Cloning and sequencing of the tuf genes of Streptomyces coelicolor A3(2)

Microbial Biotechnolog

Elimination of Schistosoma mansoni Adult Worms by Rhesus Macaques: Basis for a Therapeutic Vaccine?

Infection with blood-dwelling schistosome worms is a major cause of human disease in many tropical countries. Despite intensive efforts a vaccine has proved elusive, not least because the chronic nature of the infection provides few pointers for vaccine development. The rhesus macaque appears unique among animal models in that adult worms establish but are eventually lost. We investigated whether this was due to pathological or immunological causes by monitoring the fate of a schistosome infection, and were able to rule out escape of worms from the portal system as a result of egg-induced vascular shunts. A substantial worm population established in all animals but there was a wide variation in the numbers recovered at 18 weeks. We observed a strong inverse association between the rapidity and intensity of the IgG response and worm burden. Rather than an acute lethal attack, immune-mediated elimination of worms appeared to be a prolonged process directed against vital components of exposed surfaces, causing worms to starve to death. We suggest that if the mechanisms deployed by the rhesus macaque could be replicated in humans by administration of key recombinant antigens, they would form the basis for a vaccine with both prophylactic and therapeutic properties

Enzalutamide Reduces Oxycodone Exposure in Men with Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Up to 90% of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) will develop symptomatic bone metastases requiring pain medication, with opioids being the mainstay of therapy in treating moderate and severe pain. Enzalutamide is an androgen receptor antagonist for the treatment of CRPC and a strong inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4. Hereby, enzalutamide potentially reduces the exposure of oxycodone, an opioid metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2D6. Our objective was to evaluate the potential drug-drug interaction of enzalutamide and oxycodone.METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized, open-label, two-arm parallel study was performed. All patients received a single dose of 15 mg normal-release oxycodone. Patients in the enzalutamide arm (ENZ-arm) received enzalutamide 160 mg once daily. Plasma concentrations of oxycodone and its metabolites were quantified using a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method.RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (13 ENZ-arm; 13 control arm) were enrolled in the study. Enzalutamide decreased the mean AUC 0-8 h and C max of oxycodone with, respectively, 44.7% (p &lt; 0.001) and 35.5% (p = 0.004) compared with the control arm. The AUC 0-8 h and C max of the active metabolite oxymorphone were 74.2% (p &lt; 0.001) and 56.0% (p = 0.001) lower in the ENZ-arm compared with the control arm. In contrast, AUC 0-8 h and C max of the inactive metabolites noroxycodone and noroxymorphone were significantly increased by enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of enzalutamide significantly reduced exposure to oxycodone and its active metabolite oxymorphone in men with prostate cancer. This should be taken into account when prescribing enzalutamide combined with oxycodone.</p

The impact of a 1-hour time interval between pazopanib and subsequent intake of gastric acid suppressants on pazopanib exposure

Co-treatment with gastric acid suppressants (GAS) in patients taking anticancer drugs that exhibit pH-dependant absorption may lead to decreased drug exposure and may hamper drug efficacy. In our study, we investigated whether a 1-hour time interval between subsequent intake of pazopanib and GAS could mitigate this negative effect on drug exposure. We performed an observational study in which we collected the first steady-state pazopanib trough concentration (C(min) ) levels from patients treated with pazopanib 800 mg once daily (OD) taken fasted or pazopanib 600 mg OD taken with food. All patients were advised to take GAS 1 hour after pazopanib. Patients were grouped based on the use of GAS and the geometric (GM) C(min) levels were compared between groups for each dose regimen. Additionally, the percentage of patients with exposure below the target threshold of 20.5 mg/L and the effect of the type of PPI was explored. The GM C(min) levels were lower in GAS users vs non-GAS users for both the 800 and 600 mg cohorts (23.7 mg/L [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.1-26.7] vs 28.2 mg/L [95% CI: 25.9-30.5], P = .015 and 26.0 mg/L [95% CI: 22.4-30.3] vs 33.5 mg/L [95% CI: 30.3-37.1], P = .006). Subtherapeutic exposure was more prevalent in GAS users vs non-GAS users (33.3% vs 19.5% and 29.6% vs 14%). Sub-analysis showed lower GM pazopanib C(min) in patients who received omeprazole, while minimal difference was observed in those receiving pantoprazole compared to non-users. Our research showed that a 1-hour time interval between intake of pazopanib and GAS did not mitigate the negative effect of GAS on pazopanib exposure and may hamper pazopanib efficacy

The Effect of Using Pazopanib With Food vs. Fasted on Pharmacokinetics, Patient Safety, and Preference (DIET Study)

Pazopanib is taken fasted in a fixed oral daily dose of 800 mg. We hypothesized that ingesting pazopanib with food may improve patients' comfort and reduce gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Therefore, we investigated the bioequivalent dose of pazopanib when taken with food compared with 800 mg pazopanib taken fasted. In addition, we investigated the differences in GI toxicity, patient satisfaction, and patient's preference for either intake. The intake of 600 mg pazopanib with food resulted in a bioequivalent exposure and was preferred over a standard pazopanib dose without food. No differences were seen in GI toxicities under both intake regimens. Patients seem to be more positive about their feelings about side effects and satisfaction with their therapy when pazopanib was taken with food. Forty-one of the patients (68%) preferred the intake with a continental breakfast

Third-line Life-prolonging Drug Treatment in a Real-world Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Population:Results from the Dutch Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry

Third-line life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) might not be appropriate for all metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. We developed a prognostic model and identified a high-risk subgroup in which no meaningful benefit from third-line LPDs is derived in clinical practice

Stronger induction of trained immunity by mucosal BCG or MTBVAC vaccination compared to standard intradermal vaccination

Vierboom et al. demonstrate the induction of trained immunity in blood and bone marrow monocytes after vaccination with live attenuated TB vaccines in nonhuman primates. Mucosal respiratory delivery of BCG or MTBVAC induces trained immunity more efficiently compared to standard intradermal vaccination

SWITCH : A randomised, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer

Background Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. Objectives To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. Design, setting, and participants The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). Intervention Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results and limitations In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n = 182; Su-So, n = 183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.27; p = 0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77–1.30; p = 0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. Conclusions Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC