Applying Genomic and Bioinformatic Resources to Human Adenovirus Genomes for Use in Vaccine Development and for Applications in Vector Development for Gene Delivery

Technological advances and increasingly cost-effect methodologies in DNA sequencing and computational analysis are providing genome and proteome data for human adenovirus research. Applying these tools, data and derived knowledge to the development of vaccines against these pathogens will provide effective prophylactics. The same data and approaches can be applied to vector development for gene delivery in gene therapy and vaccine delivery protocols. Examination of several field strain genomes and their analyses provide examples of data that are available using these approaches. An example of the development of HAdV-B3 both as a vaccine and also as a vector is presented

Vaccine innovation, translational research and the management of knowledge accumulation

What does it take to translate research into socially beneficial technologies like vaccines? Current policy that focuses on expanding research or strengthening incentives overlooks how the supply and demand of innovation is mediated by problem-solving processes that generate knowledge which is often fragmented and only locally valid. This paper details some of the conditions that allow fragmented, local knowledge to accumulate through a series of structured steps from the artificial simplicity of the laboratory to the complexity of real world application. Poliomyelitis is used as an illustrative case to highlight the importance of experimental animal models and the extent of co-ordination that can be required if they are missing. Implications for the governance and management of current attempts to produce vaccines for HIV, TB and Malaria are discussed. Article Outlin

The Fight against the Influenza A Virus H1N1: Synthesis, Molecular Modeling, and Biological Evaluation of Benzofurazan Derivatives as Viral RNA Polymerase Inhibitors

n/

Efficacy of fixed-dose amlodipine and losartan combination compared with amlodipine monotherapy in stage 2 hypertension: a randomized, double blind, multicenter study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this trial was to compare the blood-pressure lowering efficacy of amlodipine/losartan combination with amlodipine monotherapy after 6 weeks of treatment in Korean patients with stage 2 hypertension.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this multi-center, double-blind, randomized study, adult patients (n = 148) with stage 2 hypertension were randomized to amlodipine 5 mg/losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. After 2 weeks, patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg were titrated to amlodipine 10 mg/losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 10 mg. After 4 weeks of titration, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg could be optionally added to both groups. The change from baseline in SBP was assessed after 6 weeks. The responder rate (defined as achieving SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg) was also assessed at 2, 6 and 8 weeks as secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were assessed through adverse event monitoring and laboratory testing. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. Least-square mean reduction in SBP at 6 weeks (primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the combination group (36.5 mmHg vs. 31.6 mmHg; p = 0.0117). The responder rate in SBP (secondary endpoints) was significantly higher in the combination group at 2 weeks (52.1% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.0213) but not at 6 weeks (p = 0.0550) or 8 weeks (p = 0.0592). There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of adverse events.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results demonstrate that combination amlodipine/losartan therapy provides an effective and generally well-tolerated first line therapy for reducing blood pressure in stage 2 hypertensive patients.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01127217">NCT01127217</a></p

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What has been Investigated and What is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications to: 1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and 2) twenty-four alternative products: cytisine (novel outside of central and eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John’s wort), silver acetate, nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), opioid antagonist, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDA), dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six criteria are used: relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients), and relative ease of use (ESCUSE). Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials, however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety and being of low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered

Managing multimorbidity in primary care in patients with chronic respiratory conditions

The term multimorbidity is usually defined as the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions within an individual, whereas the term comorbidity traditionally describes patients with an index condition and one or more additional conditions. Multimorbidity of chronic conditions markedly worsens outcomes in patients, increases treatment burden and increases health service costs. Although patients with chronic respiratory disease often have physical comorbidities, they also commonly experience psychological problems such as depression and anxiety. Multimorbidity is associated with increased health-care utilisation and specifically with an increased number of prescription drugs in individuals with multiple chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine Education Section case study involves a patient in a primary care consultation presenting several common diseases prevalent in people of this age. The patient takes nine different drugs at this moment, one or more pills for each condition, which amounts to polypharmacy. The problems related with polypharmacy recommend that a routine medication review by primary care physicians be performed to reduce the risk of adverse effects of polypharmacy among those with multiple chronic conditions. The primary care physician has the challenging role of integrating all of the clinical problems affecting the patient and reviewing all medicaments (including over-the-counter medications) taken by the patient at any point in time, and has the has the key to prevent the unwanted consequences of polypharmacy. Multimorbid chronic disease management can be achieved with the use of care planning, unified disease templates, use of information technology with appointment reminders and with the help of the wider primary care and community teams