WF10 Stimulates NK Cell Cytotoxicity by Increasing LFA-1-Mediated Adhesion to Tumor Cells

The redox-active chlorite-based drug WF10 (Immunokine) was shown to have modulatory effects on both the innate and adaptive immune system in vitro and in vivo. Animal studies suggest that WF10 enhances immunity against tumors. One possible explanation for such an effect is that WF10 stimulates natural killer cell cytotoxicity against malignant cells. Here, we show that WF10 regulates human NK cell cytotoxicity in a time-dependent manner, following an S-shaped kinetic with an initial stimulation of activity followed by a decrease in activity relative to the untreated controls. WF10 does not activate NK cells on its own but co-stimulates NK cell activation mediated by different activating receptors. This is mediated by enhancing NK cell adhesion to target cells through promoting the activation of the integrin LFA-1. These data demonstrate a direct effect of WF10 on the cytotoxicity of human NK cells

Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Treatment of CNS Injury

Brain and spinal cord injuries present significant therapeutic challenges. The treatments available for these conditions are largely ineffective, partly due to limitations in directly targeting the therapeutic agents to sites of pathology within the central nervous system (CNS). The use of stem cells to treat these conditions presents a novel therapeutic strategy. A variety of stem cell treatments have been examined in animal models of CNS trauma. Many of these studies have used stem cells as a cell-replacement strategy. These investigations have also highlighted the significant limitations of this approach. Another potential strategy for stem cell therapy utilises stem cells as a delivery mechanism for therapeutic molecules. This review surveys the literature relevant to the potential of mesenchymal stem cells for delivery of therapeutic agents in CNS trauma in humans

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

New palladium catalysed reactions of bromoporphyrins: synthesis and crystal structures of nickel(II) complexes of primary 5-aminoporphyrin, 5,5’-bis(porphyrinyl) secondary amine, and 5-hydroxyporphyrin

Primary aminoporphyrin, secondary bis(porphyrinyl)amine and hydroxyporphyrin complexes have been isolated and characterised both spectroscopically and crystallographically from the reaction of 5-bromo-10,15,20-triphenylporphyrinato-nickel(II) with hydrazine under palladium catalysis

Konzeptentwicklung für ein nachhaltiges Stressmanagement

Walpuski VJ, Grab S. Konzeptentwicklung für ein nachhaltiges Stressmanagement. In: Hofmann M, Reisert L, Recknagel S, Michel F, eds. Stress-Kompass. Strategisches Stress-Management für Ihr Unternehmen aufbauen - Konzepte und Umsetzung. Bonn: ManagerSeminare-Verl.; 2015: 82-92

Psychological interventions as an alternative and add-on to antidepressant medication to prevent depressive relapse: Systematic review and meta-Analysis

Background After remission, antidepressants are often taken long term to prevent depressive relapse or recurrence. Whether psychological interventions can be a viable alternative or addition to antidepressants remains unclear. Aims To compare the effectiveness of psychological interventions as an alternative (including delivered when tapering antidepressants) or addition to antidepressants alone for preventing depressive relapse. Method Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched from inception until 13 October 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with previously depressed patients in (partial) remission where preventive psychological interventions with or without antidepressants (including tapering) were compared with antidepressant control were included. Data were extracted independently from published trials. A random-effects meta-Analysis on time to relapse (hazard ratio, HR) and risk of relapse (risk ratio, RR) at the last point of follow-up was conducted. PROSPERO ID: CRD42017055301. Results Among 11 included trials (n = 1559), we did not observe an increased risk of relapse for participants receiving a psychological intervention while tapering antidepressants versus antidepressants alone (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.25; P = 0.85). Psychological interventions added to antidepressants significantly reduced the risk of relapse (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97; P = 0.01) compared with antidepressants alone. Conclusions This study found no evidence to suggest that adding a psychological intervention to tapering increases the risk of relapse when compared with antidepressants alone. Adding a psychological intervention to antidepressant use reduces relapse risk significantly versus antidepressants alone. As neither strategy is routinely implemented these findings are relevant for patients, clinicians and guideline developers