Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Banerjee R, Pal P, Hilmi I, Ghoshal UC, Desai DC, Rahman MM, et al.
    PMID: 35178742 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15801
    Background and aims Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is emerging in the newly industrialized countries of South Asia, South East Asia and the Middle East, yet epidemiological data are scarce.

    METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of IBD demographics, disease phenotype and treatment across 38 centers in 15 countries of South Asia, South-East Asia and Middle East. Intergroup comparisons included gross national income (GNI) per capita.

    RESULTS: Among 10,400 patients, ulcerative colitis (UC) was twice as common as Crohn's disease (CD), with a male predominance (UC 6678, CD 3495, IBD-Unclassified 227, 58% male). Peak age of onset was in the third decade, with a low proportion of elderly onset IBD (5% age >60). Familial IBD was rare (5%). The extent of UC was predominantly distal (proctitis/left sided 67%), with most being treated with mesalamine (94%), steroids (54%), or immunomodulators (31%). Ileocolic CD (43%) was commonest, with low rates of perianal disease (8%) and only 6% smokers. Diagnostic delay for CD was common (median 12 months; IQR 5-30). Treatment of CD included mesalamine, steroids and immunomodulator (61%, 51% and 56% respectively), but a fifth received empirical anti-tubercular therapy. Treatment with biologics was uncommon (4% UC,13% CD) which increased in countries with higher GNI per capita. Surgery rates were 0.1 (UC) and 2 (CD)/100 patient/years.

    CONCLUSIONS: The IBD-ENC cohort provides insight into IBD in South-East Asia and the Middle East, but is not yet population-based. UC is twice as common as CD, familial disease uncommon and rates of surgery are low. Biologic use correlates with per capita GNI.

  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