Correction: Pulsed moxifloxacin for the prevention of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations contribute to the morbidity and mortality associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This proof-of-concept study evaluates whether intermittent pulsed moxifloxacin treatment could reduce the frequency of these exacerbations. METHODS: Stable patients with COPD were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to receive moxifloxacin 400 mg PO once daily (N = 573) or placebo (N = 584) once a day for 5 days. Treatment was repeated every 8 weeks for a total of six courses. Patients were repeatedly assessed clinically and microbiologically during the 48-week treatment period, and for a further 24 weeks' follow-up. RESULTS: At 48 weeks the odds ratio (OR) for suffering an exacerbation favoured moxifloxacin: per-protocol (PP) population (N = 738, OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.565-0.994, p = 0.046), intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1149, OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.645-1.008, p = 0.059), and a post-hoc analysis of per-protocol (PP) patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum production at baseline (N = 323, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84, p = 0.006).There were no significant differences between moxifloxacin and placebo in any pre-specified efficacy subgroup analyses or in hospitalization rates, mortality rates, lung function or changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores. There was, however, a significant difference in favour of moxifloxacin in the SGRQ symptom domain (ITT: -8.2 vs -3.8, p = 0.009; PP: -8.8 vs -4.4, p = 0.006). Moxifloxacin treatment was not associated with consistent changes in moxifloxacin susceptibility. There were more treatment-emergent, drug related adverse events with moxifloxacin vs placebo (p < 0.001) largely due to gastrointestinal events (4.7% vs 0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent pulsed therapy with moxifloxacin reduced the odds of exacerbation by 20% in the ITT population, by 25% among the PP population and by 45% in PP patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum at baseline. There were no unexpected adverse events and there was no evidence of resistance development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00473460 (ClincalTrials.gov)

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