MyMedR

Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Six-Year Outcomes in Subjects with Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy in the EVEREST II Study

Teo KYC, Park KH, Ngah NF, Chen SJ, Ruamviboonsuk P, Mori R, et al.

Ophthalmol Ther, 2024 Apr;13(4):935-954.
PMID: 38308746 DOI: 10.1007/s40123-024-00888-0

INTRODUCTION: The EVEREST II study previously reported that intravitreally administered ranibizumab (IVR) combined with photodynamic therapy (PDT) achieved superior visual gain and polypoidal lesion closure compared to IVR alone in patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). This follow-up study reports the long-term outcomes 6 years after initiation of the EVEREST II study.
METHODS: This is a non-interventional cohort study of 90 patients with PCV from 16 international trial sites who originally completed the EVEREST II study. The long-term outcomes were assessed during a recall visit at about 6 years from commencement of EVEREST II.
RESULTS: The monotherapy and combination groups contained 41 and 49 participants, respectively. The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to year 6 was not different between the monotherapy and combination groups; - 7.4 ± 23.0 versus - 6.1 ± 22.4 letters, respectively. The combination group had greater central subfield thickness (CST) reduction compared to the monotherapy group at year 6 (- 179.9 vs - 74.2 µm, p = 0.011). Fewer eyes had subretinal fluid (SRF)/intraretinal fluid (IRF) in the combination versus monotherapy group at year 6 (35.4% vs 57.5%, p = 0.032). Factors associated with BCVA at year 6 include BCVA (year 2), CST (year 2), presence of SRF/IRF at year 2, and number of anti-VEGF treatments (years 2-6). Factors associated with presence of SRF/IRF at year 6 include combination arm (OR 0.45, p = 0.033), BCVA (year 2) (OR 1.53, p = 0.046), and presence of SRF/IRF (year 2) (OR 2.59, p = 0.042).
CONCLUSION: At 6 years following the EVEREST II study, one-third of participants still maintained good vision. As most participants continued to require treatment after exiting the initial trial, ongoing monitoring and re-treatment regardless of polypoidal lesion status are necessary in PCV.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01846273.
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.

Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

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.

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links