Age-standardized incidence and mortality rates of oral and pharyngeal cancer in Puerto Rico and among Non-Hispanics Whites, Non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics in the USA

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the American region, Puerto Rico (PR) has the highest incidence of oral and pharyngeal cancer (OPC), but racial/ethnic differences have never been assessed and compared with other groups in the United States of America (USA). We compared the age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates of OPC between PR and among USA Hispanics (USH), Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), and Non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) to assess the burden of this cancer in PR.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Analysis of the age-standardized rates (per 100,000) was performed using the direct method with the world standard population (ASR(World)) from 1998–2002. Annual percent change (APC) and Relative Risks (RR) were calculated using the Poisson regression model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The incidence ASR(World) for men in PR was constant (APC ≈ 0.0%), in contrast, a decrease was observed among NHW, NHB, and USH men, although only USH showed statistical significance (APC = -4.9%, p < 0.05). In women, the highest increase in incidence (APC = 5.3%) and the lowest decrease in mortality (APC = -1.4%) was observed in PR. The ratio of the ASR(World) showed that in all racial/ethnic groups, men had approximately 2–4 fold increased incidence and mortality risk of OPC than women (p < 0.05). Men in PR had a higher mortality risk (p < 0.05) of OPC as compared to USH, NHW, and NHB; but among women, PR showed a significant excess of mortality only as compared to USH (est. SRR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.41, 2.33).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The overall higher incidence of OPC in men in PR as compared to USH, NHB, and NHW could be explained by the effect of gene-environment interactions. Meanwhile, the higher mortality from OPC in PR suggests limitations in the health-care access within this population. Further research is warranted to elucidate these findings.</p

Effectiveness of the combination elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir/emtricitabine (EVG/COB/TFV/FTC) plus darunavir among treatment-experienced patients in clinical practice : A multicentre cohort study

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of the combination elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir (EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV) in treatment-experienced patients from the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS). Methods: Treatment-experienced patients starting treatment with EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV during the years 2014-2018 and with more than 24 weeks of follow-up were included. TFV could be administered either as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide. We evaluated virological response, defined as viral load (VL) < 50 copies/ml and < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks after starting this regimen, stratified by baseline VL (< 50 or ≥ 50 copies/ml at the start of the regimen). Results: We included 39 patients (12.8% women). At baseline, 10 (25.6%) patients had VL < 50 copies/ml and 29 (74.4%) had ≥ 50 copies/ml. Among patients with baseline VL < 50 copies/ml, 85.7% and 80.0% had VL < 50 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, and 100% had VL < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks. Among patients with baseline VL ≥ 50 copies/ml, 42.3% and 40.9% had VL < 50 copies/ml and 69.2% and 68.2% had VL < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks. During the first 48 weeks, no patients changed their treatment due to toxicity, and 4 patients (all with baseline VL ≥ 50 copies/ml) changed due to virological failure. Conclusions: EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV was well tolerated and effective in treatment-experienced patients with undetectable viral load as a simplification strategy, allowing once-daily, two-pill regimen with three antiretroviral drug classes. Effectiveness was low in patients with detectable viral loads

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field