The development of a new measure of quality of life in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: the Reflux Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION This paper reports on the development of a new measure of health-related quality of life for use among patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), funded as part of the REFLUX trial. This is a large UK multi centre trial that aims to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of minimal access surgery with best medical treatment for patients with GORD within the NHS. Method Potential items were identified via a series of interviews and focus groups carried out with patients who were receiving/had received medical or surgical treatment for GORD. The final measure consisted of 31 items covering 7 categories (Heartburn; Acid reflux; Wind; Eating and swallowing; Bowel movements; Sleep; Work, physical and social activities). The measure produced two outputs: a quality of life score (RQLS) and five Reflux symptom scores. Reliability (internal consistency), criterion validity with the SF-36 and, sensitivity to change in terms of relationship with reported change in prescribed medication were assessed amongst a sample of 794 patients recruited into the trial. RESULTS The measure was shown to be internally consistent, to show criterion validity with the SF-36 and sensitive to changes in patients use of prescribed medication at baseline and 3 month follow-up. DISCUSSION The Reflux questionnaire is a new self-administered questionnaire for use amongst patients with GORD. Initial findings suggest that the new measure is valid, reliable, acceptable to respondents and simple to administer in both a clinical and research context

Extracts of Feijoa Inhibit Toll-Like Receptor 2 Signaling and Activate Autophagy Implicating a Role in Dietary Control of IBD

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory disease affecting the gut with limited treatment success for its sufferers. This suggests the need for better understanding of the different subtypes of the disease as well as nutritional interventions to compliment current treatments. In this study we assess the ability of a hydrophilic feijoa fraction (F3) to modulate autophagy a process known to regulate inflammation, via TLR2 using IBD cell lines

Lifespan extension without fertility reduction following dietary addition of the autophagy activator Torin1 in Drosophila melanogaster

Autophagy is a highly conserved mechanism for cellular repair that becomes progressively down-regulated during normal ageing. Hence, manipulations that activate autophagy could increase lifespan. Previous reports show that manipulations to the autophagy pathway can result in longevity extension in yeast, flies, worms and mammals. Under standard nutrition, autophagy is inhibited by the nutrient sensing kinase Target of Rapamycin (TOR). Therefore, manipulations of TOR that increase autophagy may offer a mechanism for extending lifespan. Ideally, such manipulations should be specific and minimise off-target effects, and it is important to discover additional methods for ‘clean’ lifespan manipulation. Here we report an initial study into the effect of up-regulating autophagy on lifespan and fertility in Drosophila melanogaster by dietary addition of Torin1. Activation of autophagy using this selective TOR inhibitor was associated with significantly increased lifespan in both sexes. Torin1 induced a dose-dependent increase in lifespan in once-mated females. There was no evidence of a trade-off between longevity and fecundity or fertility. Torin1-fed females exhibited significantly elevated fecundity, but also elevated egg infertility, resulting in no net change in overall fertility. This supports the idea that lifespan can be extended without trade-offs in fertility and suggest that Torin1 may be a useful tool with which to pursue anti-ageing research

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Omstøtelse etter dekningsloven § 5-7 første ledd bokstav a ved refinansiering av sikrede lån

Hemodialysis patients are at risk of serious health complications, yet treatment non-adherence remains high.Peer reviewe