Natural history of dental caries: Baseline characteristics of the VicGen birth cohort study

Background: Early-life dental caries is a major global health problem. Children's first dental visit is recommended at 2 years age. The VicGeneration (VicGen) oral health birth cohort study aims to understand the multifactorial nature of early childhood caries. This report describes the baseline characteristics of children in the VicGen study. Methods: We merged data between the first (at birth) and fourth waves (18 month age) to assess dental caries among children (primary outcome) and other oral diseases (secondary outcomes) employing t tests, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests using IBM-SPSS(v25). Results: Most children lived in metros with two-parent families. Most guardians were women graduated from high school. Twenty-seven of 389 (6.94%) 18-monthold children experienced dental caries. More children living in rural areas (vs. urban) experienced caries. Females were more likely to experience caries (OR: 2.16). Several children had other oral health problems. In early life, children's oral examination was conducted by midwives, breastfeeding/lactation consultants, hospital nurses, speech pathologists, and breastfeeding clinic staff. Conclusion: VicGen baseline characteristics show that almost 7% of the 18-monthold children experienced caries. There is a need to advance children's recommended first dental visit date and to train early-life healthcare professionals about oral diseases

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

Empirical Second-Line Therapy in 5000 Patients of the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori Management (Hp-EuReg)

Background & Aims: After a first Helicobacter pylori eradication attempt, approximately 20% of patients will remain infected. The aim of the current study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line empiric treatment in Europe. Methods: This international, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional registry aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes of H pylori management by European gastroenterologists. All infected adult cases with a previous eradication treatment attempt were registered with the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology–Research Electronic Data Capture until February 2021. Patients allergic to penicillin and those who received susceptibility-guided therapy were excluded. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. Results: Overall, 5055 patients received empiric second-line treatment. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and levofloxacin was prescribed most commonly (33%). The overall effectiveness was 82% by modified intention-to-treat analysis and 83% in the per-protocol population. After failure of first-line clarithromycin-containing treatment, optimal eradication (>90%) was obtained with moxifloxacin-containing triple therapy or levofloxacin-containing quadruple therapy (with bismuth). In patients receiving triple therapy containing levofloxacin or moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin–bismuth quadruple treatment, cure rates were optimized with 14-day regimens using high doses of proton pump inhibitors. However, 3-in-1 single capsule or levofloxacin–bismuth quadruple therapy produced reliable eradication rates regardless of proton pump inhibitor dose, duration of therapy, or previous first-line treatment. The overall incidence of adverse events was 28%, and most (85%) were mild. Three patients developed serious adverse events (0.3%) requiring hospitalization. Conclusions: Empiric second-line regimens including 14-day quinolone triple therapies, 14-day levofloxacin–bismuth quadruple therapy, 14-day tetracycline–bismuth classic quadruple therapy, and 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy (as a single capsule) provided optimal effectiveness. However, many other second-line treatments evaluated reported low eradication rates. ClincialTrials.gov number: NCT02328131

Room for Improvement in the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection: Lessons from the European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg)

Background: Managing Helicobacter pylori infection requires constant decision making, and each decision is open to possible errors. Aim: The aim was to evaluate common mistakes in the eradication of H. pylori, based on the "European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management". Methods: European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management is an international multicentre prospective noninterventional registry evaluating the decisions and outcomes of H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists in routine clinical practice. Results: Countries recruiting more than 1000 patients were included (26,340 patients). The most common mistakes (percentages) were: (1) To use the standard triple therapy where it is ineffective (46%). (2) To prescribe eradication therapy for only 7 to 10 days (69%). (3) To use a low dose of proton pump inhibitors (48%). (4) In patients allergic to penicillin, to prescribe always a triple therapy with clarithromycin and metronidazole (38%). (5) To repeat certain antibiotics after eradication failure (>15%). (6) Failing to consider the importance of compliance with treatment (2%). (7) Not to check the eradication success (6%). Time-trend analyses showed progressive greater compliance with current clinical guidelines. Conclusion: The management of H. pylori infection by some European gastroenterologists is heterogeneous, frequently suboptimal and discrepant with current recommendations. Clinical practice is constantly adapting to updated recommendations, although this shift is delayed and slow

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

No abstract available