Venous thromboembolism in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia under chemotherapy treatment. Risk factors and usefulness of thromboprophylaxis. Results of LAL-SEHOP-PETHEMA-2013.

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) is diagnosed in 3%-14% of patients during pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) therapy. There are well-known risk factors, but the role of others as inherited thrombophilia is still controversial. Prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been described, but its use is not globally accepted. A retrospective multicentric study in ALL patients 1-18 years old following SEHOP-PETHEMA-2013 treatment guideline was performed to evaluate VTE rate, anticoagulant treatment, outcome, risk factors, and safety and usefulness of LMWH administration as primary thromboprophylaxis in children with inherited thrombophilia. A total of 652 patients were included in the study. VTE incidence was 8.7%. Most of the cases occurred during induction therapy associated with central venous catheter. Univariant analysis showed that family history of thrombosis, presence of mediastinal mass, high-risk treatment group, and inherited thrombophilia were statistically significant risk factors. LMWH administration seemed to decrease VTE rate in patients with inherited thrombophilia and those with T-cell ALL phenotype. Most of the VTE cases occurred in patients without inherited thrombophilia, but when it is present, the VTE risk is higher. LMWH administration was useful to decrease VTE in these patients

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes

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