Autophagy and Apoptosis in Acute Brain Injuries: From Mechanism to Treatment.

Significance: Autophagy and apoptosis are two important cellular mechanisms behind brain injuries, which are severe clinical situations with increasing incidences worldwide. To search for more and better treatments for brain injuries, it is essential to deepen the understanding of autophagy, apoptosis, and their interactions in brain injuries. This article first analyzes how autophagy and apoptosis participate in the pathogenetic processes of brain injuries respectively and mutually, then summarizes some promising treatments targeting autophagy and apoptosis to show the potential clinical applications in personalized medicine and precision medicine in the future. Recent Advances: Most current studies suggest that apoptosis is detrimental to brain recovery. Several studies indicate that autophagy can cause unnecessary death of neurons after brain injuries, while others show that autophagy is beneficial for acute brain injuries (ABIs) by facilitating the removal of damaged proteins and organelles. Whether autophagy is beneficial or detrimental in ABIs depends on many factors, and the results from different research groups are diverse or even controversial, making this topic more appealing to be explored further. Critical Issues: Neuronal autophagy and apoptosis are two primary pathological processes in ABIs. How they interact with each other and how their regulations affect the outcome and prognosis of brain injuries remain uncertain, making these answers more critical. Future Directions: Insights into the interplay between autophagy and apoptosis and the accurate regulations of their balance in ABIs may promote personalized and precise treatments in the field of brain injuries. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 38, 234-257.

The role of aspirin dose and initiation time in the prevention of preeclampsia and corresponding complications: a meta-analysis of RCTs.

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of different dosages and initial times of aspirin in preeclampsia prevention. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed based on randomized-control trials (RCTs). RCTs of women assigned to receive low-dose aspirin, placebo, or no treatment were included. Preeclampsia and corresponding complications were pooled for analysis. All studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science. RESULTS: A total of 46 studies were obtained in this meta-analysis, which consisted of 24,028 participants. When women at ≤ 16 gestational weeks started treatment with a dosage of < 100 mg/day aspirin, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of preeclampsia (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03), while in the subgroup receiving ≥ 100 mg/day aspirin, the result was RR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.53-0.95; P = 0.02). When aspirin was initiated at > 16 weeks, with a dosage of < 100 mg/day aspirin, there was a lesser preventive effect (RR = 0.80; 95% Cl 0.64-1.00; P = 0.05), and there was no significance in the subgroup receiving ≥ 100 mg/day aspirin (RR = 0.76; 95% Cl 0.45-1.31; P = 0.32). Furthermore, aspirin was revealed to have a protective effect on reducing preterm delivery, but there was an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage. No significant result was obtained for fetal loss. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that high-risk pregnant women can prevent preeclampsia or preterm delivery by taking low-dose aspirin; the most efficient period is ≤ 16 weeks of gestation, and the best dose is ≥ 100 mg.

Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To determine the clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic (FE) versus microscopic (MI) lumbar decompression laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), we performed a meta-analysis to explore the best choice for patients with LSS requiring surgical relief. METHODS: Literature searches of the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases were performed. The searches covered all indexed studies published between 2008 and 2020, using keywords identifying the patient group (lumbar spine stenosis) and the interventions (full-endoscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy and microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy). A total of 1,727 patients were included in 10 studies. The primary outcomes of the analysis were visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. RESULTS: The meta-analysis of the VAS score for low back pain showed that in the first 24 hours postoperatively, participants who underwent FE had better pain control than those who underwent MI [FE: mean difference (MD) =-0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.11, -0.45; MI: MD =-1.53, 95% CI: -1.94, -1.12]. In all subgroup analyses, the VAS score for back pain was lower in the FE group than in the MI group (MD =-0.71, 95% CI: -0.96, -0.47). Regarding the VAS score for leg pain, the FE group had a significantly lower score than the MI group in the first 24 hours (Total: MD =-1.02, 95% CI: -1.31, -0.73). The meta-analysis demonstrated that the FE group had a significantly lower ODI score than the MI group (MD =-1.03, 9% CI: -1.54, -0.51). At 6 months, the MI group had a significantly lower score than the FE group (MD =1.09, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.64), but at 12 months, the FE group had a significantly lower score than the MI group (MD =-2.40, 95% CI: -3.12, -1.67). DISCUSSION: Compared to MI decompression, the FE decompression method resulted in better pain control in the early postoperative period, both in the lower back and legs, as well as shorter operative and shorter hospitalization times.