Adding 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3 antagonists may reduce drug-induced nausea in poor insight obsessive-compulsive patients taking off-label doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a 52-week follow-up case report

Poor-insight obsessive-compulsive disorder (PI-OCD) is a severe form of OCD where the 'typically obsessive' features of intrusive, 'egodystonic' feelings and thoughts are absent. PI-OCD is difficult to treat, often requiring very high doses of serotonergic drugs as well as antipsychotic augmentation. When this occurs, unpleasant side effects as nausea are common, eventually further reducing compliance to medication and increasing the need for pharmacological alternatives. We present the case of a PI-OCD patient who developed severe nausea after response to off-label doses of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), fluoxetine. Drug choices are discussed, providing pharmacodynamic rationales and hypotheses along with reports of rating scale scores, administered within a follow-up period of 52 weeks. A slight reduction of fluoxetine dose, augmentation with mirtazapine and a switch from amisulpride to olanzapine led to resolution of nausea while preserving the anti-OCD therapeutic effect. Mirtazapine and olanzapine have already been suggested for OCD treatment, although a lack of evidence exists about their role in the course of PI-OCD. Both mirtazapine and olanzapine also act as 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3 (5-HT3) blockers, making them preferred choices especially in cases of drug-induced nausea

Annexin A2 antibodies but not inhibitors of the annexin A2 heterotetramer impair productive HIV-1 infection of macrophages in vitro

During sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), macrophages are initial targets for HIV infection. Secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI) has been shown to protect against HIV infection of macrophages through interactions with annexin A2 (A2), which is found on the macrophage cell surface as a heterotetramer (A2t) consisting of A2 and S100A10. Therefore, we investigated potential protein-protein interactions between A2 and HIV-1 gp120 through a series of co-immunoprecipitation assays and a single molecule pulldown (SiMPull) technique. Additionally, inhibitors of A2t (A2ti) that target the interaction between A2 and S100A10 were tested for their ability to impair productive HIV-1 infection of macrophages. Our data suggest that interactions between HIV-1 gp120 and A2 exist, though this interaction may be indirect. Furthermore, an anti-A2 antibody impaired HIV-1 particle production in macrophages in vitro, whereas A2ti did not indicating that annexin A2 may promote HIV-1 infection of macrophages in its monomeric rather than tetrameric form

How to calculate the dose of chemotherapy

Body surface area-dosing does not account for the complex processes of cytotoxic drug elimination. This leads to an unpredictable variation in effect. Overdosing is easily recognised but it is possible that unrecognised underdosing is more common and may occur in 30% or more of patients receiving standard regimen. Those patients who are inadvertently underdosed are at risk of a significantly reduced anticancer effect. Using published data, it can be calculated that there is an almost 20% relative reduction in survival for women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer as a result of unrecognised underdosing. Similarly, the cure rate of cisplatin-based chemotherapy for advanced testicular cancer may be reduced by as much as 10%. The inaccuracy of body surface area-dosing is more than an inconvenience and it is important that methods for more accurate dose calculation are determined, based on the known drug elimination processes for cytotoxic chemotherapy. Twelve rules for dose calculation of chemotherapy are given that can be used as a guideline until better dose-calculation methods become available. Consideration should be given to using fixed dose guidelines independent of body surface area and based on drug elimination capability, both as a starting dose and for dose adjustment, which may have accuracy, safety and financial advantages

A novel therapeutic approach: Blocking Glioblastoma cells’ interaction with their microenvironment

Abstract Due to the highly invasive nature of Glioblastoma (GB), complete surgical resection is not feasible, while motile tumour cells are often associated with several specific brain structures that enhance treatment-resistance. Here, we investigate the therapeutic potential of Disulfiram and Carbenoxolone, that inhibit two distinct interactions between GB and the brain tissue microenvironment: stress-induced cell-matrix adhesion and gap junction mediated cell-cell communication, respectively. Increase in cell numbers of tumour-initiating cells, which are cultured in suspension as cell clusters, and adherent differentiated cells can be blocked to a similar extent by Carbenoxolone, as both cell populations form gap junctions, but the adherent differentiated cells are much more sensitive to Disulfiram treatment, which – via modulation of NF-κB signalling – interferes with cell-substrate adhesion. Interestingly, inducing adhesion in tumour-initiating cells without differentiating them does not sensitize for Disulfiram. Importantly, combining Disulfiram, Carbenoxolone and the standard chemotherapeutic drug Temozolomide reduces tumour size in an orthotopic mouse model. Isolating GB cells from their direct environment within the brain represents an important addition to current therapeutic approaches. The blockage of cellular interactions via the clinically relevant substances Disulfiram and Carbenoxolone, has distinct effects on different cell populations within a tumour, potentially reducing motility and/or resistance to apoptosis

Tumour-derived CSF2/granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor controls myeloid cell accumulation and progression of gliomas

BACKGROUND: Malignant tumours release factors, which attract myeloid cells and induce their polarisation to pro-invasive, immunosuppressive phenotypes. Brain-resident microglia and peripheral macrophages accumulate in the tumour microenvironment of glioblastoma (GBM) and induce immunosuppression fostering tumour progression. Macrophage colony stimulating factors (CSFs) control the recruitment of myeloid cells during peripheral cancer progression, but it is disputable, which CSFs drive their accumulation in gliomas. METHODS: The expression of CSF2 (encoding granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor) was determined in TCGA datasets and five human glioma cell lines. Effects of stable CSF2 knockdown in glioma cells or neutralising CSF2 or receptor CSF2Rα antibodies on glioma invasion were tested in vitro and in vivo. RESULTS: CSF2 knockdown or blockade of its signalling reduced microglia-dependent glioma invasion in microglia-glioma co-cultures. CSF2-deficient human glioma cells encapsulated in cell-impermeable hollow fibres and transplanted to mouse brains, failed to attract microglia, but stimulated astrocyte recruitment. CSF2-depleted gliomas were smaller, attracted less microglia and macrophages, and provided survival benefit in tumour-bearing mice. Apoptotic microglia/macrophages were detected in CSF2-depleted tumours. CONCLUSIONS: CSF2 is overexpressed in a subset of mesenchymal GBMs in association with high immune gene expression. Tumour-derived CSF2 attracts, supports survival and induces pro-tumorigenic polarisation of microglia and macrophages

Beyond humanization and de-immunization: tolerization as a method for reducing the immunogenicity of biologics

Immune responses to some monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and biologic proteins interfere with their efficacy due to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). In the case of mAbs, most ADA target ‘foreign’ sequences present in the complementarity determining regions (CDRs). Humanization of the mAb sequence is one approach that has been used to render biologics less foreign to the human immune system. However, fully human mAbs can also drive immunogenicity. De-immunization (removing epitopes) has been used to reduce biologic protein immunogenicity. Here, we discuss a third approach to reducing the immunogenicity of biologics: introduction of Treg epitopes that stimulate Treg function and induce tolerance to the biologic protein. Supplementing humanization (replacing xenosequences with human) and de-immunization (reducing T effector epitopes) with tolerization (introducing Treg epitopes) where feasible, as a means of improving biologics ‘quality by design’, may lead to the development of ever more clinically effective, but less immunogenic, biologics

Prediction of Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks in Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

PurposeBRCA1/2 mutations increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer in men. Common genetic variants modify cancer risks for female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We investigatedfor the first time to our knowledgeassociations of common genetic variants with breast and prostate cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations and implications for cancer risk prediction.Materials and MethodsWe genotyped 1,802 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 by using the custom Illumina OncoArray. We investigated the combined effects of established breast and prostate cancer susceptibility variants on cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by constructing weighted polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using published effect estimates as weights.ResultsIn male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, PRS that was based on 88 female breast cancer susceptibility variants was associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation of PRS, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; P = 8.6 x 10(-6)). Similarly, PRS that was based on 103 prostate cancer susceptibility variants was associated with prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per SD of PRS, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81; P = 3.2 x 10(-9)). Large differences in absolute cancer risks were observed at the extremes of the PRS distribution. For example, prostate cancer risk by age 80 years at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS varies from 7% to 26% for carriers of BRCA1 mutations and from 19% to 61% for carriers of BRCA2 mutations, respectively.ConclusionPRSs may provide informative cancer risk stratification for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations that might enable these men and their physicians to make informed decisions on the type and timing of breast and prostate cancer risk management.Peer reviewe