Maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Objectives To evaluate the maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This was a multinational retrospective cohort study including women with a singleton pregnancy and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, conducted in 72 centers in 22 different countries in Europe, the USA, South America, Asia and Australia, between 1 February 2020 and 30 April 2020. Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive result on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal mortality and morbidity, including admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), use of mechanical ventilation and death. Results In total, 388 women with a singleton pregnancy tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR of a nasopharyngeal swab and were included in the study. Composite adverse maternal outcome was observed in 47/388 (12.1%) women; 43 (11.1%) women were admitted to the ICU, 36 (9.3%) required mechanical ventilation and three (0.8%) died. Of the 388 women included in the study, 122 (31.4%) were still pregnant at the time of data analysis. Among the other 266 women, six (19.4% of the 31 women with first-trimester infection) had miscarriage, three (1.1%) had termination of pregnancy, six (2.3%) had stillbirth and 251 (94.4%) delivered a liveborn infant. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was 26.3% (70/266). Of the 251 liveborn infants, 69/251(27.5%) were admitted to the neonatal ICU, and there were five (2.0%) neonatal deaths. The overall rate of perinatal death was 4.1% (11/266). Only one (1/251, 0.4%) infant, born to a mother who tested positive during the third trimester, was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women is associated with a 0.8% rate of maternal mortality, but an 11.1% rate of admission to the ICU. The risk of vertical transmission seems to be negligible. (C) 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.Peer reviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present