| 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. |
- de Heus, R. A. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Blood Pressure Lowering With Nilvadipine in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer Disease Does Not Increase the Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 2047-9980. ; 8:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Hypertension is common among patients with Alzheimer disease. Because this group has been excluded from hypertension trials, evidence regarding safety of treatment is lacking. This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessed whether antihypertensive treatment increases the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in patients with Alzheimer disease. Methods and Results-Four hundred seventy-seven patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease were randomized to the calcium-channel blocker nilvadipine 8 mg/day or placebo for 78 weeks. Presence of OH (blood pressure drop >= 20/>= 10 mm Hg after 1 minute of standing) and OH-related adverse events (dizziness, syncope, falls, and fractures) was determined at 7 follow-up visits. Mean age of the study population was 72.2 +/- 8.2 years and mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 20.4 +/- 3.8. Baseline blood pressure was 137.8 +/- 14.0/77.0 +/- 8.6 mm Hg. Grade I hypertension was present in 53.4% (n=255). After 13 weeks, blood pressure had fallen by -7.8/-3.9 mm Hg for nilvadipine and by -0.4/-0.8 mm Hg for placebo (P<0.001). Across the 78-week intervention period, there was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients with OH at a study visit (odds ratio [95% CI] 1.1 [0.8-1.5], P 0.62), nor in the proportion of visits where a patient met criteria for OH, corrected for number of visits (7.7 +/- 13.8% versus 7.3 +/- 11.6%). OH-related adverse events were not more often reported in the intervention group compared with placebo. Results were similar for those with baseline hypertension. Conclusions-This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dyer, A. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Cognitive Outcomes of Long-term Benzodiazepine and Related Drug (BDZR) Use in People Living With Mild to Moderate Alzheimer's Disease: Results From NILVAD
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. - : Elsevier BV. - 1525-8610. ; 21:2, s. 194-200
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Benzodiazepines and related drugs (BDZRs) have been associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in later life. Despite this, it remains unclear whether ongoing BDZR use may further accelerate cognitive decline in those diagnosed with mild to moderate AD. Design: This study was embedded within NILVAD, a randomized controlled trial of nilvadipine in mild to moderate AD. Cognition was measured at baseline and 18 months using the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale, Cognitive Subsection (ADAS-Cog). We assessed predictors of long-term BDZR use and analyzed the effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores at 18 months. Additionally, the impact of BDZR use on adverse events, incident delirium, and falls over 18-month follow-up was assessed adjusting for relevant covariates. Setting and Participants: 448 participants with mild to moderate AD recruited from 23 academic centers in 9 European countries. Results: Overall, 14% (62/448) were prescribed an ongoing BDZR for the study duration. Increasing total number of (non-BDZR) medications was associated with a greater likelihood of BDZR prescription (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.29). At 18 months, BDZR use was not associated with greater cognitive decline on the ADAS-Cog controlling for baseline ADAS-Cog scores, age, gender, study arm, and other clinical covariates (beta = 1.62, -1.34 to 4.56). However, ongoing BDZR use was associated with a greater likelihood of adverse events [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.19, 1.05-1.34], incident delirium (IRR 2.31, 1.45-3.68), and falls (IRR 1.66, 1.02-2.65) over 18 months that persisted after robust adjustment for covariates. Conclusions and Implications: This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. However, ongoing use of these medications was associated with an increased risk of adverse events, delirium, and falls. Thus, BDZR use should be avoided where possible and deprescribing interventions should be encouraged in older adults with AD. (C) 2019 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lawlor, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Nilvadipine in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: A randomised controlled trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Plos Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1676. ; 15:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. Nilvadipine, licensed to treat hypertension, reduces amyloid production, increases regional cerebral blood flow, and has demonstrated antiinflammatory and anti-tau activity in preclinical studies, properties that could have diseasemodifying effects for Alzheimer disease. We aimed to determine if nilvadipine was effective in slowing cognitive decline in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. NILVAD was an 18-month, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that randomised participants between 15 May 2013 and 13 April 2015. The study was conducted at 23 academic centres in nine European countries. Of 577 participants screened, 511 were eligible and were randomised (258 to placebo, 253 to nilvadipine). Participants took a trial treatment capsule once a day after breakfast for 78 weeks. Participants were aged > 50 years, meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease Criteria (NINCDS-ADRDA) for diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease, with a Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) score of >= 12 and < 27. Participants were randomly assigned to 8 mg sustained-release nilvadipine or matched placebo. The a priori defined primary outcome was progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale-12 (ADAS-Cog 12) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 498), with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) as a gated co-primary outcome, eligible to be promoted to primary end point conditional on a significant effect on the ADAS-Cog 12. The analysis set had a mean age of 73 years and was 62% female. Baseline demographic and Alzheimer disease +/- specific characteristics were similar between treatment groups, with reported mean of 1.7 years since diagnosis and mean SMMSE of 20.4. The prespecified primary analyses failed to show any treatment benefit for nilvadipine on the co-primary outcome (p = 0.465). Decline from baseline in ADASCog 12 on placebo was 0.79 (95% CI, -0.07 +/- 1.64) at 13 weeks, 6.41 (5.33 +/- 7.49) at 52 weeks, and 9.63 (8.33 +/- 10.93) at 78 weeks and on nilvadipine was 0.88 (0.02 +/- 1.74) at 13 weeks, 5.75 (4.66 +/- 6.85) at 52 weeks, and 9.41 (8.09 +/- 10.73) at 78 weeks. Exploratory analyses of the planned secondary outcomes showed no substantial effects, including on the CDR-sb or the Disability Assessment for Dementia. Nilvadipine appeared to be safe and well tolerated. Mortality was similar between groups (3 on nilvadipine, 4 on placebo); higher counts of adverse events (AEs) on nilvadipine (1,129 versus 1,030), and serious adverse events (SAEs; 146 versus 101), were observed. There were 14 withdrawals because of AEs. Major limitations of this study were that subjects had established dementia and the likelihood that non-Alzheimer subjects were included because of the lack of biomarker confirmation of the presence of brain amyloid. The results do not suggest benefit of nilvadipine as a treatment in a population spanning mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Lawlor, B., et al.
(författare)
-
NILVAD protocol: A European multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled trial of nilvadipine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease
- 2014
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group. - 2044-6055. ; 4:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: This study is a European multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of nilvadipine as a disease course modifying treatment for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a phase III study that will run for a period of 82 weeks with a treatment period of 78 weeks. Methods and analysis: Adult patients, males and females over 50 years with mild-to-moderate AD as defined by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDSADRDA) criteria, will be included in the study. It aims to recruit a total of 500 patients with AD; 250 in the nilvadipine group and 250 in the placebo group. Participants will be randomised to receive nilvadipine, an 8 mg overencapsulated, sustained release capsule, or a matching overencapsulated placebo (sugar pill) for a period of 78 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy outcome measure in this study is the change in cognitive function as assessed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADASCog 12) from baseline to the end of treatment duration (78 weeks). There are two key secondary outcome measures, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDRsb) and the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD). If a statistically significant effect is seen in the primary outcome, CDRsb will be considered to be a coprimary end point and only the DAD will contribute to the secondary outcome analysis. Ethics and dissemination: The study and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country according to national regulations. Each participant will provide written consent to participate in the study. All participants will remain anonymised throughout and the results of the study will be published in an international peerreviewed journal. Trial registration number EUDRACT Reference Number: 201200276427.
|
|
| 7. |
- Meulenbroek, O., et al.
(författare)
-
European multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Nilvadipine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease - The substudy protocols: NILVAD frailty; NILVAD blood and genetic biomarkers; NILVAD cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers; NILVAD cerebral blood flow
- 2016
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 6:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: In conjunction with the NILVAD trial, a European Multicentre Double-Blind Placebo Controlled trial of Nilvadipine in Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), there are four NILVAD substudies in which eligible NILVAD patients are also invited to participate. The main NILVAD protocol was previously published in BMJ Open (2014). The objectives of the NILVAD substudies are to determine whether frailty, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), blood biomarker profile and Apolipoprotein E (APOE) status predict response to Nilvadipine, and to investigate the effect of Nilvadipine on cerebral blood flow and blood biomarkers. Methods and analysis: All participants who fulfil criteria for the main NILVAD study are eligible for participation in the NILVAD substudies. Participation is subject to informed consent and whether the substudy is available at a particular NILVAD study site. Each substudy entails extra measurements during the course of the main NILVAD study. For example, in the blood and genetic biomarkers substudy, extra blood (30 mL) will be collected at week 0, week 13, week 52 and week 78, while in the cerebral blood flow substudy, participants will receive an MRI and transcranial Doppler measurements at week 0, week 26 and week 78. In the CSF substudy, 10 mL CSF is collected at week 0 and week 78. Ethics and dissemination: All NILVAD substudies and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country, according to national regulations. Each participant provides written consent to participate. All participants remain anonymised throughout and the results of each substudy will be published in an international peer reviewed journal. © 2016 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited.
|
|
| 8. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
