High Diagnostic Accuracy of Nitrite Test Paired with Urine Sediment can Reduce Unnecessary Antibiotic Therapy

Abstract: Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common bacterial infections dominated by lower UTI in women (LUTIW). Symptoms only are insufficient for diagnosis and accordingly, near patient diagnostic tests confidently confirming significant bacteriuria are desirable. The nitrite test (NIT) has low sensitivity, while bacterial and leukocyte counts disjunctively paired in urine sediment microscopy (SED) have high sensitivity. Similar symptomatic cure rates are found post antibiotic vs. placebo therapy in patients with negative cultures. Consequently, prescription on symptoms only implies unnecessary antibiotic therapy. Aims: to evaluate the diagnostic outcomes of NIT, SED and NIT disjunctively paired with SED (NIT+SED) vs. urine culture, with special focus on bladder incubation time (BIT), and to assess if NIT+SED can reduce unnecessary antibiotic therapy. Methods: A diagnostic, primary care, multicentre study including 1070 women with symptoms suggestive of lower UTI. Results: Significant bacteriuria was found in 77%. The BIT highly influenced the diagnostic outcomes and the optimal duration was 4h with sensitivity of 66, 90 and 95% for NIT, SED and NIT+SED, respectively. SED performed only in NIT negative specimens could reduce unnecessary antibiotics by 10% vs. prescription on symptoms only. The number needed to test with SED to reduce one unnecessary antibiotic course was five patients at BIT 4h and six patients at 3h or overall. Conclusion: The BIT highly influences the diagnostic outcomes with the highest accuracy of NIT+SED. Diagnosis of LUTIW with NIT+SED can reduce unnecessary antibiotic therapy and subsequently decrease antimicrobial resistance. Trial registration: The Swedish Medical Product Agency 1995 03 01:151:01783/94

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