MyMedR

Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Aggressive versus symptom-guided drainage of malignant pleural effusion via indwelling pleural catheters (AMPLE-2): an open-label randomised trial

Muruganandan S, Azzopardi M, Fitzgerald DB, Shrestha R, Kwan BCH, Lam DCL, et al.

Lancet Respir Med, 2018 09;6(9):671-680.
PMID: 30037711 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30288-1

BACKGROUND: Indwelling pleural catheters are an established management option for malignant pleural effusion and have advantages over talc slurry pleurodesis. The optimal regimen of drainage after indwelling pleural catheter insertion is debated and ranges from aggressive (daily) drainage to drainage only when symptomatic.
METHODS: AMPLE-2 was an open-label randomised trial involving 11 centres in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. Patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusions were randomly assigned (1:1) to the aggressive (daily) or symptom-guided drainage groups for 60 days and minimised by cancer type (mesothelioma vs others), performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score 0-1 vs ≥2), presence of trapped lung, and prior pleurodesis. Patients were followed up for 6 months. The primary outcome was mean daily breathlessness score, measured by use of a 100 mm visual analogue scale during the first 60 days. Secondary outcomes included rates of spontaneous pleurodesis and self-reported quality-of-life measures. Results were analysed by an intention-to-treat approach. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000963527.
FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2015, and Jan 26, 2017, 87 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the aggressive (n=43) or symptom-guided (n=44) drainage groups. The mean daily breathlessness scores did not differ significantly between the aggressive and symptom-guided drainage groups (geometric means 13·1 mm [95% CI 9·8-17·4] vs 17·3 mm [13·0-22·0]; ratio of geometric means 1·32 [95% CI 0·88-1·97]; p=0·18). More patients in the aggressive group developed spontaneous pleurodesis than in the symptom-guided group in the first 60 days (16 [37·2%] of 43 vs five [11·4%] of 44, p=0·0049) and at 6 months (19 [44·2%] vs seven [15·9%], p=0·004; hazard ratio 3·287 [95% CI 1·396-7·740]; p=0·0065). Patient-reported quality-of-life measures, assessed with EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L), were better in the aggressive group than in the symptom-guided group (estimated means 0·713 [95% CI 0·647-0·779] vs 0·601 [0·536-0·667]). The estimated difference in means was 0·112 (95% CI 0·0198-0·204; p=0·0174). Pain scores, total days spent in hospital, and mortality did not differ significantly between groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (25·6%) of 43 patients in the aggressive drainage group and in 12 (27·3%) of 44 patients in the symptom-guided drainage group, including 11 episodes of pleural infection in nine patients (five in the aggressive group and six in the symptom-guided drainage group).
INTERPRETATION: We found no differences between the aggressive (daily) and the symptom-guided drainage regimens for indwelling pleural catheters in providing breathlessness control. These data indicate that daily indwelling pleural catheter drainage is more effective in promoting spontaneous pleurodesis and might improve quality of life.
FUNDING: Cancer Council of Western Australia and the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Group.
Fulltext Protocol of the Australasian Malignant Pleural Effusion-2 (AMPLE-2) trial: a multicentre randomised study of aggressive versus symptom-guided drainage via indwelling pleural catheters

Azzopardi M, Thomas R, Muruganandan S, Lam DC, Garske LA, Kwan BC, et al.

BMJ Open, 2016 07 05;6(7):e011480.
PMID: 27381209 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011480

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) can complicate most cancers, causing dyspnoea and impairing quality of life (QoL). Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are a novel management approach allowing ambulatory fluid drainage and are increasingly used as an alternative to pleurodesis. IPC drainage approaches vary greatly between centres. Some advocate aggressive (usually daily) removal of fluid to provide best symptom control and chance of spontaneous pleurodesis. Daily drainages however demand considerably more resources and may increase risks of complications. Others believe that MPE care is palliative and drainage should be performed only when patients become symptomatic (often weekly to monthly). Identifying the best drainage approach will optimise patient care and healthcare resource utilisation.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, open-label randomised trial. Patients with MPE will be randomised 1:1 to daily or symptom-guided drainage regimes after IPC insertion. Patient allocation to groups will be stratified for the cancer type (mesothelioma vs others), performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0-1 vs ≥2), presence of trapped lung (vs not) and prior pleurodesis (vs not). The primary outcome is the mean daily dyspnoea score, measured by a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) over the first 60 days. Secondary outcomes include benefits on physical activity levels, rate of spontaneous pleurodesis, complications, hospital admission days, healthcare costs and QoL measures. Enrolment of 86 participants will detect a mean difference of VAS score of 14 mm between the treatment arms (5% significance, 90% power) assuming a common between-group SD of 18.9 mm and a 10% lost to follow-up rate.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Sir Charles Gairdner Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (number 2015-043). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000963527; Pre-results.
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

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.

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links