Potencies of human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors in vitro against Plasmodium falciparum and in vivo against murine malaria

Parasite resistance to antimalarial drugs is a serious threat to human health, and novel agents that act on enzymes essential for parasite metabolism, such as proteases, are attractive targets for drug development. Recent studies have shown that clinically utilized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors can inhibit the in vitro growth of Plasmodium falciparum at or below concentrations found in human plasma after oral drug administration. The most potent in vitro antimalarial effects have been obtained for parasites treated with saquinavir, ritonavir, or lopinavir, findings confirmed in this study for a genetically distinct P. falciparum line (3D7). To investigate the potential in vivo activity of antiretroviral protease inhibitors (ARPIs) against malaria, we examined the effect of ARPI combinations in a murine model of malaria. In mice infected with Plasmodium chabaudi AS and treated orally with ritonavir-saquinavir or ritonavir-lopinavir, a delay in patency and a significant attenuation of parasitemia were observed. Using modeling and ligand docking studies we examined putative ligand binding sites of ARPIs in aspartyl proteases of P. falciparum (plasmepsins II and IV) and P. chabaudi (plasmepsin) and found that these in silico analyses support the antimalarial activity hypothesized to be mediated through inhibition of these enzymes. In addition, in vitro enzyme assays demonstrated that P. falciparum plasmepsins II and IV are both inhibited by the ARPIs saquinavir, ritonavir, and lopinavir. The combined results suggest that ARPIs have useful antimalarial activity that may be especially relevant in geographical regions where HIV and P. falciparum infections are both endemic.

Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better?

How can empirical evidence of adverse effects from exposure to noxious agents, which is often incomplete and uncertain, be used most appropriately to protect human health? We examine several important questions on the best uses of empirical evidence in regulatory risk management decision-making raised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s science-policy concerning uncertainty and variability in human health risk assessment. In our view, the US EPA (and other agencies that have adopted similar views of risk management) can often improve decision-making by decreasing reliance on default values and assumptions, particularly when causation is uncertain. This can be achieved by more fully exploiting decision-theoretic methods and criteria that explicitly account for uncertain, possibly conflicting scientific beliefs and that can be fully studied by advocates and adversaries of a policy choice, in administrative decision-making involving risk assessment. The substitution of decision-theoretic frameworks for default assumption-driven policies also allows stakeholder attitudes toward risk to be incorporated into policy debates, so that the public and risk managers can more explicitly identify the roles of risk-aversion or other attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in policy recommendations. Decision theory provides a sound scientific way explicitly to account for new knowledge and its effects on eventual policy choices. Although these improvements can complicate regulatory analyses, simplifying default assumptions can create substantial costs to society and can prematurely cut off consideration of new scientific insights (e.g., possible beneficial health effects from exposure to sufficiently low 'hormetic' doses of some agents). In many cases, the administrative burden of applying decision-analytic methods is likely to be more than offset by improved effectiveness of regulations in achieving desired goals. Because many foreign jurisdictions adopt US EPA reasoning and methods of risk analysis, it may be especially valuable to incorporate decision-theoretic principles that transcend local differences among jurisdictions.

Dominance hierarchies and health: Constructing personal zones of spiritual power and healing in modern medicine

Ethological studies of animals in groups and sociobiology indicate that hierarchies of dominance amongst some species ensure the survival of the group. When transferred to human groups, dominance hierarchies suggest a crucial role played by recasting the scope of such hierarchies of dominant and subordinate members to included hyper-dominant beings. A recognition of such beings as even more dominant than the socially dominant members of a hierarchy facilitates the empowerment of the socially subordinate members. Religious belief and practice works to establish such hyper-dominant beings (gods, goddesses, and so forth) as superior members of human groups. Doing so is a means of ensuring the survival of the species and, thus, enhancing healing and human health. The doctor-patient relationship is examined from such a point of view, with an emphasis on whether the hierarchy created by the relationship allows consideration of alternative and complementary forms of medical treatment.