A histone deacetylase inhibitor, azelaic bishydroxamic acid, shows cytotoxicity on Epstein-Barr virus-transformed B-cell lines - A potential therapy for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease

Background. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD), driven by the presence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), is becoming an increasingly important clinical problem after solid organ transplantation. The use of immunosuppressive therapy leads to the inhibition of the cytotoxic T cells that normally control the EBV latently infected B cells. The prognosis for many patients with PTLD is poor, and the optimal treatment strategy is not well defined. Method. This study investigates the use of a histone deacetylase inhibitor, azelaic bishydroxamic acid (ABRA), for its ability to effectively kill EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines. Results. In vitro treatment of lymphoblastoid cell lines with ABRA showed that they were effectively killed by low doses of the drug (ID50 2-5 mug/ml) within 48 hr. As well as being effective against polyclonal B-cell lines, ABHA was also shown to be toxic to seven of eight clonal Burkitt's lymphoma cell lines, indicating that the drug may also be useful in the treatment of late-occurring clonal PTLD. In addition, ABHA treatment did not induce EBV replication or affect EBV latent gene expression. Conclusion. These studies suggest that ABHA effectively kills both polyclonal and clonal B-cell lines and has potential in the treatment of PTLD.

Use of high and low velocity cervical manipulative therapy procedures by Australian manipulative physiotherapists

The use of cervical manipulation presents concerns because of a risk of devastating side effects of trauma to the vertebral artery. Little is known about the frequency of use of cervical manipulation versus passive mobilisation by physiotherapists. A recent national, multi-centre randomised clinical trial of the physiotherapy management of cervicogenic headache provided an opportunity to gain an insight into practices of a sample of manipulative physiotherapists across Australia. The treatment records for the 100 subjects who received only manipulative therapy, or manipulative therapy with exercise as per the trial protocol, were audited. The results revealed that cervical manipulation was used in 20.2% of the 1090 treatments provided to these subjects but cervical joint mobilisation only was used in the vast majority of treatments (77.6%). Nevertheless, 42% of subjects were treated with cervical manipulation at some time. In most instances, manipulation was accompanied by passive mobilisation in the same treatment session. Patients were manipulated on one to six occasions and this occurred predominantly in the latter half of the 12-treatment program. Cervical manipulation was used less frequently in the group who also received exercise. The data suggest that the physiotherapists participating in this study used cervical manipulation selectively and relatively conservatively considering the high use of cervical mobilisation techniques. This may reflect their due regard to safety in the treatment of the cervical region.