A importância do profissional fisioterapeuta no acompanhamento de crianças autistas – uma revisão / The importance of professional physiotherapists in the follow-up of autistic children – a review

Esse estudo possui por intencionalidade maior, a de contribuir para reflexões voltadas sobre a importância da Fisioterapia, no acompanhamento de crianças autistas, portanto o presente trabalho apresenta a atuação do fisioterapeuta e quais são os maiores benefícios do tratamento fisioterapêutico, para crianças com TEA. Objetivo: Analisar a importância que há da intervenção fisioterapêutica no acompanhamento de crianças autistas. A metodologia desse estudo está disposta em uma pesquisa de cunho exploratório-bibliográfico, com critério de seleção onde foram selecionados importantes trabalhos, por meio de palavras chave, onde critério de exclusão foi dado através da compatibilidade dos objetivos e com o tema requerido, levando-se em consideração que todos os trabalhos utilizados, ofertaram a base teórica, para essa revisão bibliográfica. Ao término desse estudo pode-se refletir que a Fisioterapia abarca diversos benefícios para o tratamento e desenvolvimento da criança autista, pois pode-se compreender que essas práticas auxiliam-nas no que tange a melhorar o desenvolvimento motor, bem como melhorando a qualidade de vida desse paciente

The European Reference Genome Atlas: piloting a decentralised approach to equitable biodiversity genomics.

ABSTRACT: A global genome database of all of Earth’s species diversity could be a treasure trove of scientific discoveries. However, regardless of the major advances in genome sequencing technologies, only a tiny fraction of species have genomic information available. To contribute to a more complete planetary genomic database, scientists and institutions across the world have united under the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), which plans to sequence and assemble high-quality reference genomes for all ∼1.5 million recognized eukaryotic species through a stepwise phased approach. As the initiative transitions into Phase II, where 150,000 species are to be sequenced in just four years, worldwide participation in the project will be fundamental to success. As the European node of the EBP, the European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) seeks to implement a new decentralised, accessible, equitable and inclusive model for producing high-quality reference genomes, which will inform EBP as it scales. To embark on this mission, ERGA launched a Pilot Project to establish a network across Europe to develop and test the first infrastructure of its kind for the coordinated and distributed reference genome production on 98 European eukaryotic species from sample providers across 33 European countries. Here we outline the process and challenges faced during the development of a pilot infrastructure for the production of reference genome resources, and explore the effectiveness of this approach in terms of high-quality reference genome production, considering also equity and inclusion. The outcomes and lessons learned during this pilot provide a solid foundation for ERGA while offering key learnings to other transnational and national genomic resource projects.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The European Reference Genome Atlas: piloting a decentralised approach to equitable biodiversity genomics

A global genome database of all of Earth’s species diversity could be a treasure trove of scientific discoveries. However, regardless of the major advances in genome sequencing technologies, only a tiny fraction of species have genomic information available. To contribute to a more complete planetary genomic database, scientists and institutions across the world have united under the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), which plans to sequence and assemble high-quality reference genomes for all ∼1.5 million recognized eukaryotic species through a stepwise phased approach. As the initiative transitions into Phase II, where 150,000 species are to be sequenced in just four years, worldwide participation in the project will be fundamental to success. As the European node of the EBP, the European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) seeks to implement a new decentralised, accessible, equitable and inclusive model for producing high-quality reference genomes, which will inform EBP as it scales. To embark on this mission, ERGA launched a Pilot Project to establish a network across Europe to develop and test the first infrastructure of its kind for the coordinated and distributed reference genome production on 98 European eukaryotic species from sample providers across 33 European countries. Here we outline the process and challenges faced during the development of a pilot infrastructure for the production of reference genome resources, and explore the effectiveness of this approach in terms of high-quality reference genome production, considering also equity and inclusion. The outcomes and lessons learned during this pilot provide a solid foundation for ERGA while offering key learnings to other transnational and national genomic resource projects

The European Reference Genome Atlas: piloting a decentralised approach to equitable biodiversity genomics.

A genomic database of all Earth's eukaryotic species could contribute to many scientific discoveries; however, only a tiny fraction of species have genomic information available. In 2018, scientists across the world united under the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), aiming to produce a database of high-quality reference genomes containing all ~1.5 million recognized eukaryotic species. As the European node of the EBP, the European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) sought to implement a new decentralised, equitable and inclusive model for producing reference genomes. For this, ERGA launched a Pilot Project establishing the first distributed reference genome production infrastructure and testing it on 98 eukaryotic species from 33 European countries. Here we outline the infrastructure and explore its effectiveness for scaling high-quality reference genome production, whilst considering equity and inclusion. The outcomes and lessons learned provide a solid foundation for ERGA while offering key learnings to other transnational, national genomic resource projects and the EBP

The European Reference Genome Atlas: piloting a decentralised approach to equitable biodiversity genomics.

A genomic database of all Earth's eukaryotic species could contribute to many scientific discoveries; however, only a tiny fraction of species have genomic information available. In 2018, scientists across the world united under the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), aiming to produce a database of high-quality reference genomes containing all ~1.5 million recognized eukaryotic species. As the European node of the EBP, the European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) sought to implement a new decentralised, equitable and inclusive model for producing reference genomes. For this, ERGA launched a Pilot Project establishing the first distributed reference genome production infrastructure and testing it on 98 eukaryotic species from 33 European countries. Here we outline the infrastructure and explore its effectiveness for scaling high-quality reference genome production, whilst considering equity and inclusion. The outcomes and lessons learned provide a solid foundation for ERGA while offering key learnings to other transnational, national genomic resource projects and the EBP

Pragmatic solutions to reduce the global burden of stroke: a World Stroke Organization–Lancet Neurology Commission

Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide. The burden of disability after a stroke is also large, and is increasing at a faster pace in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Alarmingly, the incidence of stroke is increasing in young and middle-aged people (ie, age <55 years) globally. Should these trends continue, Sustainable Development Goal 3.4 (reducing the burden of stroke as part of the general target to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases by a third by 2030) will not be met. In this Commission, we forecast the burden of stroke from 2020 to 2050. We project that stroke mortality will increase by 50%—from 6·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 6·0 million–7·1 million) in 2020, to 9·7 million (8·0 million–11·6 million) in 2050—with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) growing over the same period from 144·8 million (133·9 million–156·9 million) in 2020, to 189·3 million (161·8 million–224·9 million) in 2050. These projections prompted us to do a situational analysis across the four pillars of the stroke quadrangle: surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation. We have also identified the barriers to, and facilitators for, the achievement of these four pillars. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) The sum of the years of life lost as a result of premature mortality from a disease and the years lived with a disability associated with prevalent cases of the disease in a population. One DALY represents the loss of the equivalent of one year of full health On the basis of our assessment, we have identified and prioritised several recommendations. For each of the four pillars (surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), we propose pragmatic solutions for the implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce the global burden of stroke. The estimated direct (ie, treatment and rehabilitation) and indirect (considering productivity loss) costs of stroke globally are in excess of US$891 billion annually. The pragmatic solutions we put forwards for urgent implementation should help to mitigate these losses, reduce the global burden of stroke, and contribute to achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 3.4, the WHO Intersectoral Global Action Plan on epilepsy and other neurological disorders (2022–2031), and the WHO Global Action Plan for prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. Reduction of the global burden of stroke, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, by implementing primary and secondary stroke prevention strategies and evidence-based acute care and rehabilitation services is urgently required. Measures to facilitate this goal include: the establishment of a framework to monitor and assess the burden of stroke (and its risk factors) and stroke services at a national level; the implementation of integrated population-level and individual-level prevention strategies for people at any increased risk of cerebrovascular disease, with emphasis on early detection and control of hypertension; planning and delivery of acute stroke care services, including the establishment of stroke units with access to reperfusion therapies for ischaemic stroke and workforce training and capacity building (and monitoring of quality indicators for these services nationally, regionally, and globally); the promotion of interdisciplinary stroke care services, training for caregivers, and capacity building for community health workers and other health-care providers working in stroke rehabilitation; and the creation of a stroke advocacy and implementation ecosystem that includes all relevant communities, organisations, and stakeholders

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p

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