Decoy bypass for appetite suppression in obese adults: role of synergistic nutrient sensing receptors GPR84 and FFAR4 on colonic endocrine cells

Objective Colonic enteroendocrine cells (EECs) store and release potent anorectic hormones that are key regulators of satiety. EECs express multiple nutrient sensing receptors, particularly for medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs): GPR84 and FFAR4. Here we show a non-surgical approach with targeted colonic delivery of MCFA, which induces EEC and neuronal activation leading to anorectic effects. Design A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study was performed in obese adults given combined GPR84 and FFAR4 agonists in colonic release capsules before meals. We measured serum hormones, energy intake and appetite perception. Cell type, activation by agonists and hormone/serotonin release were determined in human colonic explants. Mouse colonic afferent nerve responses to nutrients/mediators were recorded electrophysiologically. Results Subjects receiving GPR84 and FFAR4 agonists had reduced overall calorific intake and increased postprandial levels of PYY versus placebo. Receptors including GPR84 and FFAR4 were coexpressed on human colonic EEC. Activation of GPR84 exclusively induced intracellular pERK, whereas FFAR4 selectively activated pCaMKII. Coactivation of GPR84 and FFAR4 induced both phosphoproteins, and superadditive release of GLP-1 and PYY. Nutrients and hormones convergently activated murine colonic afterent nerves via GLP-1, Y2 and 5-HT3 receptors. Conclusions Colonic GPR84 and FFAR4 agonists reduce energy intake and increase postprandial PYY in obese adults. Human colonic EECs coexpress these receptors, which activate cells via parallel intracellular pathways and synergistically evoke hormone release. Further synergism occurs in sensory nerve responses to MCFA and EEC mediators. Thus, synergistic activation of colonic endocrine cells via nutrient receptors is an important target for metabolic regulation. Trail registration number NCT04292236

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research