Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gemcitabine, a deoxycytidine nucleoside analog, is the current standard chemotherapy used as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the pancreas, and extends life survival by 5.7 months. Advanced pancreatic cancer thus remains a highly unmet medical need and new therapeutic agents are required for this patient population. Troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) is the first unnatural L-nucleoside analog to show potent preclinical antitumor activity and is currently under clinical investigation. Troxacitabine was recently evaluated as a first-line therapy in 54 patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and gave comparable overall results to those reported with gemcitabine in recently published randomized trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The human pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell lines, AsPC-1, Capan-2, MIA PaCa-2 and Panc-1, were exposed to troxacitabine or gemcitabine alone or in combination, for 72 h, and the effects on cell growth were determined by electronic particle counting. Synergistic efficacy was determined by the isobologram and combination-index methods of Chou and Talalay. Mechanistic studies addressed incorporation of troxacitabine into DNA and intracellular levels of troxacitabine and gemcitabine metabolites. For <it>in vivo </it>studies, we evaluated the effect of both drugs, alone and in combination, on the growth of established human pancreatic (AsPC-1) tumors implanted subcutaneously in nude mice. Statistical analysis was calculated by a one-way ANOVA with Dunnett as a post-test and the two-tailed unpaired <it>t </it>test using GraphPad prism software.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Synergy, evaluated using the CalcuSyn Software, was observed in all four cell-lines at multiple drug concentrations resulting in combination indices under 0.7 at Fa of 0.5 (50% reduction of cell growth). The effects of drug exposures on troxacitabine and gemcitabine nucleotide pools were analyzed, and although gemcitabine reduced phosphorylation of troxacitabine when cells were exposed at equal drug concentrations, there was no effect on phosphorylated pools at drug combinations that were synergistic. The amount of troxacitabine incorporated into DNA was also not affected by the presence of gemcitabine. <it>In vivo </it>testing against a human pancreatic (AsPC-1) xenograft mouse tumor model indicated that both drugs were more than additive at well-tolerated doses and schedule. The biological basis for this synergy is unclear as we did not observe changes in apoptosis, DNA repair, troxacitabine incorporation into DNA or troxacitabine metabolism in the presence of gemcitabine.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These data, together with phase I clinical data showing tolerability of both agents when combined, suggest combination therapy with troxacitabine and gemcitabine warrants further evaluation in advanced pancreatic cancer patients.</p

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Boundary control and observation of some one-dimensional vibrating structures : regularity and stabilization

SIGLEAvailable at INIST (FR), Document Supply Service, under shelf-number : 14802 E, issue : a.1991 n.1382 / INIST-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et TechniqueFRFranc

Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer-4

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/121</p><p>BMC Cancer 2007;7():121-121.</p><p>Published online 3 Jul 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1948004.</p><p></p>aCa-2, AsPc-1 and Capan-2 cells. The individual doses of gemcitabine and troxacitabine to achieve 90% (straight line) growth inhibition (Fa = 0.90), 75% (hyphenated line) growth inhibition (Fa = 0.75), and 50% (dotted line) growth inhibition (Fa = 0.50) were plotted on the x- and y-axes. Combination index (CI) values calculated using Calcusyn software is represented by points above (indicate antagonism between drugs) or below the lines (indicate synergy). (X symbol) ED(plus sign) EDand (open dotted circle ) ED

Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer-1

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/121</p><p>BMC Cancer 2007;7():121-121.</p><p>Published online 3 Jul 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1948004.</p><p></p>aCa-2, AsPc-1 and Capan-2 cells. The individual doses of gemcitabine and troxacitabine to achieve 90% (straight line) growth inhibition (Fa = 0.90), 75% (hyphenated line) growth inhibition (Fa = 0.75), and 50% (dotted line) growth inhibition (Fa = 0.50) were plotted on the x- and y-axes. Combination index (CI) values calculated using Calcusyn software is represented by points above (indicate antagonism between drugs) or below the lines (indicate synergy). (X symbol) ED(plus sign) EDand (open dotted circle ) ED

Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer-3

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/121</p><p>BMC Cancer 2007;7():121-121.</p><p>Published online 3 Jul 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1948004.</p><p></p>xacitabine or gemcitabine either alone or in combination at a ratio of 1:100 of gemcitabine vs. troxacitabine, for 72 h, after which cells were harvested by trypsinization and their numbers determined using electronic particle counting. Each data point represents the mean ± SD of three determinations. Gemcitabine (open squares), troxacitabine (open inverted triangle), gemcitabine + troxacitabine (open circle). The GIvalues for exposures to troxacitabine and gemcitabine alone are given in Table 2

Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer-0

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Synergistic activity of troxacitabine (Troxatyl™) and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/121</p><p>BMC Cancer 2007;7():121-121.</p><p>Published online 3 Jul 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1948004.</p><p></p>xacitabine or gemcitabine either alone or in combination at a ratio of 1:100 of gemcitabine vs. troxacitabine, for 72 h, after which cells were harvested by trypsinization and their numbers determined using electronic particle counting. Each data point represents the mean ± SD of three determinations. Gemcitabine (open squares), troxacitabine (open inverted triangle), gemcitabine + troxacitabine (open circle). The GIvalues for exposures to troxacitabine and gemcitabine alone are given in Table 2

Tackling hypo and hyper sensory processing heterogeneity in autism: From clinical stratification to genetic pathways

International audienceAs an integral part of autism spectrum symptoms, sensory processing issues including both hypo and hyper sensory sensitivities. These sensory specificities may result from an excitation/inhibition imbalance with a poorly understood of their level of convergence with genetic alterations in GABA-ergic and glutamatergic pathways. In our study, we aimed to characterize the hypo/hyper-sensory profile among autistic individuals. We then explored its link with the burden of deleterious mutations in a subset of individuals with available whole-genome sequencing data. To characterize the hypo/hyper-sensory profile, the differential Short Sensory Profile (dSSP) was defined as a normalized and centralized hypo/hypersensitivity ratio from the Short Sensory Profile (SSP). Including 1136 participants (533 autistic individuals, 210 first-degree relatives, and 267 controls) from two independent study samples (PARIS and LEAP), we observed a statistically significant dSSP mean difference between autistic individuals and controls, driven mostly by a high dSSP variability, with an intermediated profile represented by relatives. Our genetic analysis tended to associate the dSSP and the hyposensitivity with mutations of the GABAergic pathway. The major limitation was the dSSP difficulty to discriminate subjects with a similar quantum of hypo- and hyper-sensory symptoms to those with no such symptoms, resulting both in a similar ratio score of 0. However, the dSSP could be a relevant clinical score, and combined with additional sensory descriptions, genetics and endophenotypic substrates, will improve the exploration of the underlying neurobiological mechanisms of sensory processing differences in autism spectrum

Tackling hypo and hyper sensory processing heterogeneity in autism: From clinical stratification to genetic pathways

International audienceAs an integral part of autism spectrum symptoms, sensory processing issues including both hypo and hyper sensory sensitivities. These sensory specificities may result from an excitation/inhibition imbalance with a poorly understood of their level of convergence with genetic alterations in GABA-ergic and glutamatergic pathways. In our study, we aimed to characterize the hypo/hyper-sensory profile among autistic individuals. We then explored its link with the burden of deleterious mutations in a subset of individuals with available whole-genome sequencing data. To characterize the hypo/hyper-sensory profile, the differential Short Sensory Profile (dSSP) was defined as a normalized and centralized hypo/hypersensitivity ratio from the Short Sensory Profile (SSP). Including 1136 participants (533 autistic individuals, 210 first-degree relatives, and 267 controls) from two independent study samples (PARIS and LEAP), we observed a statistically significant dSSP mean difference between autistic individuals and controls, driven mostly by a high dSSP variability, with an intermediated profile represented by relatives. Our genetic analysis tended to associate the dSSP and the hyposensitivity with mutations of the GABAergic pathway. The major limitation was the dSSP difficulty to discriminate subjects with a similar quantum of hypo- and hyper-sensory symptoms to those with no such symptoms, resulting both in a similar ratio score of 0. However, the dSSP could be a relevant clinical score, and combined with additional sensory descriptions, genetics and endophenotypic substrates, will improve the exploration of the underlying neurobiological mechanisms of sensory processing differences in autism spectrum