Renal Insufficiency in Non-Diabetic Subjects: Relationship of MTHFR C677t Gene Polymorphism and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

Association of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) 677CT gene polymorphism with hyperhomocysteinemia, renal failure, and cardiovascular events is controversial. We investigated the relationship of MTHFR 677CT polymorphisms with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and renal insufficiency.Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and left myocardial ventricular mass/m2 were assessed in 138 non-diabetic subjects (age, 50.93 ± 14.85 years; body mass index, 27.95 ± 5.98 kg/m(2)), 38 no-mutation wild MTHFR C677CC, 52 heterozygous MTHFR C677CT, and 48 homozygous MTHFR C677TT, all with adequate adherence to current international healthy dietary guidelines. Serum homocysteine, insulin resistance, high-sensitivity C-reactive-protein (hsCRP), parathyroid hormone, and renal artery resistive index (RRI) were challenged by odds ratio analysis and multiple linear regression models.MTHFR 677CT polymorphism showed higher GFR (73.8 ± 27.99 vs. 58.64 ± 29.95; p= 0.001) and lower renal failure odds (OR, 0.443; 95% confidence interval, 0.141-1.387) in comparison with wild MTHFR genotype. A favorable effect on GFR of MTHFR polymorphism is presented independently by the negative effects of LVH, increased intra-renal arterial resistance, and hyperparathyroidism; GFR is the significant predictive factor to LVH.Renal insufficiency in non-diabetic subjects is explained by interactions of MTHFR C677T polymorphism mutation with LVH, hsCRP, intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH), and RRI. Sign of these predictive effects is opposite: subjects with MTHFR 677CT polymorphism have lower likelihood of renal insufficiency; differently, wild-type MTHFR genotype subjects have lower GFR and greater hsCRP, iPTH, RRI, and LVH

A Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception Study on Flu and COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multicentric Italian Survey Insights

In January 2020, Chinese health authorities identified a novel coronavirus strain never before isolated in humans. It quickly spread across the world, and was eventually declared a pandemic, leading to about 310 million confirmed cases and to 5,497,113 deaths (data as of 11 January 2022). Influenza viruses affect millions of people during cold seasons, with high impacts, in terms of mortality and morbidity. Patients with comorbidities are at a higher risk of acquiring severe problems due to COVID-19 and the flu-infections that could impact their underlying clinical conditions. In the present study, knowledge, attitudes, and opinions of the general population regarding COVID-19 and influenza immunization were evaluated. A multicenter, web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted between 10 February and 12 July 2020, during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections among the general population in Italy. A sample of 4116 questionnaires was collected at the end of the study period. Overall, 17.5% of respondents stated that it was unlikely that they would accept a future COVID-19 vaccine (n = 720). Reasons behind vaccine refusal/indecision were mainly a lack of trust in the vaccine (41.1%), the fear of side effects (23.4%), or a lack of perception of susceptibility to the disease (17.1%). More than 50% (53.8%; n = 2214) of the sample participants were willing to receive flu vaccinations in the forthcoming vaccination campaign, but only 28.2% of cases had received it at least once in the previous five seasons. A higher knowledge score about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and at least one flu vaccination during previous influenza seasons were significantly associated with the intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. The continuous study of factors, determining vaccination acceptance and hesitancy, is fundamental in the current context, in regard to improve vaccination confidence and adherence rates against vaccine preventable diseases

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

A Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception Study on Flu and COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multicentric Italian Survey Insights

In January 2020, Chinese health authorities identified a novel coronavirus strain never before isolated in humans. It quickly spread across the world, and was eventually declared a pandemic, leading to about 310 million confirmed cases and to 5,497,113 deaths (data as of 11 January 2022). Influenza viruses affect millions of people during cold seasons, with high impacts, in terms of mortality and morbidity. Patients with comorbidities are at a higher risk of acquiring severe problems due to COVID-19 and the flu—infections that could impact their underlying clinical conditions. In the present study, knowledge, attitudes, and opinions of the general population regarding COVID-19 and influenza immunization were evaluated. A multicenter, web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted between 10 February and 12 July 2020, during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections among the general population in Italy. A sample of 4116 questionnaires was collected at the end of the study period. Overall, 17.5% of respondents stated that it was unlikely that they would accept a future COVID-19 vaccine (n = 720). Reasons behind vaccine refusal/indecision were mainly a lack of trust in the vaccine (41.1%), the fear of side effects (23.4%), or a lack of perception of susceptibility to the disease (17.1%). More than 50% (53.8%; n = 2214) of the sample participants were willing to receive flu vaccinations in the forthcoming vaccination campaign, but only 28.2% of cases had received it at least once in the previous five seasons. A higher knowledge score about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and at least one flu vaccination during previous influenza seasons were significantly associated with the intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. The continuous study of factors, determining vaccination acceptance and hesitancy, is fundamental in the current context, in regard to improve vaccination confidence and adherence rates against vaccine preventable diseases

COVID-19: opinions and behavior of Italian general population during the first epidemic phase

On January 9, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that Chinese health authorities had identified a new coronavirus strain never before isolated in humans, the 2019-nCoV later redefined SARS-CoV-2, that still today represent a public health problem. The present survey started on 10 February 2020 with the aim of a) assessing the risk perception in healthcare workers and young students, following the evolution of attitudes, perception and knowledge over time, b) provide useful information to the general population during survey

COVID-19: opinions and behavior of Italian general population during the first epidemic phase

Background and aim: On January 9, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that Chinese health authorities had identified a new coronavirus strain never before isolated in humans, the 2019-nCoV later redefined SARS-CoV-2, that still today represent a public health problem. The present survey started on 10 February 2020 with the aim of a) assessing the risk perception in healthcare workers and young students, following the evolution of attitudes, perception and knowledge over time, b) provide useful information to the general population during survey. Results: A study sample consisting of 4116 Italian individuals of both sexes was enrolled. High levels of risk perception, low perception of self-efficacy and low levels of knowledge scores (24.55 ± 5.76 SD) were obtained indicating the need for continuous population monitoring as well as further communication strategies carried out at institution levels. Conclusion: The results of the present study could help public health authorities in carrying out informative campaigns for general population and could be an important tool in evaluating public knowledge and misperceptions during the management of the COVID-19. (www.actabiomedica.it)

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