Functional abdominal pain disorders and patient- and parent- reported outcomes in children with inflammatory bowel disease in remission

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain occurs frequently in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in remission. AIMS: To assess the prevalence and factors associated with Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders among IBD children in remission (IBD-FAPD). METHODS: Patients with IBD for > 1 year, in clinical remission for ≥ 3 months were recruited from a National IBD network. IBD-FAPDs were assessed using the Rome III questionnaire criteria. Patient- or parent- reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among 102 included patients, 57 (56%) were boys, mean age (DS) was 15.0 (± 2.0) years and 75 (74%) had Crohn's disease. Twenty-two patients (22%) had at least one Functional Gastrointestinal Disorder among which 17 had at least one IBD-FAPD. Past severity of disease or treatments received and level of remission were not significantly associated with IBD-FAPD. Patients with IBD-FAPD reported more fatigue (peds-FACIT-F: 35.9 ± 9.8 vs. 43.0 ± 6.9, p = 0.01) and a lower HR-QoL (IMPACT III: 76.5 ± 9.6 vs. 81.6 ± 9.2, p = 0.04) than patients without FAPD, and their parents had higher levels of State and Trait anxiety than the other parents. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of IBD-FAPD was 17%. IBD-FAPD was not associated with past severity of disease, but with fatigue and lower HR-QoL

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