Antagonistic effects of chloroquine on autophagy occurrence potentiate the anticancer effects of everolimus on renal cancer cells

Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease often asymptomatic and weakly chemo-radiosensitive. Currently, new biologic drugs are used among which everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, that has been approved for second-line therapy. Since mTOR is involved in the control of autophagy, its antitumor capacity is often limited. In this view, chloroquine, a 4-alkylamino substituted quinoline family member, is an autophagy inhibitor that blocks the fusion of autophagosomes and lysosomes. In the present study, we evaluated the effects of everolimus alone or in combination with chloroquine on renal cancer cell viability and verified possible synergism. Our results demonstrate that renal cancer cells are differently sensitive to everolimus and chloroquine and the pharmacological combination everolimus/chloroquine was strongly synergistic inducing cell viability inhibition. In details, the pharmacological synergism occurs when chloroquine is administered before everolimus. In addition, we found a flow autophagic block and shift of death mechanisms to apoptosis. This event was associated with decrease of Beclin-1/Bcl(-)2 complex and parallel reduction of anti-apoptotic protein Bcl(-)2 in combined treatment. At last, we found that the enhancement of apoptosis induced by drug combination occurs through the intrinsic mitochondrial apoptotic pathway activation, while the extrinsic pathway is involved only partly following its activation by chloroquine. These results provide the basis for new therapeutic strategies for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma after appropriate clinical trial

The “outer dimensions”: impulsivity, anger/aggressiveness, activation

The “outer” SVARAD dimensions, impulsivity, anger/aggressiveness, and activation, represent trans-diagnostic psychological and behavioural domains that span traditional categorical boundaries. At the neurobiological level, the fronto-limbic and the fronto-cerebellar circuitry, as well as molecular pathways involving dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and inflammatory mediators, play a crucial role in mediating the biological underpinnings of these psychopathological dimensions. From a clinical perspective, as the combination of clusters of symptoms differs from patient to patient and gives rise to a wide variety of clinical pictures even among subjects with the same diagnosis, it is important that the clinical features related to impulsivity, anger, aggressiveness, and activation are specifically and multiparametrically investigated and treated. The aim of the present chapter is to discuss the psychopathological aspects, the neurobiological underpinnings, and the clinical implications related to the “outer dimensions” in clinical psychiatry

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview

Background: There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods and Findings: Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance. Conclusions: Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types