Limited clinical relevance of imaging techniques in the follow-up of patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of a meta-analysis

The clinical value of imaging is well established for the follow-up of many lymphoid malignancies but not for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). A meta-analysis was performed with the dataset of 3 German CLL Study Group phase 3 trials (CLL4, CLL5, and CLL8) that included 1372 patients receiving first-line therapy for CLL. Response as well as progression during follow-up was reassessed according to the National Cancer Institute Working Group1996 criteria. A total of 481 events were counted as progressive disease during treatment or follow-up. Of these, 372 progressions (77%) were detected by clinical symptoms or blood counts. Computed tomography (CT) scans or ultrasound were relevant in 44 and 29 cases (9% and 6%), respectively. The decision for relapse treatment was determined by CT scan or ultrasound results in only 2 of 176 patients (1%). CT scan results had an impact on the prognosis of patients in complete remission only after the administration of conventional chemotherapy but not after chemoimmunotherapy. In conclusion, physical examination and blood count remain the methods of choice for staging and clinical follow-up of patients with CLL as recommended by the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia 2008 guidelines. These trials are registered at http://www.isrctn.org as ISRCTN 75653261 and ISRCTN 36294212 and at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00281918

Efficacy and safety of once weekly subcutaneous idrabiotaparinux in the treatment of patients with symptomatic deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Idraparinux, a long acting inhibitor of factor (F) Xa, is as effective as standard anticoagulant therapy for patients with symptomatic deep venous thrombosis. We investigated the potential use of the biotinylated molecule, idrabiotaparinux. Biotinylation enables reversal of the anticoagulant effect. METHODS: We performed a randomized double-blind trial in 757 patients with symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, comparing equimolar doses of idrabiotaparinux (3 mg) with idraparinux (2.5 mg), both given subcutaneously, once weekly for 6 months. Inhibition of FXa activity was measured at days 15, 36, 57, 92 and 183. The efficacy outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism. The safety outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding and death. RESULTS: Inhibition of FXa was similar in the two treatment groups at each time point of measurement. Recurrent venous thromboembolism during the 6-month treatment period occurred in nine of 386 patients (2.3%) in the idrabiotaparinux group and in 12 of 371 patients (3.2%) in the idraparinux group, a difference of - 0.9% (95% confidence interval, -3.2-1.4%). The incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 5.2% in the idrabiotaparinux group and 7.3% in the idraparinux group (P = 0.29), a difference of - 2.1% (95% confidence interval, -5.6-1.4%). Six patients (1.6%) who received idrabiotaparinux died, compared with 12 patients (3.2%) given idraparinux, a difference of - 1.7% (95% confidence interval, -3.9-0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Idrabiotaparinux has a similar time course of FXa inhibition, efficacy and safety to idraparinux for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis

Enoxaparin followed by once-weekly idrabiotaparinux versus enoxaparin plus warfarin for patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism: a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment of pulmonary embolism with low-molecular-weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, is not ideal. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of idrabiotaparinux, a reversible longlasting indirect inhibitor of activated factor X, to warfarin in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. METHODS: In our randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults with objectively documented acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism attending 291 centres in 37 countries. We excluded patients who were pregnant, had active bleeding, kidney failure, or malignant hypertension, or were at high risk of death, bleeding, or adverse reactions to study drugs. We randomly allocated patients to receive 5-10 days' enoxaparin 1\ub70 mg/kg twice daily followed by subcutaneous idrabiotaparinux (starting dose 3\ub70 mg) or adjusted-dose warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2\ub70-3\ub70); regimens lasted 3 months or 6 months dependent on clinical presentation. Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by study centre and intended treatment duration. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism at 99 days after randomisation. We estimated the odds ratio and 95% CI with a Mantel-Haenzsel \u3c7(2) analysis (non-inferiority margin 2\ub70) in the intention-to-treat population. The main safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) in all patients at day 99. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00345618. FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2006, and Jan 31, 2010, we enrolled 3202 patients aged 18-96 years. 34 (2%) of 1599 patients randomly allocated to receive enoxaparin-idrabiotaparinux and 43 (3%) of 1603 patients randomly allocated to receive enoxaparin-warfarin had recurrent venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0\ub779, 95% CI 0\ub750-1\ub725; p(non-inferiority)=0\ub70001). 72 (5%) of 1599 patients in the enoxaparin-idrabiotaparinux group and 106 (7%) of 1603 patients in the enoxaparin-warfarin group had clinically relevant bleeding (0\ub767, 0\ub749-0\ub791; p(superiority)=0\ub70098). We noted similar differences in outcomes in those patients treated to 6 months. INTERPRETATION: Idrabiotaparinux could provide an attractive alternative to warfarin for the long-term treatment of pulmonary embolism, and seems to be associated with reduced bleeding

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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