Polymyxin-B hemoperfusion in septic patients: analysis of a multicenter registry

Background: In 2010, the EUPHAS 2 collaborative group created a registry with the purpose of recording data from critically ill patients suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock treated with polymyxin-B hemoperfusion (PMX-HP) for endotoxin removal. The aim of the registry was to verify the application of PMX-HP in the daily clinical practice. Methods: The EUPHAS 2 registry involved 57 centers between January 2010 and December 2014, collecting retrospective data of 357 patients (297 in Europe and 60 in Asia) suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock caused by proved or suspected infection related to Gram negative bacteria. All patients received atleast one cycle of extracorporeal endotoxin removal by PMX-HP. Results: Septic shock was diagnosed in 305 (85.4\ua0%) patients. The most common source of infection was abdominal (44.0\ua0%) followed by pulmonary (17.6\ua0%). Gram negative bacteria represented 60.6\ua0% of the pathogens responsible of infection. After 72\ua0h from the first cycle of PMX-HP, some of the SOFA score components significantly improved with respect to baseline: cardiovascular (2.16\ua0\ub1\ua01.77 from 3.32\ua0\ub1\ua01.29, p\ua0<\ua00.0001), respiratory (1.95\ua0\ub1\ua00.95 from 2.40\ua0\ub1\ua01.06, p\ua0<\ua00.001) and renal (1.84\ua0\ub1\ua01.77 from 2.23\ua0\ub1\ua01.62, p\ua0=\ua00.013). Overall 28-day survival rate was 54.5\ua0% (60.4\ua0% in abdominal and 47.5\ua0% in pulmonary infection). Patients with abdominal infection treated with PMX-HP within 24\ua0h from the diagnosis of septic shock had a 28-day survival rate of 64.5\ua0%. Patients showing a significantly cardiovascular improvement after PMX-HP had a 28-survival rate of 75\ua0% in comparison to the 39\ua0% of patients who did not (p\ua0<\ua00.001). Cox regression analysis found the variation of cardiovascular, respiratory and coagulation SOFA to be independent covariates for 28-day survival. In European patients were observed a higher 28-day (58.8 vs. 34.5\ua0%, p\ua0=\ua00.003), ICU (59 vs. 36.7\ua0%, p\ua0=\ua00.006) and hospital survival rate (53.2 vs. 35\ua0%, p\ua0=\ua00.02) than in Asian patients. However, the two populations were highly heterogeneous in terms of source of infection and severity scores at admission. Conclusion: The EUPHAS 2 is the largest registry conducted outside Japan on the clinical use of PMX-HP in septic patients. Data analysis confirmed the feasibility of PMX-HP to treat septic patients in daily clinical practice, showing clinical benefits associated with endotoxin removal without significant adverse events related to the extracorporeal technique. \ua9 2016, The Author(s)

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

No abstract available

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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