Getting Back In: The \u3cem\u3ePlasencia\u3c/em\u3e Decision and the Permanent Resident Alien\u27s Right to Procedural Due Process

In Landon v. Plasencia, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a permanent resident alien returning to the United States from a brief visit abroad is not necessarily entitled to have the question of her admissibility determined at a deportation hearing. The Court has, however, clarified the standards to be applied in determining, on a case-by-case basis, what process is due. After tracing the development of relevant case law as it has affected the rights of the permanent resident alien, the author concludes that the practical effect of Plasencia actually may be to ensure the higher standard of treatment originally ordered by the Ninth Circuit

Getting Back In: The \u3cem\u3ePlasencia\u3c/em\u3e Decision and the Permanent Resident Alien\u27s Right to Procedural Due Process

In Landon v. Plasencia, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a permanent resident alien returning to the United States from a brief visit abroad is not necessarily entitled to have the question of her admissibility determined at a deportation hearing. The Court has, however, clarified the standards to be applied in determining, on a case-by-case basis, what process is due. After tracing the development of relevant case law as it has affected the rights of the permanent resident alien, the author concludes that the practical effect of Plasencia actually may be to ensure the higher standard of treatment originally ordered by the Ninth Circuit

Comparison of Fatal or Irreversible Events With Extended-Duration Betrixaban Versus Standard Dose Enoxaparin in Acutely III Medical Patients: An APEX Trial Substudy

BACKGROUND: Extended-duration betrixaban showed a significant reduction in venous thromboembolism in the APEX trial (Acute Medically Ill VTE Prevention With Extended Duration Betrixaban Study). Given the variable clinical impact of different efficacy and safety events, one approach to assess net clinical outcomes is to include only those events that are either fatal or cause irreversible harm. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post hoc analysis of the APEX trial-a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing extended-duration betrixaban versus standard-of-care enoxaparin. A composite of all fatal or irreversible safety (fatal bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage) and efficacy events (cardiopulmonary death, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and ischemic stroke) was evaluated in a time-to-first event analysis. In patients with positive D-dimer results, betrixaban reduced fatal or irreversible events at 35 to 42 days (4.80% versus 3.54%; hazard ratio, 0.73; absolute risk reduction, 1.26%; number needed to treat, 79 [P=0.033]) and at study end at 77 days (6.27% versus 4.36%; hazard ratio, 0.70; absolute risk reduction, 1.91%; number needed to treat, 52 [P=0.005]) versus enoxaparin. In all patients, betrixaban reduced fatal or irreversible events at 35 to 42 days (4.08% versus 2.90%; hazard ratio, 0.71; absolute risk reduction, 1.18%; number needed to treat, 86 [P=0.006]) and 77 days (5.17% versus 3.64%; hazard ratio, 0.70; absolute risk reduction, 1.53%; number needed to treat, 65 [P=0.002]). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized medically ill patients, extended-duration betrixaban demonstrated an ≈30% reduction in fatal or irreversible ischemic or bleeding events compared with standard-duration enoxaparin. A total of 65 patients would require treatment with betrixaban to prevent 1 fatal or irreversible event versus enoxaparin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01583218.status: publishe

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