| 1. |
- Jung, Se Yong, et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiovascular events and safety outcomes associated with remdesivir using a World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance database
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical and Translational Science. - : Wiley. - 1752-8054 .- 1752-8062. ; 15:2, s. 501-513
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- On October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved remdesivir as the first drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), increasing remdesivir prescriptions worldwide. However, potential cardiovascular (CV) toxicities associated with remdesivir remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the CV adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with remdesivir using VigiBase, an individual case safety report database of the World Health Organization (WHO). Disproportionality analyses of CV-ADRs associated with remdesivir were performed using reported odds ratios and information components. We conducted in vitro experiments using cardiomyocytes derived from human pluripotent stem cell cardiomyocytes (hPSC-CMs) to confirm cardiotoxicity of remdesivir. To distinguish drug-induced CV-ADRs from COVID-19 effects, we restricted analyses to patients with COVID-19 and found that, after adjusting for multiple confounders, cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-3.29), bradycardia (aOR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.24-3.53), and hypotension (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.03-2.73) were associated with remdesivir. In vitro data demonstrated that remdesivir reduced the cell viability of hPSC-CMs in time- and dose-dependent manners. Physicians should be aware of potential CV consequences following remdesivir use and implement adequate CV monitoring to maintain a tolerable safety margin.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kim, Min Seo, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical or medical, and non-medical facemasks in protection against respiratory virus infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Reviews in Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 1052-9276 .- 1099-1654. ; 32:5
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical/medical and non-medical facemasks as personal protective equipment against respiratory virus infection. The study incorporated 35 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating specific mask effectiveness against influenza virus, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv databases for studies published up to 5 February 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020214729). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of respiratory viral infection. The quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. High compliance to mask-wearing conferred a significantly better protection (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.82) than low compliance. N95 or equivalent masks were the most effective in providing protection against coronavirus infections (OR, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.44) consistently across subgroup analyses of causative viruses and clinical settings. Evidence supporting the use of medical or surgical masks against influenza or coronavirus infections (SARS, MERS and COVID-19) was weak. Our study confirmed that the use of facemasks provides protection against respiratory viral infections in general; however, the effectiveness may vary according to the type of facemask used. Our findings encourage the use of N95 respirators or their equivalents (e.g., P2) for best personal protection in healthcare settings until more evidence on surgical and medical masks is accrued. This study highlights a substantial lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in community settings.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
