A rapidly changing landscape of antiretrovirals and their procurement at scale has permitted the evaluation of new optimised second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries. D2EFT is an open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority phase IIIB/IV trial in people living with HIV-1 (PWH) whose first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART is failing. At inception, it compared a standard of care of boosted darunavir with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) to the novel NRTI-sparing regimen of boosted darunavir with dolutegravir. Implemented in 2017, participating sites were across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Around the time of implementation, the World Health Organization updated its treatment guidelines and recommended scaling up tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-lamivudine-dolutegravir (TLD). This situation pushed D2EFT investigators to consider the impact of the roll-out of TLD on the D2EFT research question. The protocol team agreed it was important to study TLD in second-line when an NNRTI regimen was failing, and focused on options to expedite the work by studying the question within the existing trial and network. All key issues (statistical, programmatic and financial) were reviewed to assess the benefits and risks of adding a third arm to the ongoing study, as opposed to developing a new randomised clinical trial with the same control arm and within the same network. The development of a new trial was deemed to be longer than adding a third arm, and to create a challenging situation with two competing clinical trials at the same sites which would slow down recruitment and impair both trials. On the other hand, adding a third arm would be demanding in terms of operationalisation, increased sample size and statistical biases to control. The optimal strategy was deemed to be the addition of a third arm, arriving retrospectively at a simplified multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design to achieve statistical validity. The D2EFT study maintains additional value in a quickly evolving second-line ART strategy allowed by the progress in global access to ART.
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.