Alvimopan for the Management of Postoperative Ileus After Bowel Resection: Characterization of Clinical Benefit by Pooled Responder Analysis

BACKGROUND: A pooled post hoc responder analysis was performed to assess the clinical benefit of alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist, for the management of postoperative ileus after bowel resection. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent laparotomy for bowel resection scheduled for opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia received oral alvimopan or placebo preoperatively and twice daily postoperatively until hospital discharge or for 7 postoperative days. The proportion of responders and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were examined on postoperative days (POD) 3-8 for GI-2 recovery (first bowel movement, toleration of solid food) and hospital discharge order (DCO) written. RESULTS: Alvimopan significantly increased the proportion of patients with GI-2 recovery and DCO written by each POD (P \u3c 0.001 for all). More patients who received alvimopan achieved GI-2 recovery on or before POD 5 (alvimopan, 80%; placebo, 66%) and DCO written before POD 7 (alvimopan, 87%; placebo, 72%), with corresponding NNTs equal to 7. CONCLUSIONS: On each POD analyzed, alvimopan significantly increased the proportion of patients who achieved GI-2 recovery and DCO written versus placebo and was associated with relatively low NNTs. The results of these analyses provide additional characterization and support for the overall clinical benefit of alvimopan in patients undergoing bowel resection

Omeprazole Inhibits Proliferation and Modulates Autophagy in Pancreatic Cancer Cells

BACKGROUND: Omeprazole has recently been described as a modulator of tumour chemoresistance, although its underlying molecular mechanisms remain controversial. Since pancreatic tumours are highly chemoresistant, a logical step would be to investigate the pharmacodynamic, morphological and biochemical effects of omeprazole on pancreatic cancer cell lines. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Dose-effect curves of omeprazole, pantoprazole, gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil and the combinations of omeprazole and 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine were generated for the pancreatic cancer cell lines MiaPaCa-2, ASPC-1, Colo357, PancTu-1, Panc1 and Panc89. They revealed that omeprazole inhibited proliferation at probably non-toxic concentrations and reversed the hormesis phenomena of 5-fluorouracil. Electron microscopy showed that omeprazole led to accumulation of phagophores and early autophagosomes in ASPC-1 and MiaPaCa-2 cells. Signal changes indicating inhibited proliferation and programmed cell death were found by proton NMR spectroscopy of both cell lines when treated with omeprazole which was identified intracellularly. Omeprazole modulates the lysosomal transport pathway as shown by Western blot analysis of the expression of LAMP-1, Cathepsin-D and β-COP in lysosome- and Golgi complex containing cell fractions. Acridine orange staining revealed that the pump function of the vATPase was not specifically inhibited by omeprazole. Gene expression of the autophagy-related LC3 gene as well as of Bad, Mdr-1, Atg12 and the vATPase was analysed after treatment of cells with 5-fluorouracil and omeprazole and confirmed the above mentioned results. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesise that omeprazole interacts with the regulatory functions of the vATPase without inhibiting its pump function. A modulation of the lysosomal transport pathway and autophagy is caused in pancreatic cancer cells leading to programmed cell death. This may circumvent common resistance mechanisms of pancreatic cancer. Since omeprazole use has already been established in clinical practice these results could lead to new clinical applications

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field