Infusion of Reconstituted High-Density Lipoprotein, CSL112, in Patients With Atherosclerosis: Safety and Pharmacokinetic Results From a Phase 2a Randomized Clinical Trial

Background CSL112 is a new formulation of human apolipoprotein A‐I (apoA‐I) being developed to reduce cardiovascular events following acute coronary syndrome. This phase 2a, randomized, double‐blind, multicenter, dose‐ranging trial represents the first clinical investigation to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of a CSL112 infusion among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. Methods and Results Patients were randomized to single ascending doses of CSL112 (1.7, 3.4, or 6.8 g) or placebo, administered over a 2‐hour period. Primary safety assessments consisted of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations \u3e3× upper limits of normal and study drug–related adverse events. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessments included apoA‐I plasma concentration and measures of the ability of serum to promote cholesterol efflux from cells ex vivo. Of 45 patients randomized, 7, 12, and 14 received 1.7‐, 3.4‐, and 6.8‐g CSL112, respectively, and 11 received placebo. There were no clinically significant elevations (\u3e3× upper limit of normal) in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase. Adverse events were nonserious and mild and occurred in 5 (71%), 5 (41%), and 6 (43%) patients in the CSL112 1.7‐, 3.4‐, and 6.8‐g groups, respectively, compared with 3 (27%) placebo patients. The imbalance in adverse events was attributable to vessel puncture/infusion‐site bruising. CSL112 resulted in rapid (Tmax≈2 hours) and dose‐dependent increases in apoA‐I (145% increase in the 6.8‐g group) and total cholesterol efflux (up to 3.1‐fold higher than placebo) (P\u3c0.001). Conclusions CSL112 infusion was well tolerated in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. CSL112 immediately raised apoA‐I levels and caused a rapid and marked increase in the capacity of serum to efflux cholesterol. This potential novel approach for the treatment of atherosclerosis warrants further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01499420

Clues to Neuro-Degeneration in Niemann-Pick Type C Disease from Global Gene Expression Profiling

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick Type C (NPC) disease is a neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by the accumulation of cholesterol and glycosphingolipids in the late endocytic pathway. The majority of NPC cases are due to mutations in the NPC1 gene. The precise function of this gene is not yet known. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using cDNA microarrays, we analyzed the genome-wide expression patterns of human fibroblasts homozygous for the I1061T NPC1 mutation that is characterized by a severe defect in the intracellular processing of low density lipoprotein-derived cholesterol. A distinct gene expression profile was identified in NPC fibroblasts from different individuals when compared with fibroblasts isolated from normal subjects. As expected, NPC1 mutant cells displayed an inappropriate homeostatic response to accumulated intracellular cholesterol. In addition, a number of striking parallels were observed between NPC disease and Alzheimer's disease. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Many genes involved in the trafficking and processing of amyloid precursor protein and the microtubule binding protein, tau, were more highly expressed. Numerous genes important for membrane traffic and the cellular regulation of calcium, metals and other ions were upregulated. Finally, NPC fibroblasts exhibited a gene expression profile indicative of oxidative stress. These changes are likely contributors to the pathophysiology of Niemann-Pick Type C disease

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons