Fluorescence optical imaging and musculoskeletal ultrasonography in juvenile idiopathic polyarticular disease before and during antirheumatic treatment - a multicenter non-interventional diagnostic evaluation

Abstract Background Valid detection of inflamed joints is essential for correct classification, therapeutic decisions, prognosis and assessment of treatment efficacy in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Fluorescence optical imaging (FOI) enables visualization of inflammation in arthritis of finger and hand joints and might be used for monitoring. Methods A 24-week observational study in polyarticular JIA patients newly starting treatment with methotrexate or an approved biologic was performed in three centers. Patients were evaluated clinically, by gray-scale ultrasonography (GSUS), power-Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS) and FOI at baseline, week 12 and week 24. Results Of 37 patients enrolled, 24 patients started methotrexate and 13 patients a biologic for the first time (etanercept n = 11, adalimumab and tocilizumab n = 1 each). Mean JADAS 10 decreased significantly from 17.7 at baseline to 12.2 and 7.2 at week 12 and 24 respectively. PedACR 30/50/70/100 response rates at week 24 were 85%/73%/50%/27%. The total number of clinically active joints in hand and fingers at baseline/week 12/week 24 was 262 (23.6%)/162 (16.4%)/162 (9.0%). By GSUS, at baseline/week 12/week 24, 192 (19.4%)/135 (16.1%)/83 (11.5%) joints showed effusions and 186 (18.8%)/107 (12.7%)/69 (9.6%) showed synovial thickening, and by PDUS 68 (6.9%)/15 (1.8%)/36 (5%) joints showed hyperperfusion. Any sign of arthritis was detected by US in a total of 243 joints (24.5%) at baseline, 161 joints (19.2%) at week 12 and 123 joints (17%) at week 24. By FOI at baseline/week 12/week 24, 430 (38.7%)/280 (29.2%)/215 (27.6%) showed a signal enhancement in at least one phase. Summarizing all three points of time, the highest numbers of signals were detected by FOI with 32% of joints, especially in phase 2, while by US 20.7% and by clinical examination 17.5% of joints were active. A high number of joints (21.1%) had FOI signals but were inactive by clinical examination. A total 20.1% of joints with signals in FOI did not show effusion, synovial thickening or hyperperfusion by US. Because of the high number of negative results, specificity of FOI compared with clinical examination/US/PD was high (84–95%), and sensitivity was only moderate. Conclusion FOI and US could detect clinical but also subclinical inflammation. FOI detected subclinical inflammation to a higher extent than US. Improvement upon treatment with either methotrexate or a biologic can be visualized by FOI and US. Trial registration Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00011579 . Registered 10 January 2017

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