Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been associated with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Given their worldwide use, even small risks account for a large number of cases. This study has been conducted with carefully collected information to further investigate the relationship between SSRIs and upper GI bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in hospitals in Spain and in Italy. Cases were patients aged ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of acute upper GI bleeding diagnosed by endoscopy; three controls were matched by sex, age, date of admission (within 3 months) and hospital among patients who were admitted for elective surgery for non-painful disorders. Exposures to SSRIs, other antidepressants and other drugs were defined as any use of these drugs in the 7 days before the day on which upper gastrointestinal bleeding started (index day). RESULTS: 581 cases of upper GI bleeding and 1358 controls were considered eligible for the study; no differences in age or sex distribution were observed between cases and controls after matching. Overall, 4.0% of the cases and 3.3% of controls used an SSRI antidepressant in the week before the index day. No significant risk of upper GI bleeding was encountered for SSRI antidepressants (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.57-1.96) or for whichever other grouping of antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this case-control study showed no significant increase in upper GI bleeding with SSRIs and provide good evidence that the magnitude of any increase in risk is not greater than 2

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

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease