Mortality reduction in patients treated with long-term intensive lipid therapy: 25-year follow-up of the Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study—Observational Study

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) begins early in life and is associated with both the number of risk factors present and length of exposure to these risk factors including hyperlipidemia.ObjectivesThe clinical benefit of intensive lipid therapy over 25 years was investigated in the Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study-Observational Study.MethodsOf 175 coronary artery disease subjects with mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 191 mg/dL and mean age of 50 years, who completed the randomized and placebo-controlled Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study, 100 chose receiving lipid management by their physicians (usual care [UC]) and 75 elected to receive an intensive treatment [IT] for lipid management with lovastatin (40 mg/d), niacin (2.5 g/d), and colestipol (20 g/d) from 1989 to 2004, followed by double therapy with simvastatin (40-80 mg/d) and niacin from 2005 to 2006 and by triple therapy of ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 40 to 80 mg/d plus niacin during 2007 to 2012. Deaths from CVD, non-CVD, and any cause were compared between UC and IT using Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsUC and IT groups were similar in risk factors with the exception that IT had more severe coronary artery disease. Mean LDL-C levels were 167 mg/dL from 1988 to 2004, 97 from 2005 to 2006, and 96 from 2007 to 2012 in surviving subjects receiving UC. IT lowered LDL-C to 119, 97, and 83 mg/dL in the 3 periods, respectively. Compared with UC, IT significantly reduced total mortality (11.1 vs 26.3 per 1000 person years [PY], hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.77, P = .003) and CVD mortality (10.6 vs 27.7 per 1000 PY, HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.80, P = .009). The non-CVD mortality was also reduced but was not of statistical significance (6.8 vs 12.7 per 1000 PY, HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.27-1.14, P = .11).ConclusionsLong-term intensive lipid therapy significantly reduced total and cardiovascular mortality in Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study-Observational Study. These results support the importance of lifetime risk management to improve long-term outcome

Mortality reduction in patients treated with long-term intensive lipid therapy: 25-year follow-up of the Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study—Observational Study

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) begins early in life and is associated with both the number of risk factors present and length of exposure to these risk factors including hyperlipidemia. OBJECTIVES: The clinical benefit of intensive lipid therapy over 25 years was investigated in the Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study – Observational Study (FATS-OS). METHODS: Of 175 CAD subjects with mean LDL-C of 191 mg/dl and mean age of 50 years, who completed the randomized and placebo-controlled FATS, 100 choose receiving lipid management by their physicians (UC) and 75 elected to receive an intensive lipid therapy (IT) with lovastatin (40mg/day), niacin (2.5g/day) and colestipol (20g/day) from 1989 to 2004, followed by double therapy with simvastatin (40–80mg/day) and niacin from 2005 to 2006 and by triple therapy of ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 40–80 mg/day plus niacin during 2007–2012. Death from CVD, non-CVD and any cause were compared between UC and IT using Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: UC and IT groups were similar in risk factors with the exception that IT had more sever CAD. Mean LDL-C levels were 167 mg/dl from 1988 to 2004, 97 from 2005 to 2006, and 96 from 2007 to 2012 in surviving subjects receiving UC. IT lowered LDL-C to 119 mg/dl, 97, and 83 in the 3 time periods. Compared to UC, IT significantly reduced total mortality (11.1 vs. 26.3 per 1,000 PY, HR=0.45, 95% CI: 0.26–0.77, p=0.003) and CVD mortality (10.6 vs. 27.7 per 1,000 PY, HR=0.34, 95% CI: 0.15–0.80, p=0.009). The non-CVD mortality was also reduced, but was not of statistical significance (6.8 vs. 12.7 per 1,000 PY, HR=0.55, 95% CI: 0.27–1.14, p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term intensive lipid therapy significantly reduced total and cardiovascular mortality in FATS-OS. These results support the importance of lifetime risk management to improve long-term outcome

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

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

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