Primäre Kopfschmerzen bei Patienten mit juveniler myoklonischer Epilepsie

In der vorliegenden klinischen Arbeit wurden die Prävalenzen sowie Risikofaktoren für die primären Kopfschmerzen Migräne und Spannungskopfschmerz bei 75 Patienten mit juveniler myoklonischer Epilepsie (JME) untersucht. Die Klassifizierung der Kopfschmerzen erfolgte anhand eines validierten Fragebogens. Die Kopfschmerzprävalenzen wurden mit den Prävalenzen in der Normalbevölkerung aus der Literatur verglichen. Bei 47 der 75 Patienten mit JME fanden sich interiktal rezidivierende Kopfschmerzen. 31 Patienten hatten Migräne. Das relative Risiko (RR) im Vergleich zur Normalbevölkerung betrug 4.4. Zwanzig Patienten hatten Migräne ohne Aura (RR 3.6) und 11 Migräne mit Aura (RR 7.3). Bei 14 Patienten mit Migräne fanden sich zusätzlich auch Spannungskopfschmerzen. 16 Patienten litten ausschließlich unter Spannungskopfschmerzen. Das relative Risiko für Spannungskopfschmerzen betrug 3.4. Risikofaktor für Migräne im Allgemeinen und Migräne ohne Aura war weibliches Geschlecht; für Migräne mit Aura eine Migräne bei Verwandten ersten Grades. Für Migräne und Migräne mit Aura fand sich eine Assoziation mit mehr als einem generalisierten tonisch-klonischen Anfall pro Monat. Migräne ohne Aura hingegen war mit häufigen Absencen assoziiert. Die Auswertung der EEGs ergab keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen JME-Patienten mit Kopfschmerzen und den Patienten ohne Kopfschmerzen. Limitierender Faktor bei der Interpretationen der vorliegenden Ergebnisse stellt die geringe Patientenzahl von 75 JME-Patienten bei einer Rücklaufquote von 61% dar. Wesentliches Ergebnis unserer Studie ist die signifikant erhöhte Kopfschmerzprävalenz bei Patienten mit JME. V. a. die Prävalenz der Migräne ist im Vergleich zur Normalbevölkerung deutlich erhöht. Die Ergebnisse lassen einen gemeinsamen – bisher nicht näher bekannten – pathophysiologischen und genetischen Mechanismus der JME und Migräne vermuten

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

A Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Prasinezumab in Early Parkinson's Disease (PASADENA) : Rationale, Design, and Baseline Data

Altres ajuts: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.Background: Currently available treatments for Parkinson's disease (PD) do not slow clinical progression nor target alpha-synuclein, a key protein associated with the disease. Objective: The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prasinezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds aggregated alpha-synuclein, in individuals with early PD. Methods: The PASADENA study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment study. Individuals with early PD, recruited across the US and Europe, received monthly intravenous doses of prasinezumab (1,500 or 4,500 mg) or placebo for a 52-week period (Part 1), followed by a 52-week extension (Part 2) in which all participants received active treatment. Key inclusion criteria were: aged 40-80 years; Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) Stage I or II; time from diagnosis ≤2 years; having bradykinesia plus one other cardinal sign of PD (e.g., resting tremor, rigidity); DAT-SPECT imaging consistent with PD; and either treatment naïve or on a stable monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitor dose. Study design assumptions for sample size and study duration were built using a patient cohort from the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI). In this report, baseline characteristics are compared between the treatment-naïve and MAO-B inhibitor-treated PASADENA cohorts and between the PASADENA and PPMI populations. Results: Of the 443 patients screened, 316 were enrolled into the PASADENA study between June 2017 and November 2018, with an average age of 59.9 years and 67.4% being male. Mean time from diagnosis at baseline was 10.11 months, with 75.3% in H&Y Stage II. Baseline motor and non-motor symptoms (assessed using Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS]) were similar in severity between the MAO-B inhibitor-treated and treatment-naïve PASADENA cohorts (MDS-UPDRS sum of Parts I + II + III [standard deviation (SD)]; 30.21 [11.96], 32.10 [13.20], respectively). The overall PASADENA population (63.6% treatment naïve and 36.4% on MAO-B inhibitor) showed a similar severity in MDS-UPDRS scores (e.g., MDS-UPDRS sum of Parts I + II + III [SD]; 31.41 [12.78], 32.63 [13.04], respectively) to the PPMI cohort (all treatment naïve). Conclusions: The PASADENA study population is suitable to investigate the potential of prasinezumab to slow disease progression in individuals with early PD. Trial Registration: NCT03100149

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc

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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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