Epigenetic Therapy for the Treatment of Hypertension-Induced Cardiac Hypertrophy and Fibrosis

BACKGROUND: The development of heart failure is associated with changes in the size, shape, and structure of the heart that has a negative impact on cardiac function. These pathological changes involve excessive extracellular matrix deposition within the myocardial interstitium and myocyte hypertrophy. Alterations in fibroblast phenotype and myocyte activity are associated with reprogramming of gene transcriptional profiles that likely requires epigenetic alterations in chromatin structure. The aim of our work was to investigate the potential of a currently licensed anticancer epigenetic modifier as a treatment option for cardiac diseases associated with hypertension-induced cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS: The effects of DNA methylation inhibition with 5-azacytidine (5-aza) were examined in a human primary fibroblast cell line and in a spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) model. The results from this work allude to novel in vivo antifibrotic and antihypertrophic actions of 5-aza. Administration of the DNA methylation inhibitor significantly improved several echocardiographic parameters associated with hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction. Myocardial collagen levels and myocyte size were reduced in 5-aza-treated SHRs. These findings are supported by beneficial in vitro effects in cardiac fibroblasts. Collagen I, collagen III, and α-smooth muscle actin were reduced in a human ventricular cardiac fibroblast cell line treated with 5-aza.

CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a role for epigenetic modifications in contributing to the profibrotic and hypertrophic changes evident during disease progression. Therapeutic intervention with 5-aza demonstrated favorable effects highlighting the potential use of this epigenetic modifier as a treatment option for cardiac pathologies associated with hypertrophy and fibrosis.

The influence of genotype information on psychiatrists' treatment recommendations: more experienced clinicians know better what to ignore

Objectives: To assess if psychiatrists were influenced by a patient’s genetic information, even when the patient’s response to treatment was already known to them. Methods: Sixty-seven psychiatrists were presented with patients' pre and post-treatment scores on the PANSS for two hypothetical treatments for schizophrenia. Psychiatrists were also informed whether the patient possessed a genotype linked to hyper-responsiveness to one of the treatments, and were asked to recommend one of these two treatments. Attribute non-attendance assessed whether the information on genotype influenced psychiatrists' treatment recommendations. Results: Years of experience predicted whether psychiatrists were influenced by the genetic information. Psychiatrists with one year or less of experience had a 46% probability of considering genetic information, while psychiatrists with at least 15 years of experience had a lower probability (7%). Conclusions: Psychiatrists and other clinicians should be cautious about allowing a patient's genetic information to carry unnecessary weight in their clinical decision making.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.