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.

Two randomized trials of canakinumab in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 is pivotal in the pathogenesis of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We assessed the efficacy and safety of canakinumab, a selective, fully human, anti-interleukin-1β monoclonal antibody, in two trials. METHODS: In trial 1, we randomly assigned patients, 2 to 19 years of age, with systemic JIA and active systemic features (fever; ≥2 active joints; C-reactive protein, >30 mg per liter; and glucocorticoid dose, ≤1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), in a double-blind fashion, to a single subcutaneous dose of canakinumab (4 mg per kilogram) or placebo. The primary outcome, termed adapted JIA ACR 30 response, was defined as improvement of 30% or more in at least three of the six core criteria for JIA, worsening of more than 30% in no more than one of the criteria, and resolution of fever. In trial 2, after 32 weeks of open-label treatment with canakinumab, patients who had a response and underwent glucocorticoid tapering were randomly assigned to continued treatment with canakinumab or to placebo. The primary outcome was time to flare of systemic JIA. RESULTS: At day 15 in trial 1, more patients in the canakinumab group had an adapted JIA ACR 30 response (36 of 43 [84%], vs. 4 of 41 [10%] in the placebo group; P<0.001). In trial 2, among the 100 patients (of 177 in the open-label phase) who underwent randomization in the withdrawal phase, the risk of flare was lower among patients who continued to receive canakinumab than among those who were switched to placebo (74% of patients in the canakinumab group had no flare, vs. 25% in the placebo group, according to Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio, 0.36; P=0.003). The average glucocorticoid dose was reduced from 0.34 to 0.05 mg per kilogram per day, and glucocorticoids were discontinued in 42 of 128 patients (33%). The macrophage activation syndrome occurred in 7 patients; infections were more frequent with canakinumab than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These two phase 3 studies show the efficacy of canakinumab in systemic JIA with active systemic features. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00889863 and NCT00886769.).

Two randomized trials of canakinumab in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 is pivotal in the pathogenesis of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We assessed the efficacy and safety of canakinumab, a selective, fully human, anti-interleukin-1β monoclonal antibody, in two trials. METHODS: In trial 1, we randomly assigned patients, 2 to 19 years of age, with systemic JIA and active systemic features (fever; ≥2 active joints; C-reactive protein, >30 mg per liter; and glucocorticoid dose, ≤1.0 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), in a double-blind fashion, to a single subcutaneous dose of canakinumab (4 mg per kilogram) or placebo. The primary outcome, termed adapted JIA ACR 30 response, was defined as improvement of 30% or more in at least three of the six core criteria for JIA, worsening of more than 30% in no more than one of the criteria, and resolution of fever. In trial 2, after 32 weeks of open-label treatment with canakinumab, patients who had a response and underwent glucocorticoid tapering were randomly assigned to continued treatment with canakinumab or to placebo. The primary outcome was time to flare of systemic JIA. RESULTS: At day 15 in trial 1, more patients in the canakinumab group had an adapted JIA ACR 30 response (36 of 43 [84%], vs. 4 of 41 [10%] in the placebo group; P<0.001). In trial 2, among the 100 patients (of 177 in the open-label phase) who underwent randomization in the withdrawal phase, the risk of flare was lower among patients who continued to receive canakinumab than among those who were switched to placebo (74% of patients in the canakinumab group had no flare, vs. 25% in the placebo group, according to Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio, 0.36; P=0.003). The average glucocorticoid dose was reduced from 0.34 to 0.05 mg per kilogram per day, and glucocorticoids were discontinued in 42 of 128 patients (33%). The macrophage activation syndrome occurred in 7 patients; infections were more frequent with canakinumab than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These two phase 3 studies show the efficacy of canakinumab in systemic JIA with active systemic features. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00889863 and NCT00886769.).