Digoxin net secretory transport in bronchial epithelial cell layers is not exclusively mediated by P-glycoprotein/MDR1

Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are creditedThe impact of P-glycoprotein (MDR1, ABCB1) on drug disposition in the lungs as well as its presence and activity in in vitro respiratory drug absorption models remain controversial to date. Hence, we characterised MDR1 expression and the bidirectional transport of the common MDR1 probe 3H-digoxin in air-liquid interfaced (ALI) layers of normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells and of the Calu-3 bronchial epithelial cell line at different passage numbers. Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCKII) cells transfected with the human MDR1 were used as positive controls. 3H-digoxin efflux ratio (ER) was low and highly variable in NHBE layers. In contrast, ER=11.4 or 3.0 was measured in Calu-3 layers at a low or high passage number, respectively. These were, however, in contradiction with increased MDR1 protein levels observed upon passaging. Furthermore, ATP depletion and the two MDR1 inhibitory antibodies MRK16 and UIC2 had no or only a marginal impact on 3H-digoxin net secretory transport in the cell line. Our data do not support an exclusive role of MDR1 in 3H-digoxin apparent efflux in ALI Calu-3 layers and suggest the participation of an ATP-independent carrier. Identification of this transporter might provide a better understanding of drug distribution in the lungs.Peer reviewe

Charles Bonnet Syndrome:Evidence for a Generative Model in the Cortex?

Several theories propose that the cortex implements an internal model to explain, predict, and learn about sensory data, but the nature of this model is unclear. One condition that could be highly informative here is Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS), where loss of vision leads to complex, vivid visual hallucinations of objects, people, and whole scenes. CBS could be taken as indication that there is a generative model in the brain, specifically one that can synthesise rich, consistent visual representations even in the absence of actual visual input. The processes that lead to CBS are poorly understood. Here, we argue that a model recently introduced in machine learning, the deep Boltzmann machine (DBM), could capture the relevant aspects of (hypothetical) generative processing in the cortex. The DBM carries both the semantics of a probabilistic generative model and of a neural network. The latter allows us to model a concrete neural mechanism that could underlie CBS, namely, homeostatic regulation of neuronal activity. We show that homeostatic plasticity could serve to make the learnt internal model robust against e.g. degradation of sensory input, but overcompensate in the case of CBS, leading to hallucinations. We demonstrate how a wide range of features of CBS can be explained in the model and suggest a potential role for the neuromodulator acetylcholine. This work constitutes the first concrete computational model of CBS and the first application of the DBM as a model in computational neuroscience. Our results lend further credence to the hypothesis of a generative model in the brain

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

THE ROLE OF MIRABEAU IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Abstract not availabl

Towards a general model to predict energy consumption for fused filament fabrication

Additive manufacturing offers the opportunity to manufacture highly complex parts capable of providing improved performance, such as using lattice structures inside parts to reduce part weight. However, further research and development is required to improve the energy efficiency of the machinu85es, given the growing focus on sustainability and sustainable manufacturing. The purpose of this research is to address the interaction between part geometry, layer thickness, and printer type to minimize energy consumption for fused filament fabrication. This experiment was conducted with a Creality Ender 3, Monoprice MP Voxel, and Prusa i3 MK 3S + 3D printers using PLA filament, with two different part geometries and two settings for layer thickness. Active power during printing was recorded during warmup and printing. Energy consumption varied with printer type and layer thickness, while increased part complexity may lead to larger energy consumption. For printer selection, other factors may influence decision making of fused filament fabrication users such as quality and machine cost which have tradeoffs when compared to energy consumption. The first and second energy prediction models evaluated in this study had relatively large mean absolute error of 58 kJ and 29 kJ, when calculated using previously derived empirical coefficients and build time estimates calculated using slicing software, respectively. Our research suggests that improvements in the accuracy of energy prediction models are needed so such models can be applied to a range of printers. This research has implications for additive manufacturing service providers, makerspaces, as well as hobbyists who want to advance the sustainability of additive manufacturing.Open access articleThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]