Activity of mevalonate pathway inhibitors against breast and ovarian cancers in the ATP-based tumour chemosensitivity assay

Previous data suggest that lipophilic statins such as fluvastatin and N-bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid, both inhibitors of the mevalonate metabolic pathway, have anti-cancer effects in vitro and in patients. We have examined the effect of fluvastatin alone and in combination with zoledronic acid in the ATP-based tumour chemosensitivity assay (ATP-TCA) for effects on breast and ovarian cancer tumour-derived cells. Both zoledronic acid and fluvastatin showed activity in the ATP-TCA against breast and ovarian cancer, though fluvastatin alone was less active, particularly against breast cancer. The combination of zoledronic acid and fluvastatin was more active than either single agent in the ATP-TCA with some synergy against breast and ovarian cancer tumour-derived cells. Sequential drug experiments showed that pre-treatment of ovarian tumour cells with fluvastatin resulted in decreased sensitivity to zoledronic acid. Addition of mevalonate pathway components with zoledronic acid with or without fluvastatin showed little effect, while mevalonate did reduced inhibition due to fluvastatin. These data suggest that the combination of zoledronic acid and fluvastatin may have activity against breast and ovarian cancer based on direct anti-cancer cell effects. A clinical trial to test this is in preparation

Open-label study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole and haloperidol in the treatment of pediatric tic disorders

Due to its unique pharmacodynamic properties of dopamine partial agonist activity, and its association with few and mild side effects, aripiprazole is a candidate atypical antipsychotic for patients with tic disorders. This open-label study compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole with haloperidol, a typical antipsychotic widely used to treat patients with tic disorders. Forty-eight children and adolescents with tic disorders were recruited from the outpatient clinic at South Korea and treated with aripiprazole (initial dose, 5.0 mg/d; maximum dose 20 mg/d) or haloperidol (initial dose, 0.75 mg/d; maximum dose, 4.5 mg/d) for 8 weeks. Treatment efficacy was measured using the yale global tic severity scale (YGTSS), and tolerability was measured using the extrapyramidal symptom rating scale (ESRS) and an adverse effects checklist. Total tic scores as measured by the YGTSS decreased over time in both groups (p < 0.001) without any significant differences between groups. ESRS scores were significantly higher in the haloperidol group during the 4 weeks after commencement of medication (p < 0.05). These results indicate that aripiprazole may be a promising drug in the treatment of children and adolescents with tic disorders. Further controlled studies are needed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole in these patients

European clinical guidelines for Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders. Part II: pharmacological treatment

To develop a European guideline on pharmacologic treatment of Tourette syndrome (TS) the available literature was thoroughly screened and extensively discussed by a working group of the European Society for the Study of Tourette syndrome (ESSTS). Although there are many more studies on pharmacotherapy of TS than on behavioral treatment options, only a limited number of studies meets rigorous quality criteria. Therefore, we have devised a two-stage approach. First, we present the highest level of evidence by reporting the findings of existing Cochrane reviews in this field. Subsequently, we provide the first comprehensive overview of all reports on pharmacological treatment options for TS through a MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE search for all studies that document the effect of pharmacological treatment of TS and other tic disorders between 1970 and November 2010. We present a summary of the current consensus on pharmacological treatment options for TS in Europe to guide the clinician in daily practice. This summary is, however, rather a status quo of a clinically helpful but merely low evidence guideline, mainly driven by expert experience and opinion, since rigorous experimental studies are scarce