The sirtuin inhibitor cambinol impairs MAPK signaling, inhibits inflammatory and innate immune responses and protects from septic shock.

Sirtuins (SIRT1-7) are NAD(+)-dependent histone deacetylases (HDACs) that play an important role in the control of metabolism and proliferation and the development of age-associated diseases like oncologic, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases. Cambinol was originally described as a compound inhibiting the activity of SIRT1 and SIRT2, with efficient anti-tumor activity in vivo. Here, we studied the effects of cambinol on microbial sensing by mouse and human immune cells and on host innate immune responses in vivo. Cambinol inhibited the expression of cytokines (TNF, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p40, and IFN-γ), NO and CD40 by macrophages, dendritic cells, splenocytes and whole blood stimulated with a broad range of microbial and inflammasome stimuli. Sirtinol, an inhibitor of SIRT1 and SIRT2 structurally related to cambinol, also decreased macrophage response to TLR stimulation. On the contrary, selective inhibitors of SIRT1 (EX-527 and CHIC-35) and SIRT2 (AGK2 and AK-7) used alone or in combination had no inhibitory effect, suggesting that cambinol and sirtinol act by targeting more than just SIRT1 and SIRT2. Cambinol and sirtinol at anti-inflammatory concentrations also did not inhibit SIRT6 activity in in vitro assay. At the molecular level, cambinol impaired stimulus-induced phosphorylation of MAPKs and upstream MEKs. Going well along with its powerful anti-inflammatory activity, cambinol reduced TNF blood levels and bacteremia and improved survival in preclinical models of endotoxic shock and septic shock. Altogether, our data suggest that pharmacological inhibitors of sirtuins structurally related to cambinol may be of clinical interest to treat inflammatory diseases.

Clinical and hormonal effects of the new angiotensin II receptor antagonist LRB081.

The renin-angiotensin system is a major contributor to the pathophysiology of cardiovascular diseases such as congestive heart failure and hypertension. Antagonizing angiotensin (Ang) II at the receptor site may produce fewer side effects than inhibition of the promiscuous converting enzyme. The present study was designed to assess in healthy human subjects the effect of LRB081, a new orally active AT1-receptor antagonist, on the pressor action of exogenous Ang II. At the same time, plasma hormones and drug levels were monitored. At 1-week intervals and in a double-blind randomized fashion, 8 male volunteers received three doses of LRB081 (10, 40, and 80 mg) and placebo. Blood pressure (BP) was measured at a finger by photoplethysmograph. The peak BP response to intravenous injection of a standard dose of Ang II was determined before and for < or = 24 h after administration of an oral dose of LRB081 or placebo. After drug administration, the blood BP response to Ang II was expressed in percent of the response before drug administration. At the same time, plasma renin activity (PRA), Ang II, aldosterone, catecholamine (radioassays), and drug levels (by high-performance liquid chromatography) were monitored. After LRB081 administration, a dose dependent inhibition of the BP response to Ang II was observed. Maximal inhibition of the systolic BP response was 54 +/- 3 (mean +/- SEM), 63 +/- 2, and 93 +/- 1% with 10, 40, and 80 mg LRB081, respectively. The time to peak was 3 h for 6 subjects and 4 and 6 h for 2 others. Preliminary plasma half-life (t1/2) was calculated at 2 h. With the highest dose, the inhibition remained significant for 24 h (31 +/- 5%, p < 0.05). Maximal BP-blocking effect and maximal plasma drug level coincided, suggesting that the unmetabolized LRB081 is responsible for the antagonistic effect. PRA and Ang II increased dose dependently after LRB081 intake. Aldosterone, epinephrine, and norepinephrine concentrations remained unchanged. No clinically significant adverse reaction was observed during the study. LRB081 is a well-tolerated, orally active, potent, and long-acting Ang II receptor antagonist. Unlike in the case of losartan, no active metabolite of LRB081 has been shown to be responsible for the main effects.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-1-infected children.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in a population-based cohort of HIV-1-infected children. METHODS: All children enrolled in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study, treated with LPV/r-based combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) between November 2000 and October 2008, were included. RESULTS: 88 children (25 (28%) protease inhibitor (PI)-naive, 16 (18%) ART-naive) were analysed (251 patient-years on LPV/r). After 48 weeks on LPV/r, 70 children had a median (interquartile range (IQR)) decrease in HIV-1 viral load of 4.25 log (5.45-3.17; PI-naive, n=17) and 2.53 (3.68-1.38; PI-experienced, n=53). Median (IQR) increase in CD4 count was 429 (203-593; PI-naive) and 177 (21-331; PI-experienced) cells/microl. These effects remained stable throughout 192 weeks for 25 children. Treatment was stopped for viral rebound in seven and suspected toxicity in 12 children. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with LPV/r-based cART is safe and effective in HIV-1-infected children.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of ritonavir, nelfinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected children.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of ritonavir, nelfinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced, initially protease inhibitor (PI)-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1-infected children. METHODS: HIV-1-infected children enrolled in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study were eligible for this observational cohort study if they received at least 1 PI of interest between March 1996 and October 2003: ritonavir, nelfinavir, or lopinavir/ritonavir. Data regarding demographics, clinical disease and antiretroviral treatment history, HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, CD4 T-cell counts [absolute (cells/microL) and percentages (%)], adverse events, clinical laboratory values, reasons for discontinuation of PIs, and concomitant medications were extracted from the database for PI-naive (first-line) and PI-experienced (second- or higher-line) PI use. RESULTS: The total duration of ritonavir, nelfinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir use for 133 HIV-1-infected children was 163.8, 235.0, and 46.1 patient-years, respectively. In an on-treatment analysis, first-line therapy with any of the PIs significantly reduced HIV-1 concentrations and increased CD4 T-cell counts and percentages from baseline throughout the 288-week study (P <or= 0.05) for ritonavir and nelfinavir and throughout 84 weeks of use for lopinavir/ritonavir, which was introduced into treatment more recently. All PIs investigated were most effective in PI-naive children. Thirteen PI-associated toxicities occurred requiring treatment changes or interruptions (neurologic symptoms, n = 2; pancreatitis, n = 1; allergic reactions, n = 4; visual symptoms, n = 3; and hyperlipidemia, n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term PI-based therapy seems to be safe and to result in durable virologic and immunologic effectiveness in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-experienced children.

Orosomucoid (alpha1-acid glycoprotein) plasma concentration and genetic variants: effects on human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor clearance and cellular accumulation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Protease inhibitors are highly bound to orosomucoid (ORM) (alpha1-acid glycoprotein), an acute-phase plasma protein encoded by 2 polymorphic genes, which may modulate their disposition. Our objective was to determine the influence of ORM concentration and phenotype on indinavir, lopinavir, and nelfinavir apparent clearance (CL(app)) and cellular accumulation. Efavirenz, mainly bound to albumin, was included as a control drug. METHODS: Plasma and cells samples were collected from 434 human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Total plasma and cellular drug concentrations and ORM concentrations and phenotypes were determined. RESULTS: Indinavir CL(app) was strongly influenced by ORM concentration (n = 36) (r2 = 0.47 [P = .00004]), particularly in the presence of ritonavir (r2 = 0.54 [P = .004]). Lopinavir CL(app) was weakly influenced by ORM concentration (n = 81) (r2 = 0.18 [P = .0001]). For both drugs, the ORM1 S variant concentration mainly explained this influence (r2 = 0.55 [P = .00004] and r2 = 0.23 [P = .0002], respectively). Indinavir CL(app) was significantly higher in F1F1 individuals than in F1S and SS patients (41.3, 23.4, and 10.3 L/h [P = .0004] without ritonavir and 21.1, 13.2, and 10.1 L/h [P = .05] with ritonavir, respectively). Lopinavir cellular exposure was not influenced by ORM abundance and phenotype. Finally, ORM concentration or phenotype did not influence nelfinavir (n = 153) or efavirenz (n = 198) pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: ORM concentration and phenotype modulate indinavir pharmacokinetics and, to a lesser extent, lopinavir pharmacokinetics but without influencing their cellular exposure. This confounding influence of ORM should be taken into account for appropriate interpretation of therapeutic drug monitoring results. Further studies are needed to investigate whether the measure of unbound drug plasma concentration gives more meaningful information than total drug concentration for indinavir and lopinavir.

Randomized controlled study demonstrating failure of LPV/r monotherapy in HIV: the role of compartment and CD4-nadir.

BACKGROUND: Long-term side-effects and cost of HIV treatment motivate the development of simplified maintenance. Monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r-MT) is the most widely studied strategy. However, efficacy of LPV/r-MT in compartments remains to be shown. METHODS: Randomized controlled open-label trial comparing LPV/r-MT with continued treatment for 48 weeks in treated patients with fully suppressed viral load. The primary endpoint was treatment failure in the central nervous system [cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)] and/or genital tract. Treatment failure in blood was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA levels more than 400 copies/ml. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely stopped when six patients on monotherapy (none in continued treatment-arm) demonstrated a viral failure in blood. At study termination, 60 patients were included, 29 randomized to monotherapy and 13 additional patients switched from continued treatment to monotherapy after 48 weeks. All failures occurred in patients with a nadir CD4 cell count below 200/microl and within the first 24 weeks of monotherapy. Among failing patients, all five patients with a lumbar puncture had an elevated HIV RNA load in CSF and four of six had neurological symptoms. Viral load was fully resuppressed in all failing patients after resumption of the original combination therapy. No drug resistant virus was found. The only predictor of failure was low nadir CD4 cell count (P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: Maintenance of HIV therapy with LPV/r alone should not be recommended as a standard strategy; particularly not in patients with a CD4 cell count nadir less than 200/microl. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the role of the central nervous system compartment in monotherapy-failure.

Virological and immunological responses to efavirenz or boosted lopinavir as first-line therapy for patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Efavirenz and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir are both recommended as first-line therapies for patients with HIV when combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. It is uncertain which therapy is more effective for patients starting therapy with an advanced infection. METHODS: We estimated the relative effect of these two therapies on rates of virological and immunological failure within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and considered whether estimates depended on the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. We defined virological failure as either an incomplete virological response or viral rebound after viral suppression and immunological failure as failure to achieve an expected CD4(+) T-cell increase calculated from EuroSIDA statistics. RESULTS: Patients starting efavirenz (n=660) and lopinavir (n=541) were followed for a median of 4.5 and 3.1 years, respectively. Virological failure was less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.63 (0.50-0.78) then multiplied by a factor of 1.00 (0.90-1.12) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. Immunological failure was also less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio of 0.68 (0.51-0.91) then multiplied by a factor of 1.29 (1.14-1.46) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Virological failure is less likely with efavirenz regardless of the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. Immunological failure is also less likely with efavirenz; however, this advantage disappears if patients start therapy with a low CD4(+) T-cell count.

Lipid and lipoprotein profile in HIV-infected patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir as a component of the first combination antiretroviral therapy.

We characterized lipid and lipoprotein changes associated with a lopinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. We enrolled previously antiretroviral-naive patients participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Fasting blood samples (baseline) were retrieved retrospectively from stored frozen plasma and posttreatment (follow-up) samples were collected prospectively at two separate visits. Lipids and lipoproteins were analyzed at a single reference laboratory. Sixty-five patients had two posttreatment lipid profile measurements and nine had only one. Most of the measured lipids and lipoprotein plasma concentrations increased on lopinavir/ritonavir-based treatment. The percentage of patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG >150 mg/dl) increased from 28/74 (38%) at baseline to 37/65 (57%) at the second follow-up. We did not find any correlation between lopinavir plasma levels and the concentration of triglycerides. There was weak evidence of an increase in small dense LDL-apoB during the first year of treatment but not beyond 1 year (odds ratio 4.5, 90% CI 0.7 to 29 and 0.9, 90% CI 0.5 to 1.5, respectively). However, 69% of our patients still had undetectable small dense LDL-apoB levels while on treatment. LDL-cholesterol increased by a mean of 17 mg/dl (90% CI -3 to 37) during the first year of treatment, but mean values remained below the cut-off for therapeutic intervention. Despite an increase in the majority of measured lipids and lipoproteins particularly in the first year after initiation, we could not detect an obvious increase of cardiovascular risk resulting from the observed lipid changes.

Emerging therapies for gout.

Over the past decade much has been learned about the mechanisms of crystal-induced inflammation and renal excretion of uric acid, which has led to more specific targeting of gout therapies and a more potent approach to future management of gout. This article outlines agents being developed for more aggressive lowering of urate and more specific anti-inflammatory activity. The emerging urate-lowering therapies include lesinurad, arhalofenate, ulodesine, and levotofisopam. Novel gout-specific anti-inflammatories include the interleukin-1β inhibitors anakinra, canakinumab, and rilonacept, the melanocortins, and caspase inhibitors. The historic shortcomings of current gout treatment may, in part, be overcome by these novel approaches.

ADME pharmacogenetics: investigation of the pharmacokinetics of the antiretroviral agent lopinavir coformulated with ritonavir.

BACKGROUND: An ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)-pharmacogenetics association study may identify functional variants relevant to the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir co-formulated with ritonavir (LPV/r), a first-line anti-HIV agent. METHODS: An extensive search of literature and web resources helped select ADME genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, functional and HapMap tagging SNPs) with a proven or potentially relevant role in LPV/r pharmacokinetics. The study followed a two-stage design. Stage 1 (discovery) considered a Caucasian population (n=638) receiving LPV/r, where we selected 117 individuals with low LPV clearance (cases) and 90 individuals with high clearance (controls). Genotyping was performed by a 1536-SNP customized GoldenGate Illumina BeadArray. Stage 2 (confirmation) represented a replication study of candidate SNPs from the stage 1 in 148 individuals receiving LPV/r. The analysis led to formal population pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic modeling of demographic, environmental and candidate SNP effects. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred and eighty SNPs were successfully genotyped. Nine SNPs prioritized by the stage 1 analysis were brought to replication. Stage 2 confirmed the contribution of two functional SNPs in SLCO1B1, one functional SNP in ABCC2 and a tag SNP of the CYP3A locus in addition to body weight effect and ritonavir coadministration. According to the population pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic model, genetic variants explained 5% of LPV variability. Individuals homozygous rs11045819 (SLCO1B1*4) had a clearance of 12.6 l/h, compared with 5.4 l/h in the reference group, and 3.9 l/h in individuals with two or more variant alleles of rs4149056 (SLCO1B1*5), rs717620 (ABCC2) or rs6945984 (CYP3A). A subanalysis confirmed that although a significant part of the variance in LPV clearance was attributed to fluctuation in ritonavir levels, genetic variants had an additional effect on LPV clearance. CONCLUSION: The two-stage strategy successfully identified genetic variants affecting LPV/r pharmacokinetics. Such a general approach of ADME pharmacogenetics should be generalized to other drugs.

Treatment modification in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals starting combination antiretroviral therapy between 2005 and 2008.

BACKGROUND: Adverse effects of combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) commonly result in treatment modification and poor adherence. METHODS: We investigated predictors of toxicity-related treatment modification during the first year of CART in 1318 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study who began treatment between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008. RESULTS: The total rate of treatment modification was 41.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.6-45.8) per 100 person-years. Of these, switches or discontinuations because of drug toxicity occurred at a rate of 22.4 (95% CI, 19.5-25.6) per 100 person-years. The most frequent toxic effects were gastrointestinal tract intolerance (28.9%), hypersensitivity (18.3%), central nervous system adverse events (17.3%), and hepatic events (11.5%). In the multivariate analysis, combined zidovudine and lamivudine (hazard ratio [HR], 2.71 [95% CI, 1.95-3.83]; P < .001), nevirapine (1.95 [1.01-3.81]; P = .050), comedication for an opportunistic infection (2.24 [1.19-4.21]; P = .01), advanced age (1.21 [1.03-1.40] per 10-year increase; P = .02), female sex (1.68 [1.14-2.48]; P = .009), nonwhite ethnicity (1.71 [1.18-2.47]; P = .005), higher baseline CD4 cell count (1.19 [1.10-1.28] per 100/microL increase; P < .001), and HIV-RNA of more than 5.0 log(10) copies/mL (1.47 [1.10-1.97]; P = .009) were associated with higher rates of treatment modification. Almost 90% of individuals with treatment-limiting toxic effects were switched to a new regimen, and 85% achieved virologic suppression to less than 50 copies/mL at 12 months compared with 87% of those continuing CART (P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: Drug toxicity remains a frequent reason for treatment modification; however, it does not affect treatment success. Close monitoring and management of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions are crucial for the durability of CART.