Clinical and Virological Efficacy of Etravirine Plus Two Active Nucleos(t)ide Analogs in an Heterogeneous HIV-Infected Population.

Etravirine (ETV) is recommended in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor plus an optimized background regimen for salvage therapy, but there is limited experience with its use in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). This multicenter study aimed to assess the efficacy of this combination in two scenarios: group A) subjects without virologic failure on or no experience with non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) switched due to adverse events and group B) subjects switched after a virologic failure on an efavirenz- or nevirapine-based regimen. The primary endpoint was efficacy at 52 weeks analysed by intention-to-treat. Virologic failure was defined as the inability to suppress plasma HIV-RNA to <50 copies/mL after 24 weeks on treatment, or a confirmed viral load >200 copies/mL in patients who had previously achieved a viral suppression or had an undetectable viral load at inclusion. Two hundred eighty seven patients were included. Treatment efficacy rates in group A and B were 88.0% (CI95, 83.9-92.1%) and 77.4% (CI95, 65.0-89.7%), respectively; the rates reached 97.2% (CI95, 95.1-99.3%) and 90.5% (CI95, 81.7-99.3), by on-treatment analysis. The once-a-day ETV treatment was as effective as the twice daily dosing regimen. Grade 1-2 adverse events were observed motivating a treatment switch in 4.2% of the subjects. In conclusion, ETV (once- or twice daily) plus two analogs is a suitable, well-tolerated combination both as a switching strategy and after failure with first generation NNRTIs, ensuring full drug activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01437241.

Preconditioning with Triiodothyronine Improves the Clinical Signs and Acute Tubular Necrosis Induced by Ischemia/Reperfusion in Rats.

BACKGROUND Renal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury is manifested by acute renal failure (ARF) and acute tubular necrosis (ATN). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of preconditioning with 3, 3, 5 triiodothyronine (T3) to prevent I/R renal injury. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS THE RATS WERE DIVIDED INTO FOUR GROUPS: sham-operated, placebo-treated (SO-P), sham-operated T3- treated (SO- T3), I/R-injured placebo-treated (IR-P), and I/R-injured T3-treated (IR- T3) groups. At 24 h before ischemia, the animals received a single dose of T3 (100 μg/kg). Renal function and plasma, urinary, and tissue variables were studied at 4, 24, and 48 h of reperfusion, including biochemical, oxidative stress, and inflammation variables, PARP-1 immunohistochemical expression, and ATN morphology. In comparison to the SO groups, the IR-P groups had higher plasma urea and creatinine levels and greater proteinuria (at all reperfusion times) and also showed: increased oxidative stress-related plasma, urinary, and tissue variables; higher plasma levels of IL6 (proinflammatory cytokine); increased glomerular and tubular nuclear PARP-1 expression; and a greater degree of ATN. The IR-T3 group showed a marked reduction in all of these variables, especially at 48 h of reperfusion. No significant differences were observed between SO-P and SO-T3 groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that preconditioning rats with a single dose of T3 improves the clinical signs and ATN of renal I/R injury. These beneficial effects are accompanied by reductions in oxidative stress, inflammation, and renal PARP-1 expression, indicating that this sequence of factors plays an important role in the ATN induced by I/R injury.

Computational and Biological Evaluation of N-octadecyl-N'-propylsulfamide, a Selective PPARα Agonist Structurally Related to N-acylethanolamines.

To further understand the pharmacological properties of N-oleoylethanolamine (OEA), a naturally occurring lipid that activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα), we designed sulfamoyl analogs based on its structure. Among the compounds tested, N-octadecyl-N'-propylsulfamide (CC7) was selected for functional comparison with OEA. The performed studies include the following computational and biological approaches: 1) molecular docking analyses; 2) molecular biology studies with PPARα; 3) pharmacological studies on feeding behavior and visceral analgesia. For the docking studies, we compared OEA and CC7 data with crystallization data obtained with the reference PPARα agonist GW409544. OEA and CC7 interacted with the ligand-binding domain of PPARα in a similar manner to GW409544. Both compounds produced similar transcriptional activation by in vitro assays, including the GST pull-down assay and reporter gene analysis. In addition, CC7 and OEA induced the mRNA expression of CPT1a in HpeG2 cells through PPARα and the induction was avoided with PPARα-specific siRNA. In vivo studies in rats showed that OEA and CC7 had anorectic and antiobesity activity and induced both lipopenia and decreases in hepatic fat content. However, different effects were observed when measuring visceral pain; OEA produced visceral analgesia whereas CC7 showed no effects. These results suggest that OEA activity on the PPARα receptor (e.g., lipid metabolism and feeding behavior) may be dissociated from other actions at alternative targets (e.g., pain) because other non cannabimimetic ligands that interact with PPARα, such as CC7, do not reproduce the full spectrum of the pharmacological activity of OEA. These results provide new opportunities for the development of specific PPARα-activating drugs focused on sulfamide derivatives with a long alkyl chain for the treatment of metabolic dysfunction.

Expert study: A bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of type 1 diabetic patients (T1DM) (preliminary results)

Aims: To evaluate the impact on glycemic control and quality of life of a bolus calculator. Methods: Multicentre randomized prospective crosssectional study. Patients were randomized to control phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin according to insulinto-carbohydrate ratio and insulin sensitivity factor using a single strip meter) or intervention phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin with a bolus advisor), with a washout period (3 months). Patients wore a continuous glucosensor (7 days) and answered a quality of life questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of each phase. A questionnaire of satisfaction was obtained at the end of both phases. Inclusion criteria: Adults; T1DM> 1 year, HbA1c > 7.5%, basal-bolus therapy with insulin analogs, experience with carbohydrate Results: Data from the first 32 subjects with at least 1 ended phase (27 females, age 38 – 11 years, diabetes duration 16.8 – 7.5 years). Basal characteristics were comparable independently of the starting phase. No differences were found between phases in terms of mean blood glucose, standard deviation (from meter neither from sensor) and satisfaction. Conclusions: The use of a bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of T1DM subjects.