Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Marques-Gomes J, Salt MJ, Pereira-Neto R, Barteldes FS, Gouveia-Barros V, Carvalho A, et al.
    HIV Med, 2021 Dec 28.
    PMID: 34964226 DOI: 10.1111/hiv.13221
    OBJECTIVES: HIV outcomes centre primarily around clinical markers with limited focus on patient-reported outcomes. With a global trend towards capturing the outcomes that matter most to patients, there is agreement that standardizing the definition of value in HIV care is key to their incorporation. This study aims to address the lack of routine, standardized data in HIV care.

    METHODS: An international working group (WG) of 37 experts and patients, and a steering group (SG) of 18 experts were convened from 14 countries. The project team (PT) identified outcomes by conducting a literature review, screening 1979 articles and reviewing the full texts of 547 of these articles. Semi-structured interviews and advisory groups were performed with the WG, SG and people living with HIV to add to the list of potentially relevant outcomes. The WG voted via a modified Delphi process - informed by six Zoom calls - to establish a core set of outcomes for use in clinical practice.

    RESULTS: From 156 identified outcomes, consensus was reached to include three patient-reported outcomes, four clinician-reported measures and one administratively reported outcome; standardized measures were included. The WG also reached agreement to measure 22 risk-adjustment variables. This outcome set can be applied to any person living with HIV aged > 18 years.

    CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the HIV360 outcome set will enable healthcare providers to record, compare and integrate standardized metrics across treatment sites to drive quality improvement in HIV care.

  2. 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.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links