Blepharoconjunctivitis and Otolaryngological Disease Trends in the Context of Mask Wearing during the COVID-19 Pandemic

(1) Purpose: In 2020, wearing of face masks was mandated in the United States in an effort to lessen transmission of the novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic; however, long-term mask wearing may present with unintended side-effects in both ophthalmic and otolaryngologic clinical practice. This study aims to examine if mask wearing increased the incidence of primarily chalazion, blepharoconjunctivitis, and rhinitis occurrence during the mask-mandated COVID-19 pandemic period. (2) Methods: Medical records from tertiary academic center clinics were analyzed for incidence of ophthalmic and otolaryngologic diagnoses of interest (blepharoconjunctivitis- and rhinitis-related disorders). Data were collected from a pre-pandemic (March 2019–February 2020) and a mid-pandemic window (March 2020–February 2021) during which widespread mask mandates were implemented in Texas. Comparison was performed using a t-test analysis between incidence of chosen diagnoses during the described time periods. (3) Results: Incidence of ophthalmic disorders (primarily blepharoconjunctivitis and chalazion) in the pre-pandemic versus mid-pandemic windows did show a significant difference (p-value of 0.048). Similarly, comparison of otolaryngologic diagnoses (primarily rhinitis and related conditions) between the two time periods showed a significant difference (p-value of 0.044) as well. (4) Conclusion: Incidence of the chosen ophthalmic and otolaryngologic disorders did increase during periods of mask mandates. While these findings are preliminary, further studies are warranted to understand other factors that may have played a role in eye and nose pathology

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