Cognitive Effects of Low-dose Topiramate Compared with Oxcarbazepine in Epilepsy Patients

Background and Purpose: Low-dose topiramate (TPM) monotherapy has recently been found effective for seizure control in newly diagnosed epilepsy. In higher dosages, TPM has been associated with relatively high rates of adverse cognitive effects; similar side effects have been seen after rapid titration or polytherapy. However, its cognitive effects during low-dose monotherapy have not been established. We evaluated the cognitive effects of low-dose TPM compared with oxcarbazepine (OXC), a drug that does not appear to affect cognitive function. Methods: Cognitive tests and subjective complaints of 30 patients with low-dose TPM monotherapy (50-200 mg/day) were retrospectively compared with those of 30 patients with OXC monotherapy at 1 year of medication. The two groups did not differ with respect to epilepsy-relevant variables, nor on baseline neuropsychological tests. Results: The TPM group showed a significant difference in the performance of delayed word recall (P<0.05), backward digit span (P<0.01), and verbal fluency (P<0.05) compared with the OXC group. The TPM group showed worse performances of digit span and verbal fluency. The OXC group showed better performances of delayed word recall. The incidence of cognitive complaints was higher in the TPM group (50%) than in the OXC group (20%) (P< 0.05). These cognitive effects shown in the TPM group were dose-related. The cognitive dysfunction was trivial with patients taking 50 mg/day TPM. Conclusions: Even at low-dose, TPM has a negative effect on working memory and verbal fluency compared with OXC. It can be demonstrated at 1 year of treatment

Millimeter light curves of sagittarius A* observed during the 2017 Event Horizon Telescope campaign

Galaxie

Ordered magnetic fields around the 3C 84 central black hole

Please read abstract in article.http://www.hanspub.org/Journal/AAS.htmlPhysicsNon

Arthroscopic Medial Meniscal Allograft Transplantation with Modified Bone Plug Technique

The meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been reported to be an effective treatment in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in symptomatic meniscus-deficient knee. The medial MAT is usually performed with the bone plug technique or soft tissue fixation for root fixation. We describe medial MAT with modified bone plug technique that permits easy passage of posterior bone plugs and facilitates bone-to-bone healing. With this method, an anterior bone plug with a long cylindrical shape is prepared, and the posterior bone plug is prepared with a flat bone shell containing a cancellous portion. This modified technique facilitates graft passage as well as bone-to-bone healing

Arthroscopic Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With the Key-Hole Technique

The efficacy of meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) for the meniscus-deficient knee has been widely recognized as being excellent in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. Lateral MAT is usually performed with the bone bridge technique that uses a bone bridge connecting the anterior and posterior horns of an allograft. The slot position for the meniscal graft insertion is of great importance with the bone bridge technique, especially in the key-hole method. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe lateral MAT using the key-hole technique in which an allograft with a bone bridge carved to accommodate the key-hole-shaped slot is properly secured to the slot

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