 1078-8956. ; 27:8, s. 1385-1394
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs. © 2021, The Author(s).
|
|
| 2. |
- Caron, Bénédicte, et al.
(författare)
-
IOIBD Recommendations for Clinical Trials in Ulcerative Proctitis : the PROCTRIAL Consensus
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. - : Elsevier. - 1542-3565 .- 1542-7714. ; 20:11, s. 2169-2627.e1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clinical trials evaluating biologics and small molecules in patients with ulcerative colitis are predominantly excluding ulcerative proctitis. The objective of the PROCTRIAL (Definition and endpoints for ulcerative PROCtitis in clinical TRIALs) initiative was to develop consensus statements for definitions, inclusion criteria, and endpoints for the evaluation of ulcerative proctitis in adults.METHODS: Thirty-five international experts held a consensus meeting to define ulcerative proctitis, and the endpoints to use in clinical trials. Based on a systematic review of the literature, statements were generated, discussed, and approved by the working group participants using a modified Delphi method. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement among voters.RESULTS: The group agreed that the diagnosis of ulcerative proctitis should be made by ileocolonoscopy and confirmed by histopathology, with the exclusion of infections, drug-induced causes, radiation, trauma, and Crohn's disease. Ulcerative proctitis was defined as macroscopic extent of lesions limited to 15 cm distance from the anal verge in adults. Primary and secondary endpoints were identified to capture response of ulcerative proctitis to therapy. A combined clinical and endoscopic primary endpoint for the evaluation of ulcerative proctitis disease activity is proposed. Secondary endpoints which should be evaluated include endoscopic remission, histological remission, mucosal healing, histologic endoscopic mucosal improvement, disability, fecal incontinence, urgency, constipation, and health-related quality of life.CONCLUSION: In response to the need for guidance on the design of clinical trials in patients with ulcerative proctitis, the PROCTRIAL consensus provides recommendations on the definition and endpoints for ulcerative proctitis clinical trials.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
