Heparin Isomeric Oligosaccharide Separation Using Volatile Salt Strong Anion Exchange Chromatography

The complexity of heparin and heparan sulfate saccharides makes their purification, including many isomeric structures, very challenging and is a bottleneck for structure–activity studies. High-resolution separations have been achieved by strong anion exchange (SAX) chromatography on Propac PA1 and cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA)-C18 silica columns; however, these entail subsequent desalting methodologies and consequent sample losses and are incompatible with orthogonal chromatography methodologies and, in particular, mass spectrometry. Here, we present the CTA-SAX purification of heparin oligosaccharides using volatile salt (VS) buffer. In VSCTA-SAX, the use of ammonium bicarbonate buffer for elution improves resolution through both weaker dissociation and conformational coordination of the ammonium across the sulfate groups. Using ion mobility mass spectrometry, we demonstrate that isomeric structures have different structural conformations, which makes chromatographic separation achievable. Resolution of such structures is improved compared to standard SAX methods, and in addition, VSCTA-SAX provides an orthogonal method to isolate saccharides with higher purity. Because ammonium bicarbonate is used, the samples can be evaporated rather than desalted, preventing substantial sample loss and allowing more effective subsequent analysis by electrospray mass spectrometry. We conclude that VSCTA-SAX is a powerful new tool that helps address the difficult challenge of heparin/heparan sulfate saccharide separation and will enhance structure–activity studies

Enrichment of Two Isomeric Heparin Oligosaccharides Exhibiting Different Affinities toward Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1

Chemokine-GAG interactions are crucial to facilitate chemokine immobilization, resulting in the formation of chemokine gradients that guide cell migration. Here we demonstrate chromatographic isolation and purification of two heparin hexasaccharide isomers that interact with the oligomeric chemokine Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 (MCP-1)/CCL2 with different binding affinities. The sequences of these two hexasaccharides were deduced from unique MS/MS product ions and HPLC compositional analysis. Ion mobility mass spectrometry (IM-MS) showed that the two isolated oligosaccharides have different conformations and both displayed preferential binding for one of the two distinct conformations known for MCP-1 dimers. A significant shift in arrival time distribution of close to 70 Å2 was observed, indicating a more compact protein:hexasaccharide conformation. Clear differences in the MS spectra between bound and unbound protein allowed calculation of Kd values from the resulting data. The structural difference between the two hexasaccharides was defined as the differential location of a single sulfate at either C-6 of glucosamine or C-2 of uronic acid in the reducing disaccharide, resulting in a 200-fold difference in binding affinity for MCP-1. These data indicate sequence specificity for high affinity binding, supporting the view that sulfate position, and not simply the number of sulfates, is important for heparan sulfate protein binding

Causes of death and demographic characteristics of victims of meteorological disasters in Korea from 1990 to 2008

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Meteorological disasters are an important component when considering climate change issues that impact morbidity and mortality rates. However, there are few epidemiological studies assessing the causes and characteristics of deaths from meteorological disasters. The present study aimed to analyze the causes of death associated with meteorological disasters in Korea, as well as demographic and geographic vulnerabilities and their changing trends, to establish effective measures for the adaptation to meteorological disasters.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Deaths associated with meteorological disasters were examined from 2,045 cases in Victim Survey Reports prepared by 16 local governments from 1990 to 2008. Specific causes of death were categorized as drowning, structural collapse, electrocution, lightning, fall, collision, landslide, avalanche, deterioration of disease by disaster, and others. Death rates were analyzed according to the meteorological type, specific causes of death, and demographic and geographic characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Drowning (60.3%) caused the greatest number of deaths in total, followed by landslide (19.7%) and structural collapse (10.1%). However, the causes of deaths differed between disaster types. The meteorological disaster associated with the greatest number of deaths has changed from flood to typhoon. Factors that raised vulnerability included living in coastal provinces (11.3 times higher than inland metropolitan), male gender (1.9 times higher than female), and older age.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Epidemiological analyses of the causes of death and vulnerability associated with meteorological disasters can provide the necessary information for establishing future adaptation measures against climate change. A more comprehensive system for assessing disaster epidemiology needs to be established.</p

Mortality within 30 days of chemotherapy: a clinical governance benchmarking issue for oncology patients

No national benchmark figures exist for early mortality due to chemotherapy unlike for surgical interventions. Deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy during a 6-month period were identified from the Royal Marsden Hospital electronic patient records. Treatment intention – curative or palliative, cause of death and number of previous treatments – were documented. Between April 2005 and September 2005, 1976 patients received chemotherapy with 161 deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy (8.1%). Of these, 124 deaths (77.0%) were due to disease progression. Of the other 37 deaths, 12 (7.5%) were related to chemotherapy, six each for solid tumours and haematological malignancies, of which seven (4.3%) were due to neutropenic sepsis. For the remaining 25 deaths (15.5%) there was insufficient information. There were more deaths after third and subsequent lines of therapy than with first and secondlines of therapy. Only 12 of the 161 deaths occurred in patients who were receiving potentially curative chemotherapy to give a mortality rate in breast and gastrointestinal malignancy of 0.5 and 1.5%, respectively. It is possible to audit mortality within 30 days of chemotherapy and this should become a benchmark for standard practice nationally. Most deaths were due to disease progression in the palliative setting. We practice this form of audit each quarter and feed back to the treating teams so that deaths are discussed and practice monitored

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Facial expressions depicting compassionate and critical emotions: the development and validation of a new emotional face stimulus set

Attachment with altruistic others requires the ability to appropriately process affiliative and kind facial cues. Yet there is no stimulus set available to investigate such processes. Here, we developed a stimulus set depicting compassionate and critical facial expressions, and validated its effectiveness using well-established visual-probe methodology. In Study 1, 62 participants rated photographs of actors displaying compassionate/kind and critical faces on strength of emotion type. This produced a new stimulus set based on N = 31 actors, whose facial expressions were reliably distinguished as compassionate, critical and neutral. In Study 2, 70 participants completed a visual-probe task measuring attentional orientation to critical and compassionate/kind faces. This revealed that participants lower in self-criticism demonstrated enhanced attention to compassionate/kind faces whereas those higher in self-criticism showed no bias. To sum, the new stimulus set produced interpretable findings using visual-probe methodology and is the first to include higher order, complex positive affect displays

Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. METHODS: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3

INTRODUCTION: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab