Arsenic, mode of action at biologically plausible low doses : what are the implications for low dose cancer risk?

Arsenic is an established human carcinogen. However, there has been much controversy about the shape of the arsenic response curve, particularly at low doses. This controversy has been exacerbated by the fact that the  mechanism(s) of arsenic carcinogenesis are still unclear and because there are few satisfactory animal models for arsenic-induced carcinogenesis. Recent epidemiological studies have shown that the relative risk for cancer among populations exposed to ≤60 ppb As in their drinking water is often lower than the risk for the unexposed control population. We have found that treatment of human keratinocyte and fibroblast cells with 0.1 to 1 μM arsenite (As^III) also produces a low dose protective effect against oxidative stress and DNA damage. This response includes increased transcription, protein levels and enzyme activity of several base excision repair genes, including DNA polymerase β and DNA ligase I. At higher concentrations (> 10 μM), As induces down-regulation of DNA repair, oxidative DNA damage and apoptosis. This low dose adaptive (protective) response by a toxic agent is known as hormesis and is characteristic of many agents that induce oxidative stress. A mechanistic model for arsenic carcinogenesis based on these data would predict that the low dose risk for carcinogenesis should be sub-linear. The threshold dose where toxicity outweighs protection is hard to predict based on in vitro dose response data, but might be estimated if one could determine the form (metabolite) and concentration of arsenic responsible for changes in gene regulation in the target tissues.

Evidence based drug therapy : are optimal doses and multiple medication therapies realistic in patients with chronic heart failure

Background: Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) has a high mortality and morbidity. Large scale randomised controlled trials have proven the benefits of beta blockade and ACE inhibitors in reducing mortality in patients with CHF and expert guidelines mandate their use. In spite of these recommendations, important therapies are under-prescribed and under-utilised.

Method: 1015 consecutive patients enrolled in CHF management programs across Australia were surveyed during 2005-2006 to determine prescribing patterns in heart failure medications. These patients were followed-up for a period of 6 months.

Results: The survey revealed that beta blockers were prescribed to 80% of patients (more than 85% were on sub-optimal doses) and 70% were prescribed Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (approximately 50% were on sub-optimal dose). 19% of patients were prescribed Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). By 6 months <25% of the patients who were on sub-optimal dose beta blockers or ACE inhibitors at baseline, had been up-titrated to maximum dose (p<0.0001). In CHF programs, were nurses were able to titrate medications, 75% of patients reached optimal dose of beta blockers compared to those programs with no nurse-led medication titration, where only 25% of patients reached optimal dose (p<0.004). When examining optimal dosage for any two of these mandatory medications, less patients were on optimal therapy. Beta blockers and ACE inhibitors, were both prescribed in combination in 60% of patients. While beta blockers and ARBs were prescribed to 15% of patients.

Conclusion: Whilst prescribing rates for a single medication strategy of beta blockers, or ACE inhibitors were greater than 70%, an increase in dosage of these medications and utilisation of proven combination therapy of these medications was poor. It is suggested that clinical outcomes for this cohort of patients could be further improved by adherence to evidence-based practice, ESC guidelines, and optimisation of these medications by heart failure nurses in a CHF program. On the basis of these findings and in the absence of ready access to a polypill, focussing on evidence-based practice to increase utilisation and optimal dosage of combination medication therapy is critical.

The effect of different doses of an arginine-containing supplement on the healing of pressure ulcers

Objective: To investigate if a lower dose of arginine in the form of an oral nutritional supplement can show similar benefit in the healing rate of pressure ulcers compared with the current evidence for 9g of arginine.

Method: Twenty-three inpatients with category II, III or IV pressure ulcers were randomised to receive daily, for 3 weeks, the standard hospital diet plus 4.5 or 9g arginine in the form of a commercial supplement. Pressure ulcer size and severity was measured weekly (by PUSH tool; pressure ulcer scale for healing; 0= completely healed, 17= greatest severity). Nutritional status was determined by Subjective Global Assessment.

Results: There were no significant differences in patients’ age, gender, BMI, haemoglobin levels, albumin levels and diagnosis of diabetes between treatment groups. There was a significant decrease in pressure ulcer severity over time (p < 0.001), with no evidence of a difference in healing rate between the two arginine dosages (p=0.991). Based on expected healing time, patients in both treatment groups were estimated to achieve an almost 2-fold improvement compared with the historical control group. Patients categorised as malnourished showed clinically significant impaired healing rates compared with wellnourished patients (p=0.057), although this was unaffected by arginine dosage (p=0.727).

Conclusion: Similar clinical benefits in healing of pressure ulcers can be achieved with a lower dosage of arginine, which can translate into improved concordance and significant cost-savings for both the health-care facilities and for patients.