Treatment of steroid-induced elevated intraocular pressure with anecortave acetate: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The present study is the first randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of anecortave acetate (AA) administered at 3 doses (3, 15, or 30 mg) as an anterior juxtascleral depot (AJD) in patients experiencing elevated IOP due to corticosteroid therapy. METHODS: This was a double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel group trial. Eligible patients had an IOP of at least 24 mmHg and an IOP increase of at least 10 mmHg relative to their IOP before treatment with steroids. A target IOP was established for each patient at baseline. Patients were randomized to 1 of the 4 treatment groups: vehicle, 3 mg AA, 15 mg AA, or 30 mg AA. All patients then received a 0.5 mL AJD of the assigned treatment. Patients returned for scheduled examination visits at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, months 3, 4, 5, and 6. IOP was measured at each visit as well as best corrected visual acuity (logMAR), ocular motility, eyelid responsiveness, slit lamp examination, and assessment of any adverse events. In addition, at baseline and at exit, a dilated fundus examination was carried out and the lens was examined using LOCS II criteria. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized to treatment. At week 4, eyes in the vehicle group showed a 3.4 mmHg (9.1%) decrease from baseline. Reductions for the 3 mg AA (3.1 mmHg, 10.7%) and the 30 mg AA groups (5.4 mmHg, 16.6%) were not significantly different than for vehicle control. However, IOP for the 15 mg AA group at week 4 was reduced 11.5 mmHg (31.3%) from baseline, which was statistically significant (P=0.0487). The mean time to treatment failure was 32.2, 38.9, 56.3, and 32.6 days for the vehicle, 3 mg AA, 15 mg AA, and 30 mg AA groups, respectively. Adverse events were assessed at each post-treatment visit. There were no serious adverse events that were determined to be related to the test article or its administration. CONCLUSIONS: AA can be of benefit to some patients requiring treatment with corticosteroids, but suffering from the side effect of elevated IOP

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Cardiopoietic cell therapy for advanced ischemic heart failure: results at 39 weeks of the prospective, randomized, double blind, sham-controlled CHART-1 clinical trial

Cardiopoietic cells, produced through cardiogenic conditioning of patients' mesenchymal stem cells, have shown preliminary efficacy. The Congestive Heart Failure Cardiopoietic Regenerative Therapy (CHART-1) trial aimed to validate cardiopoiesis-based biotherapy in a larger heart failure cohort

A miniature world in decline: European Red List of Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts

This publication has been prepared by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) as a deliverable of the LIFE European Red Lists project (LIFE14 PRE BE 001). A miniature world in decline: The European Red List of Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts is, therefore, a part of a series of publications released since 2015, when the project began, that also include: • European Red List of Lycopods and Ferns, 2017 • European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles, 2018 • European Red list of Terrestrial Molluscs: slugs, snails, and semi-slugs, 2019 • European Red list of Trees, 2019 • European Red list of Selected Endemic Shrubs, 2019 Based on other European Red List assessments, 59% of freshwater molluscs, 40% of freshwater fishes, 28% of grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets, 23% of amphibians, 20% of reptiles, 20% of ferns and lycopods, 17% of mammals, 16% of dragonflies, 13% of birds, 9% of butterflies and bees, 8% of aquatic plants and 2% of medicinal plants are threatened at the European level (Allen et al., 2014; IUCN, 2015; Hochkirch et al., 2016; García Criado et al., 2017). Additional European Red Lists assessing a selection of species showed that 22% of terrestrial molluscs, 16% of crop wild relatives and 18% of saproxylic beetles are also threatened (Cuttelod et al., 2011; Bilz et al., 2011; Cálix et al., 2018). The findings of this work suggest that 23% of bryophytes are threatened species in Europe, representing the fifth most threatened group of plants assessed so far

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

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