The dual endothelin converting enzyme/neutral endopeptidase inhibitor SLV-306 (daglutril), inhibits systemic conversion of big endothelin-1 in humans

Aims - Inhibition of neutral endopeptidases (NEP) results in a beneficial increase in plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides such as ANP. However NEP inhibitors were ineffective anti-hypertensives, probably because NEP also degrades vasoconstrictor peptides, including endothelin-1 (ET-1). Dual NEP and endothelin converting enzyme (ECE) inhibition may be more useful. The aim of the study was to determine whether SLV-306 (daglutril), a combined ECE/NEP inhibitor, reduced the systemic conversion of big ET-1 to the mature peptide. Secondly, to determine whether plasma ANP levels were increased. Main methods - Following oral administration of three increasing doses of SLV-306 (to reach an average target concentration of 75, 300, 1200 ng ml− 1 of the active metabolite KC-12615), in a randomised, double blinded regime, big ET-1 was infused into thirteen healthy male volunteers. Big ET-1 was administered at a rate of 8 and 12 pmol kg− 1 min− 1 (20 min each). Plasma samples were collected pre, during and post big ET-1 infusion. ET-1, C-terminal fragment (CTF), big ET-1, and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) were measured. Key findings - At the two highest concentrations tested, SLV-306 dose dependently attenuated the rise in blood pressure after big ET-1 infusion. There was a significant increase in circulating big ET-1 levels, compared with placebo, indicating that SLV-306 was inhibiting an increasing proportion of endogenous ECE activity. Plasma ANP concentrations also significantly increased, consistent with systemic NEP inhibition. Significance - SLV-306 leads to inhibition of both NEP and ECE in humans. Simultaneous augmentation of ANP and inhibition of ET-1 production is of potential therapeutic benefit in cardiovascular disease

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Selective β(1)-adrenoceptor blockade enhances the activity of the stimulatory G-protein in human atrial myocardium

1. Chronic selective β(1)-adrenoceptor (β(1)AR) blocker treatment enhances the sensitivity of β(2)-adrenoceptor (β(2)AR) in human heart (Hall et al., 1990; 1991). To clarify the mechanism of the cross-sensitization between β(1)AR and β(2)AR, we determined whether the stimulatory G-protein (G(s)α) function is increased in atria from β(1)AR-blocker treated patients compared with non-β-blocked patients, and investigated whether this change is caused by an alteration of post-translational modification of G(s)α protein. 2. G(s)α function was determined by reconstitution of human atrial G(s)α into S49 cyc(−) cell membranes. In the reconstitution system, GTP(γ)S stimulated cyclic AMP generation in a dose-dependent manner. Upon 10(−4) M GTP(γ)S stimulation, G(s)α activity in the β(1)AR-blocker, atenolol, treated group (78.2±10.3 pmol cyclic AMP mg(−1) min(−1) 10(−3)) was 65% higher than that in non-β-blocked patients (47.3±6.3 pmol cyclic AMP mg(−1) min(−1) 10(−3), n=15, P=0.02). 3. Isoelectric point (pI) values of G(s)α were measured by two dimensional gel electrophoresis (2D-E) and the amount of each isoform quantified by image analysis of a Western blot of the gel using specific antibody. Multiple isoforms of G(s)α were detected by 2D-E with different pI values. There were no significant differences between the groups of patients in either pI values or the proportions of the acidic isoforms of G(s)α to the main basic form (n=12, P>0.05). 4. The results suggest that chronic β(1)AR-blockade enhances G(s)α function in human atrium, and this may account in part for the hypersensitivity of β(2)AR and other G(s)-coupled receptors during β(1)AR-blockade. The increased G(s)α function is unlikely to be caused directly by blockade of protein kinase A phosphorylation of G(s)α protein

The novel product of a five-exon stargazin-related gene abolishes Ca(V)2.2 calcium channel expression

We have cloned and characterized a new member of the voltage-dependent Ca(2+) channel γ subunit family, with a novel gene structure and striking properties. Unlike the genes of other potential γ subunits identified by their homology to the stargazin gene, CACNG7 is a five-, and not four-exon gene whose mRNA encodes a protein we have designated γ(7). Expression of human γ(7) has been localized specifically to brain. N-type current through Ca(V)2.2 channels was almost abolished when co-expressed transiently with γ(7) in either Xenopus oocytes or COS-7 cells. Furthermore, immunocytochemistry and western blots show that γ(7) has this effect by causing a large reduction in expression of Ca(V)2.2 rather than by interfering with trafficking or biophysical properties of the channel. No effect of transiently expressed γ(7) was observed on pre-existing endogenous N-type calcium channels in sympathetic neurones. Low homology to the stargazin-like γ subunits, different gene structure and the unique functional properties of γ(7) imply that it represents a distinct subdivision of the family of proteins identified by their structural and sequence homology to stargazin

Identification and characterization of a novel human vanilloid receptor-like protein, VRL-2

Remarkable progress has been made recently in identifying a new gene family related to the capsaicin (vanilloid) receptor, VR1. Using a combination of in silico analysis of expressed sequence tag (EST) databases and conventional molecular cloning, we have isolated a novel vanilloid-like receptor, which we call VRL-2, from human kidney. The translated gene shares 46% and 43% identity with VR1 and VRL-1, respectively, and maps to chromosome 12q23–24.1, a locus associated with bipolar affective disorder. VRL-2 mRNA was most strongly expressed in the trachea, kidney, and salivary gland. An affinity-purified antibody against a peptide incorporating the COOH terminal of the receptor localized VRL-2 immunolabel in the distal tubules of the kidney, the epithelial linings of both trachea and lung airways, serous cells of submucosal glands, and mononuclear cells. Unlike VR1 and VRL-1, VRL-2 was not detected in cell bodies of dorsal root ganglia (DRG) or sensory nerve fibers. However, VRL-2 was found on sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve fibers, such as those innervating the arrector pili smooth muscle in skin, sweat glands, intestine, and blood vessels. At least four vanilloid receptor-like genes exist, the newest member, VRL-2 is found in airway and kidney epithelia and in the autonomic nervous system. </jats:p

Invisible Survivors: NGO-workers Reflections on Male and Female Survivors of Sexual Violence in Gulu, Northern Uganda

The objective of this thesis is to map out the NGO-practitioners reflections on male and female survivors of sexual gender based violence (SGBV), in violent “peace” post conflict Gulu, Northern Uganda. To better understand how the NGO-practitioners make sense of sexual violence, perceive its survivors and how they address the survivors’ needs. The empirical data is analysed through a gender lens, with a particular focus on masculinity and gender hierarchy. The survivors addressed are particularly those of intimate partner violence and male survivor. The study is conducted through an interview-based fieldwork. The empirical findings show how a hegemonic form of masculinity does not only oppress women, but also men whom are not able to live up to the expected masculinity. The changing gender roles (chores and characteristics) and the consequences of war are factors that hinder men to accomplish the expected masculinity. To avoid being a degraded man, some men result to violence. The NGO-workers acknowledged the existence towards male survivors, even though they mainly speak about them in reference to boys. Their openness towards male survivors is varied. The NGO-practitioners target survivors and their community with a variety of means. The main challenge the NGO-workers face is the lack of financial backing, lack of a safe place, corruption and mistrust. Key words: sexual violence, survivors, victims, masculinity, gender hierarchy, patriarchy, dominance, hegemony, NGO, Northern Uganda