To evaluate and compare the hypoglycemic, antioxidant and hypolipidemic effect of lycopene with atorvastatin in hyperlipidemic New Zealand white rabbits

Background: During recent years, the carotenoid lycopene has attracted much attention for its potentially beneficial cardiovascular effects, which is located mainly in tomato peels. The antioxidant properties of tomatoes has been extensively studied for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, but the beneficial effects of pure lycopene supplement is still debatable. Therefore, this study was planned to evaluate and compare the hypoglycemic, hypolipidemic and antioxidant effects of pure lycopene powder and to compare it with that of atorvastatin in hyperlipidemic New Zealand white rabbits.Methods: Adult male New Zealand white rabbits (1.5-2.5 kg) were divided into three groups of six animals each. Group I - High fat diet (HFD) (5 ml/kg). Group II - HFD (5 ml/kg) + lycopene (10 mg/kg) orally. Group III - HFD (5 ml/kg) + atorvastatin (5 mg/kg) orally. Blood samples were taken from all 18 rabbits for baseline estimation of blood sugar levels (BSL), lipid levels and blood superoxide dismutase levels. Same tests were performed in all groups after 6 weeks.Results: The lipid lowering activity of atorvastatin 5 mg/kg was better than that of lycopene while the antioxidant activity of lycopene was better than that of atorvastatin. Both the results were statistically significant. There was no significant difference in fasting BSLs in both the groups.Conclusion: Findings suggest that lycopene may have considerable therapeutic benefit as an antioxidant and hypolipidemic agent, but may not be effective as a hypoglycemic agent

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

Pharmacovigilance in India

New drug development is a challenging and costly process as it involves focus on quality, efficacy as well as safety. Some of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are predicted based upon the previous experience with the pharmacologically similar drugs and others are detected during clinical trials. For detection of ADRs, clinical trials usually provide limited information as they are conducted under strictly controlled condition and largely focus on efficacy evaluation. Some of the ADRs can be detected only after long-term use in large population and in specific patient groups due to specific concomitant medications or disease. The visual field defect of vigabatrin therapy and valve defect of fenfluramine-phenteramine therapy are few such examples. Therefore early recognition of previously unknown adverse effects of medicines during post-marketing period is the primary objective of pharmacovigilance

Congenital rubella syndrome surveillance in India, 2016–21: Analysis of five years surveillance data

Background: In India, facility-based surveillance for congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) was initiated in 2016 to estimate the burden and monitor the progress made in rubella control. We analyzed the surveillance data for 2016–2021 from 14 sentinel sites to describe the epidemiology of CRS. Method: We analyzed the surveillance data to describe the distribution of suspected and laboratory confirmed CRS patients by time, place and person characteristics. We compared clinical signs of laboratory confirmed CRS and discarded case-patients to find independent predictors of CRS using logistic regression analysis and developed a risk prediction model. Results: During 2016–21, surveillance sites enrolled 3940 suspected CRS case-patients (Age 3.5 months, SD: 3.5). About one-fifth (n = 813, 20.6%) were enrolled during newborn examination. Of the suspected CRS patients, 493 (12.5%) had laboratory evidence of rubella infection. The proportion of laboratory confirmed CRS cases declined from 26% in 2017 to 8.7% in 2021. Laboratory confirmed patients had higher odds of having hearing impairment (Odds ratio [OR] = 9.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.6–16.2), cataract (OR = 7.8, 95% CI: 5.4–11.2), pigmentary retinopathy (OR = 6.7, 95 CI: 3.3–13.6), structural heart defect with hearing impairment (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.2–12.2) and glaucoma (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.2–8.1). Nomogram, along with a web version, was developed. Conclusions: Rubella continues to be a significant public health issue in India. The declining trend of test positivity among suspected CRS case-patients needs to be monitored through continued surveillance in these sentinel sites

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.The aim of this study was to inform vaccination prioritization by modelling the impact of vaccination on elective inpatient surgery. The study found that patients aged at least 70 years needing elective surgery should be prioritized alongside other high-risk groups during early vaccination programmes. Once vaccines are rolled out to younger populations, prioritizing surgical patients is advantageous

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 (4th edition)

International audienceIn 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