Brain–gut–microbiome interactions in obesity and food addiction

Normal eating behavior is coordinated by the tightly regulated balance between intestinal and extra-intestinal homeostatic and hedonic mechanisms. By contrast, food addiction represents a complex, maladaptive eating behavior that reflects alterations in brain–gut–microbiome (BGM) interactions and a shift of this balance towards hedonic mechanisms. Each component of the BGM axis has been implicated in the development of food addiction, with both brain to gut and gut to brain signaling playing a role. Early life influences can prime the infant gut microbiome and brain for food addiction, which might be further reinforced by increased antibiotic usage and dietary patterns throughout adulthood. The ubiquitous availability and marketing of inexpensive, highly palatable and calorie dense food can further shift this balance towards hedonic eating through both central (disruptions in dopaminergic signaling) and intestinal (vagal afferent function, metabolic toxaemia, systemic immune activation, changes to gut microbiome and metabolome) mechanisms. In this Review, we propose a systems biological model of BGM interactions, which incorporates published reports on food addiction, and provides novel insights into treatment targets aimed at each level of the BGM axis

Estimated GFR and the Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering after Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Background: The kidney-brain interaction has been a topic of growing interest. Past studies of the effect of kidney function on intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) outcomes have yielded inconsistent findings. Although the second, main phase of the Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT2) suggests the effectiveness of early intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering in improving functional recovery after ICH, the balance of potential benefits and harms of this treatment in those with decreased kidney function remains uncertain. Study Design: Secondary analysis of INTERACT2, which randomly assigned patients with ICH with elevated systolic BP (SBP) to intensive (target SBP < 140 mm Hg) or contemporaneous guideline-based (target SBP < 180 mm Hg) BP management. Setting & Participants: 2,823 patients from 144 clinical hospitals in 21 countries. Predictors Admission estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) of patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine equation: normal or high, mildly decreased, and moderately to severely decreased (>90, 60-90, and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). Outcomes: The effect of admission eGFR on the primary outcome of death or major disability at 90 days (defined as modified Rankin Scale scores of 3-6) was analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Potential effect modification of intensive BP lowering treatment by admission eGFR was assessed by interaction terms. Results: Of 2,623 included participants, 912 (35%) and 280 (11%) had mildly and moderately/severely decreased eGFRs, respectively. Patients with moderately/severely decreased eGFRs had the greatest risk for death or major disability at 90 days (adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.28-2.61). Effects of early intensive BP lowering were consistent across different eGFRs (P = 0.5 for homogeneity). Limitations: Generalizability issues arising from a clinical trial population. Conclusions: Decreased eGFR predicts poor outcome in acute ICH. Early intensive BP lowering provides similar treatment effects in patients with ICH with decreased eGFRs

Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Whether the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban can be an alternative to warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, we randomly assigned patients with acute venous thromboembolism, who had initially received heparin, to receive edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily, or 30 mg once daily (e.g., in the case of patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 50 ml per minute or a body weight below 60 kg), or to receive warfarin. Patients received the study drug for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4921 patients presented with deep-vein thrombosis, and 3319 with a pulmonary embolism. Among patients receiving warfarin, the time in the therapeutic range was 63.5%. Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 130 patients in the edoxaban group (3.2%) and 146 patients in the warfarin group (3.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.13; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The safety outcome occurred in 349 patients (8.5%) in the edoxaban group and 423 patients (10.3%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004 for superiority). The rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. A total of 938 patients with pulmonary embolism had right ventricular dysfunction, as assessed by measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels; the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in this subgroup was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.2% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was noninferior to high-quality standard therapy and caused significantly less bleeding in a broad spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism, including those with severe pulmonary embolism. (Funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; Hokusai-VTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00986154.)

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