Identification of lactic acid bacteria strains modulating incretin hormone secretion and gene expression in enteroendocrine cells

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) are incretin hormones released from intestinal enteroendocrine (EE) cells and have well-established glucose-lowering actions. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) colonise the human intestine, but it is unknown whether LAB and EE cells interact. Acute co-culture of LAB with EE cells showed that certain LAB strains elicit GLP-1 and GIP secretion (13-194-fold) and upregulate their gene expression. LAB-induced incretin hormone secretion did not appear to involve nutrient mechanisms, nor was there any evidence of cytolysis. Instead PCR array studies implicated signalling agents of the toll-like receptor system, e.g. adaptor protein MyD88 was decreased 23-fold and cell surface antigen CD14 was increased 17-fold. Mechanistic studies found that blockade of MyD88 triggered significant GLP-1 secretion. Furthermore, blocking of CD14 completely attenuated LAB-induced secretion. A recent clinical trial clearly shows that LAB have potential for alleviating type 2 diabetes, and further characterisation of this bioactivity is warranted.

DNA mismatch repair and the transition to hormone independence in breast and prostate cancer

The molecular basis for the progression of breast and prostate cancer from hormone dependent to hormone independent disease remains a critical issue in the management of these two cancers. The DNA mismatch repair system is integral to the maintenance of genomic stability and suppression of tumorigenesis. No firm consensus exists regarding the implications of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies in the development of breast or prostate cancer. However, recent studies have reported an association between mismatch repair deficiency and loss of specific hormone receptors, inferring a potential role for mismatch repair deficiency in this transition. An updated review of the experimental data supporting or contradicting the involvement of MMR defects in the development and progression of breast and prostate cancer will be provided with particular emphasis on their implications in the transition to hormone independence.

Pathogenesis of prostate cancer and hormone refractory prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in males and the leading cause of cancer death. Prostate cancer is initially androgen dependent and relies upon the androgen receptor (AR) to mediate the effects of androgens. The AR is also the target for therapy using antiandrogens and LHRH analogues. However, all cancers eventually become androgen independent, often referred to as hormone refractory prostate cancer. The processes involved in this transformation are yet to be fully understood but research in this area has discovered numerous potential mechanisms including AR amplification, over-expression or mutation and alterations in the AR signaling pathway. This review of the recent literature examines the current knowledge and developments in the understanding of the molecular biology of prostate cancer and hormone refractory prostate cancer, summarizing the well characterized pathways involved as well as introducing new concepts that may offer future solutions to this difficult problem.

Huntingtin interacting protein 1 modulates the transcriptional activity of nuclear hormone receptors

Internalization of activated receptors regulates signaling, and endocytic adaptor proteins are well-characterized in clathrin-mediated uptake. One of these adaptor proteins, huntingtin interacting protein 1 (HIP1), induces cellular transformation and is overexpressed in some prostate cancers. We have discovered that HIP1 associates with the androgen receptor through a central coiled coil domain and is recruited to DNA response elements upon androgen stimulation. HIP1 is a novel androgen receptor regulator, significantly repressing transcription when knocked down using a silencing RNA approach and activating transcription when overexpressed. We have also identified a functional nuclear localization signal at the COOH terminus of HIP1, which contributes to the nuclear translocation of the protein. In conclusion, we have discovered that HIP1 is a nucleocytoplasmic protein capable of associating with membranes and DNA response elements and regulating transcription.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone.

METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc.

INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Risk factors (excluding hormone therapy) for endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of risk factors associated with the development of Endometrial Hyperplasia (EH).

Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 30 June 2015.

Study eligibility: Fifteen observational studies that reported on EH risk in relation to lifestyle factors (n=14), medical history (n=11), reproductive and menstrual history (n=9) and measures of socio-economic status (n=2) were identified. Pooled relative risk estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were able to be derived for EH and Body Mass Index (BMI), smoking, diabetes and hypertension, using random effects models comparing high versus low categories.

Results: The pooled relative risk for EH when comparing women with the highest versus lowest BMI was 1.82 (95% CI 1.22–2.71; n=7 studies, I2=90.4%). No significant associations were observed for EH risk for smokers compared with non-smokers (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17; n=3, I2=0.0%), hypertensive versus normotensive women (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.72–3.15; n=5 studies, I2=79.1%), or diabetic versus non-diabetic women (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.79–3.96; n=5 studies, I2=31.8%) respectively although the number of included studies was limited. There were mixed reports on the relationship between age and risk of EH. Too few studies reported on other factors to reach any conclusions in relation to EH risk.

Conclusions: A high BMI was associated with an increased risk of EH, providing additional rationale for women to maintain a normal body weight. No significant associations were detected for other factors and EH risk, however relatively few studies have been conducted and few of the available studies adequately adjusted for relevant confounders. Therefore, further aetiological studies of endometrial hyperplasia are warranted.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.