Fondaparinux in the initial and long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND: Even in the absence of evidence on its long-term efficacy and safety, a number of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) receive long-term therapy with fondaparinux alone in everyday practice. METHODS: We used the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Tromboemb\uf3lica (RIETE) registry to compare the rate of VTE recurrences and major bleeding at 10 and 90 days in patients with and without cancer. For long-term therapy, fondaparinux was compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients without cancer and with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in those with cancer. RESULTS: Of 47,378 patients recruited, 46,513 were initially treated with heparin, 865 with fondaparinux. Then, 263 patients (78 with cancer) were treated for at least 3 months with fondaparinux. After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between patients receiving initial therapy with heparin or fondaparinux. Among patients with cancer, there were no differences between fondaparinux and LMWH. Among patients without cancer, the long-term use of fondaparinux was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (3.24 % vs. 0.95 %, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An unexpected high rate of major bleeding was observed in non-cancer patients treated with long-term fondaparinux. Our small sample does not allow to derive relevant conclusions on the use of fondaparinux in cancer patients

The management of acute venous thromboembolism in clinical practice - study rationale and protocol of the European PREFER in VTE Registry

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health problem, with over one million events every year in Europe. However, there is a paucity of data on the current management in real life, including factors influencing treatment pathways, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and utilization of health care resources and the corresponding costs. The PREFER in VTE registry has been designed to address this and to understand medical care and needs as well as potential gaps for improvement. Methods/design: The PREFER in VTE registry was a prospective, observational, multicenter study conducted in seven European countries including Austria, France Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK to assess the characteristics and the management of patients with VTE, the use of health care resources, and to provide data to estimate the costs for 12 months treatment following a first-time and/or recurrent VTE diagnosed in hospitals or specialized or primary care centers. In addition, existing anticoagulant treatment patterns, patient pathways, clinical outcomes, treatment satisfaction, and health related QoL were documented. The centers were chosen to reflect the care environment in which patients with VTE are managed in each of the participating countries. Patients were eligible to be enrolled into the registry if they were at least 18 years old, had a symptomatic, objectively confirmed first time or recurrent acute VTE defined as either distal or proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. After the baseline visit at the time of the acute VTE event, further follow-up documentations occurred at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Follow-up data was collected by either routinely scheduled visits or by telephone calls. Results: Overall, 381 centers participated, which enrolled 3,545 patients during an observational period of 1 year. Conclusion: The PREFER in VTE registry will provide valuable insights into the characteristics of patients with VTE and their acute and mid-term management, as well as into drug utilization and the use of health care resources in acute first-time and/or recurrent VTE across Europe in clinical practice. Trial registration: Registered in DRKS register, ID number: DRKS0000479

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

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

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