An Orally Active Galectin-3 Antagonist Inhibits Lung Adenocarcinoma Growth and Augments Response to PD-L1 Blockade

A combination therapy approach is required to improve tumor immune infiltration and patient response to immune checkpoint inhibitors that target negative regulatory receptors. Galectin-3 is a β-galactoside-binding lectin that is highly expressed within the tumor microenvironment of aggressive cancers and whose expression correlates with poor survival particularly in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To examine the role of galectin-3 inhibition in NSCLC, we tested the effects of galectin-3 depletion using genetic and pharmacologic approaches on syngeneic mouse lung adenocarcinoma and human lung adenocarcinoma xenografts. Galectin-3-/- mice developed significantly smaller and fewer tumors and metastases than syngeneic C57/ Bl6 wild-type mice. Macrophage ablation retarded tumor growth, whereas reconstitution with galectin-3-positive bone marrow restored tumor growth in galectin-3-/- mice, indicating that macrophages were a major driver of the antitumor response. Oral administration of a novel small molecule galectin-3 inhibitor GB1107 reduced human and mouse lung adenocarcinoma growth and blocked metastasis in the syngeneic model. Treatment with GB1107 increased tumor M1 macrophage polarization and CD8 + T-cell infiltration. Moreover, GB1107 potentiated the effects of a PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor to increase expression of cytotoxic (IFNγ, granzyme B, perforin-1, Fas ligand) and apoptotic (cleaved caspase-3) effector molecules. In summary, galectin-3 is an important regulator of lung adenocarcinoma progression. The novel galectin-3 inhibitor presented could provide an effective, nontoxic monotherapy or be used in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors to boost immune infiltration and responses in lung adenocarcinoma and potentially other aggressive cancers. Significance: A novel and orally active galectin-3 antagonist inhibits lung adenocarcinoma growth and metastasis and augments response to PD-L1 blockade

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke

How vulnerable is the alcohol and other drug treatment service sector?

Many community, health and welfare services are provided on behalf of government by non-government organisations (NGOs). For alcohol and other drug treatment, NGOs provide 70% of all treatment episodes in Australia (the remaining 30% are provided by government services). But are NGOs different from their government service provider counterparts in terms of the treatment they provide, their workforce, and the way they are funded? Understanding differences between government and NGO providers is not only important to ensure that a comprehensive suite of treatment services is available and meets individual treatment needs, but to better understand the funding arrangements that provide alcohol and other drugs treatment services with security and sustainability. This presentation will examine differences between Australian government and NGO alcohol and drug treatment providers in terms of (1) their treatment types and associated treatment settings, (2) their workforce, and (3) their procurement arrangements. We will also examine the extent to which treatment services are considered 'vulnerable'; particularly whether NGOs are more vulnerable than government providers. Understanding systematic and structural differences between these systems of care is important for future treatment planning

Are market mechanisms associated with alcohol and other drug treatment outcomes?

Background and Aims: The configuration of alcohol and other drug treatment service systems has been influenced by the uptake of market mechanisms for treatment funding and purchasing. This study measured the impact of market mechanisms for funding and purchasing alcohol and drug treatment services on client outcomes. Design: An observational cross-sectional study, employing multi-level analysis: episodes of care data, nested within person-level data, nested within treatment site and nested within organization. Setting and participants: One hundred and seventy-eight alcohol and other drug treatment service sites in Australia. Measurements: Client outcome variables were length of stay and successful treatment completion. Predictor variables were competitive tendering, number of funding contracts, recurrent funding, the ratio of episodes to staff, type of professions, years of clinical experience, staff turnover and type of provider (government; non-government). Analyses controlled for drug type, type of treatment received and client characteristics. Findings: There were no significant associations between the procurement and contracting variables and length of stay [incidence rate ratios (IRRs) ranged between 1.01 and 1.07, all P &gt; 0.05; Bayes factors (BF)  0.05; Bayes factors (BF) P &gt; 0.05, BF = 0.51-0.63]. Having an alcohol and other drug (AOD) work-force relative to an 'other' work-force (IRR = 0.79,  0.05, BF = 0.51-0.63]. Having an alcohol and other drug (AOD) work-force relative to an 'other' work-force (IRR = 0.79, P = 0.021) and lower case-loads (IRR = 0.99, P = 0.047) may be associated with longer stay in treatment. Receiving services from a government compared to non-government provider may also be associated with less treatment completion (OR = 0.34, P = 0.023, BF = 2.14). Conclusions: There appears to be no association between client outcomes and procurement and funding contract arrangements for alcohol and drug treatment services

Resistance to anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 : galectin-3 inhibition with GB1211 reverses galectin-3-induced blockade of pembrolizumab and atezolizumab binding to PD-1/PD-L1

BACKGROUND: Galectin-3 (Gal-3) is a β-galactoside-binding lectin that is highly expressed within the tumor microenvironment of aggressive cancers and has been suggested to predict a poor response to immune checkpoint therapy with the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab. We aimed to assess if the effect of Gal-3 was a result of direct interaction with the immune checkpoint receptor.METHODS: The ability of Gal-3 to interact with the PD-1/PD-L1 complex in the absence and presence of blocking antibodies was assessed in in vitro biochemical and cellular assays as well as in an in vivo syngeneic mouse cancer model. RESULTS: Gal-3 reduced the binding of the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1), by potentiating the interaction between the PD-1/PD-L1 complex. In the presence of a highly selective Gal-3 small molecule inhibitor (GB1211) the binding of the anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 therapeutics was restored to control levels. This was observed in both a surface plasmon resonance assay measuring protein-protein interactions and via flow cytometry. Combination therapy with GB1211 and an anti-PD-L1 blocking antibody reduced tumor growth in an in vivo syngeneic model and increased the percentage of tumor infiltrating T lymphocytes. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that Gal-3 can potentiate the PD-1/PD-L1 immune axis and potentially contribute to the immunosuppressive signalling mechanisms within the tumor microenvironment. In addition, Gal-3 prevents atezolizumab and pembrolizumab target engagement with their respective immune checkpoint receptors. Reversal of this effect with the clinical candidate GB1211 offers a potential enhancing combination therapeutic with anti-PD-1 and -PD-L1 blocking antibodies

Regional differences between people who inject drugs in an HIV prevention trial integrating treatment and prevention (HPTN 074): a baseline analysis.

IntroductionPeople who inject drugs (PWID) experience high HIV incidence and face significant barriers to engagement in HIV care and substance use treatment. Strategies for HIV treatment as prevention and substance use treatment present unique challenges in PWID that may vary regionally. Understanding differences in the risk structure for HIV transmission and disease progression among PWID is essential in developing and effectively targeting intervention strategies of HIV treatment as prevention.MethodsWe present a baseline analysis of HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074, a two-arm, randomized controlled trial among PWID in Indonesia (n = 258), Ukraine (n = 457) and Vietnam (n = 439). HPTN 074 was designed to determine the feasibility, barriers and uptake of an integrated intervention combining health systems navigation and psychosocial counselling for the early engagement of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and substance use treatment for PWID living with HIV. Discordant PWID networks were enrolled, consisting of an HIV-positive index and their HIV-negative network injection partner(s). Among the enrolled cohort of 1154 participants (502 index participants and 652 network partners), we examine regional differences in the baseline risk structure, including sociodemographics, HIV and substance use treatment history, and injection and sexual risk behaviours.ResultsThe majority of participants were male (87%), with 82% of the enrolled females coming from Ukraine. The overall mean age was 34 (IQR: 30, 38). Most commonly injected substances included illegally manufactured methadone in Ukraine (84.2%), and heroin in Indonesia (81.8%) and Vietnam (99.5%). Injection network sizes varied by region: median number of people with whom participants self-reported injecting drugs was 3 (IQR: 2, 5) in Indonesia, 5 (IQR: 3, 10) in Ukraine and 3 (IQR: 2, 4) in Vietnam. Hazardous alcohol use, assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C), was prominent in Ukraine (54.7%) and Vietnam (26.4%). Reported sexual risk behaviours in the past month, including having two or more sex partners and giving/receiving money or drugs in exchange for sex, were uncommon among all participants and regions.ConclusionsWhile regional differences in risk structure exist, PWID particularly in Ukraine need immediate attention for risk reduction strategies. Substantial regional differences in risk structure will require flexible, tailored treatment as prevention interventions for distinct PWID populations

Regional differences between people who inject drugs in an HIV prevention trial integrating treatment and prevention (HPTN 074): a baseline analysis.

IntroductionPeople who inject drugs (PWID) experience high HIV incidence and face significant barriers to engagement in HIV care and substance use treatment. Strategies for HIV treatment as prevention and substance use treatment present unique challenges in PWID that may vary regionally. Understanding differences in the risk structure for HIV transmission and disease progression among PWID is essential in developing and effectively targeting intervention strategies of HIV treatment as prevention.MethodsWe present a baseline analysis of HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074, a two-arm, randomized controlled trial among PWID in Indonesia (n = 258), Ukraine (n = 457) and Vietnam (n = 439). HPTN 074 was designed to determine the feasibility, barriers and uptake of an integrated intervention combining health systems navigation and psychosocial counselling for the early engagement of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and substance use treatment for PWID living with HIV. Discordant PWID networks were enrolled, consisting of an HIV-positive index and their HIV-negative network injection partner(s). Among the enrolled cohort of 1154 participants (502 index participants and 652 network partners), we examine regional differences in the baseline risk structure, including sociodemographics, HIV and substance use treatment history, and injection and sexual risk behaviours.ResultsThe majority of participants were male (87%), with 82% of the enrolled females coming from Ukraine. The overall mean age was 34 (IQR: 30, 38). Most commonly injected substances included illegally manufactured methadone in Ukraine (84.2%), and heroin in Indonesia (81.8%) and Vietnam (99.5%). Injection network sizes varied by region: median number of people with whom participants self-reported injecting drugs was 3 (IQR: 2, 5) in Indonesia, 5 (IQR: 3, 10) in Ukraine and 3 (IQR: 2, 4) in Vietnam. Hazardous alcohol use, assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C), was prominent in Ukraine (54.7%) and Vietnam (26.4%). Reported sexual risk behaviours in the past month, including having two or more sex partners and giving/receiving money or drugs in exchange for sex, were uncommon among all participants and regions.ConclusionsWhile regional differences in risk structure exist, PWID particularly in Ukraine need immediate attention for risk reduction strategies. Substantial regional differences in risk structure will require flexible, tailored treatment as prevention interventions for distinct PWID populations