The effect of aphidicolin on adenovirus DNA synthesis.

Aphidicolin inhibits adenovirus DNA replication in HeLa cells and in a cell-free, infected, nuclear extract in which viral DNA is elongated. The compound inhibits alpha DNA polymerase, extensively purified from HeLa cells, but has little or no effect on the beta or gamma DNA polymerases similarly purified. Aphidicolin does not affect thymidine uptake by cells nor does synthesis as it also inhibits DNA replication in uninfected cells. The inhibition by aphidicolin is reversible if the drug is removed within 18 hrs after addition to HeLa or Chinese Hamster Ovary cells but the cells are irreversibly affected if the drug remains for 48 hours

Completion of radical hysterectomy does not improve survival of patients with cervical cancer and intraoperatively detected lymph node involvement : ABRAX international retrospective cohort study

Background: The management of cervical cancer patients with intraoperative detection of lymph node involvement remains controversial. Since all these patients are referred for (chemo)radiation after the surgery, the key decision is whether radical hysterectomy should be completed as originally planned, taking into account an additional morbidity associated with extensive surgical dissection prior to adjuvant treatment. The ABRAX study investigated whether completing a radical uterine procedure is associated with an improved oncological outcome of such patients. Patients and methods: We performed retrospective analyses of 515 cervical cancer patients (51 institutions, 19 countries) who were referred for primary curative surgery between 2005 and 2015 (stage IA–IIB, common tumour types) in whom lymph node involvement was detected intraoperatively. Patients were stratified according to whether the planned uterine surgery was completed (COMPL group, N = 361) or abandoned (ABAND group, N = 154) to compare progression-free survival. Definitive chemoradiation was given to 92.9% patients in the ABAND group and adjuvant (chemo)radiation or chemotherapy to 91.4% of patients in the COMPL group. Results: The risks of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.154, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.799–1.666, P = 0.45), pelvic recurrence (HR 0.836, 95% CI 0.458–1.523, P = 0.56), or death (HR 1.064, 95% CI 0.690–1.641, P = 0.78) were not significantly different between the two groups. No subgroup showed a survival benefit from completing radical hysterectomy. Disease-free survival reached 74% (381/515), with a median follow-up of 58 months. Prognostic factors were balanced between the two groups. FIGO stage and number of pelvic lymph nodes involved were significant prognostic factors in the whole study cohort. Conclusion: We showed that the completion of radical hysterectomy does not improve survival in patients with intraoperatively detected lymph node involvement, regardless of tumour size or histological type. If lymph node involvement is confirmed intraoperatively, abandoning uterine radical procedure should be considered, and the patient should be referred for definitive chemoradiation. Clinical trials identifier: NCT04037124

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)