Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Chronic Kidney Disease in HIV Infection Using Prospective Cohort Data from the D:A:D Study

Ristola M. on työryhmien DAD Study Grp ; Royal Free Hosp Clin Cohort ; INSIGHT Study Grp ; SMART Study Grp ; ESPRIT Study Grp jäsen.Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health issue for HIV-positive individuals, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Development and implementation of a risk score model for CKD would allow comparison of the risks and benefits of adding potentially nephrotoxic antiretrovirals to a treatment regimen and would identify those at greatest risk of CKD. The aims of this study were to develop a simple, externally validated, and widely applicable long-term risk score model for CKD in HIV-positive individuals that can guide decision making in clinical practice. Methods and Findings A total of 17,954 HIV-positive individuals from the Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) study with >= 3 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values after 1 January 2004 were included. Baseline was defined as the first eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 after 1 January 2004; individuals with exposure to tenofovir, atazanavir, atazanavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, other boosted protease inhibitors before baseline were excluded. CKD was defined as confirmed (>3 mo apart) eGFR In the D:A:D study, 641 individuals developed CKD during 103,185 person-years of follow-up (PYFU; incidence 6.2/1,000 PYFU, 95% CI 5.7-6.7; median follow-up 6.1 y, range 0.3-9.1 y). Older age, intravenous drug use, hepatitis C coinfection, lower baseline eGFR, female gender, lower CD4 count nadir, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) predicted CKD. The adjusted incidence rate ratios of these nine categorical variables were scaled and summed to create the risk score. The median risk score at baseline was -2 (interquartile range -4 to 2). There was a 1: 393 chance of developing CKD in the next 5 y in the low risk group (risk score = 5, 505 events), respectively. Number needed to harm (NNTH) at 5 y when starting unboosted atazanavir or lopinavir/ritonavir among those with a low risk score was 1,702 (95% CI 1,166-3,367); NNTH was 202 (95% CI 159-278) and 21 (95% CI 19-23), respectively, for those with a medium and high risk score. NNTH was 739 (95% CI 506-1462), 88 (95% CI 69-121), and 9 (95% CI 8-10) for those with a low, medium, and high risk score, respectively, starting tenofovir, atazanavir/ritonavir, or another boosted protease inhibitor. The Royal Free Hospital Clinic Cohort included 2,548 individuals, of whom 94 individuals developed CKD (3.7%) during 18,376 PYFU (median follow-up 7.4 y, range 0.3-12.7 y). Of 2,013 individuals included from the SMART/ESPRIT control arms, 32 individuals developed CKD (1.6%) during 8,452 PYFU (median follow-up 4.1 y, range 0.6-8.1 y). External validation showed that the risk score predicted well in these cohorts. Limitations of this study included limited data on race and no information on proteinuria. Conclusions Both traditional and HIV-related risk factors were predictive of CKD. These factors were used to develop a risk score for CKD in HIV infection, externally validated, that has direct clinical relevance for patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits of certain antiretrovirals against the risk of CKD and to identify those at greatest risk of CKD.Peer reviewe

Effect, economic and process-evaluation of a generic function focused care program for long-term care; study protocol of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Nurses are in a key position to stimulate older people to maximize their functional activity and independence. However, nurses still often work in a task-oriented manner and tend to take over tasks unnecessarily. It is evident to support nurses to focus on the capabilities of older people and provide care assistance only when required. Function-Focused Care (FFC) is a holistic care-philosophy aiming to support nurses to deliver care in which functioning and independence of older people is optimized. Dutch and internationally developed FFC-based interventions often lack effectiveness in changing nurses' and client's behavior. Process-evaluations have yielded lessons and implications resulting in the development of an advanced generic FFC-program: the 'SELF-program'. The SELF-program aims to improve activity stimulation behavior of nurses in long-term care services, and with that optimize levels of self-reliance in activities of daily living (ADL) in geriatric clients. The innovative character of the SELF-program lies for example in the application of extended behavior change theory, its interactive nature, and tailoring its components to setting-specific elements and needs of its participants. This paper describes the outline, content and theoretical background of the SELF-program. Subsequently, this paper describes a protocol for the assessment of the program's effect, economic and process-evaluation in a two-arm (SELF-program vs care as usual) multicenter cluster-randomized trial (CRT). METHOD: The proposed CRT has three objectives, including getting insight into the program's: (1) effectiveness regarding activity stimulation behavior of nurses and self-reliance in ADL of geriatric clients, and (2) cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective including assessments of quality of life and health-care use. Measurements will take place prior to program implementation (baseline), directly after (T1), and in long-term (T2). Parallel to the CRT, a process evaluation will be conducted to provide insight into the program's: (3) feasibility regarding implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. DISCUSSION: The SELF-program was developed following the Medical Research Council framework, which addresses the systematic development, feasibility testing, evaluation and implementation of complex interventions. The program has been subjected to a feasibility study before and results of studies described in this protocol are expected to be available from end 2022 onwards. TRIAL-REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register ( NL9189 ), as of December 22 2020