The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema—The 2021 revision and update

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1 inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1 inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: (1) How should HAE be diagnosed? (2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? (3) What are the goals of treatment? (4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast-feeding women? and (5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema - The 2021 revision and update.

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: 1) How should HAE be diagnosed? 2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? 3) What are the goals of treatment? 4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast feeding women? 5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema - The 2021 revision and update.

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: 1) How should HAE be diagnosed? 2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? 3) What are the goals of treatment? 4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast feeding women? 5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema – The 2021 revision and update

© 2022 The Author(s)Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: 1) How should HAE be diagnosed? 2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? 3) What are the goals of treatment? 4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast feeding women? 5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients.N

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema—The 2021 revision and update

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1 inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1 inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: (1) How should HAE be diagnosed? (2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? (3) What are the goals of treatment? (4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast-feeding women? and (5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

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