Eliciting the mitochondrial unfolded protein response via NAD(+) repletion reverses fatty liver disease

With no approved pharmacological treatment, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is now the most common cause of chronic liver disease in western countries and its worldwide prevalence continues to increase along with the growing obesity epidemic. Here we show that a high-fat high-sucrose (HFHS) diet, eliciting chronic hepatosteatosis resembling human fatty liver, lowers hepatic NAD(+) levels driving reductions in hepatic mitochondrial content, function and ATP levels, in conjunction with robust increases in hepatic weight, lipid content and peroxidation in C57BL/6J mice. In an effort to assess the effect of NAD(+) repletion on the development of steatosis in mice, nicotinamide riboside (NR), a precursor for NAD(+) biosynthesis, was given to mice concomitant, as preventive strategy (NR-Prev), and as a therapeutic intervention (NR-Ther), to a HFHS diet. We demonstrate that NR prevents and reverts NAFLD by inducing a SIRT1- and SIRT3-dependent mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPR(mt) ), triggering an adaptive mitohormetic pathway to increase hepatic β-oxidation and mitochondrial complex content and activity. The cell-autonomous beneficial component of NR treatment was revealed in liver-specific Sirt1 KO mice (Sirt1(hep-/-) ), while Apolipoprotein E-deficient (Apoe(-/-) ) mice challenged with a high-fat high-cholesterol diet (HFC), affirmed the use of NR in other independent models of NAFLD. CONCLUSION Our data warrant the future evaluation of NAD(+) boosting strategies to manage the development or progression of NAFLD. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates for Tumor Targeting-Novel Conjugation Chemistries and the Promise of non-IgG Binding Proteins

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have emerged as a promising class of anticancer agents, combining the specificity of antibodies for tumor targeting and the destructive potential of highly potent drugs as payload. An essential component of these immunoconjugates is a bifunctional linker capable of reacting with the antibody and the payload to assemble a functional entity. Linker design is fundamental, as it must provide high stability in the circulation to prevent premature drug release, but be capable of releasing the active drug inside the target cell upon receptor-mediated endocytosis. Although ADCs have demonstrated an increased therapeutic window, compared to conventional chemotherapy in recent clinical trials, therapeutic success rates are still far from optimal. To explore other regimes of half-life variation and drug conjugation stoichiometries, it is necessary to investigate additional binding proteins which offer access to a wide range of formats, all with molecularly defined drug conjugation. Here, we delineate recent progress with site-specific and biorthogonal conjugation chemistries, and discuss alternative, biophysically more stable protein scaffolds like Designed Ankyrin Repeat Proteins (DARPins), which may provide such additional engineering opportunities for drug conjugates with improved pharmacological performance.

CT-guided infiltration saves surgical intervention and fastens return to work compared to anatomical landmark-guided infiltration in patients with lumbosciatica

BACKGROUND Infiltration procedures are a common treatment of lumbar radiculopathy. There is a wide variety of infiltration techniques without an established gold standard. Therefore, we compared the effectiveness of CT-guided transforaminal infiltrations versus anatomical landmark-guided transforaminal infiltrations at the lower lumbar spine in case of acute sciatica at L3-L5. METHODS A retrospective chart review was conducted of 107 outpatients treated between 2009 and 2011. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathic pain secondary to disc herniation in L3-L5. A total of 52 patients received CT-guided transforaminal infiltrations; 55 patients received non-imaging-guided nerve root infiltrations. The therapeutic success was evaluated regarding number of physician contacts, duration of treatment, type of analgesics used and loss of work days. Defined endpoint was surgery at the lower lumbar spine. RESULTS In the CT group, patients needed significantly less oral analgesics (p < 0.001). Overall treatment duration and physician contacts were significantly lower in the CT group (p < 0.001 and 0.002) either. In the CT group, patients lost significant fewer work days due to incapacity (p < 0.001). Surgery had to be performed in 18.2 % of the non-imaging group patients (CT group: 1.9 %; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION This study shows that CT-guided periradicular infiltration in lumbosciatica caused by intervertebral disc herniation is significantly superior to non-imaging, anatomical landmark-guided infiltration, regarding the parameters investigated. The high number of treatment failures in the non-imaging group underlines the inferiority of this treatment concept.

Non-surgical treatment of pain associated with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND Symptoms associated with pes planovalgus or flatfeet occur frequently, even though some people with a flatfoot deformity remain asymptomatic. Pes planovalgus is proposed to be associated with foot/ankle pain and poor function. Concurrently, the multifactorial weakness of the tibialis posterior muscle and its tendon can lead to a flattening of the longitudinal arch of the foot. Those affected can experience functional impairment and pain. Less severe cases at an early stage are eligible for non-surgical treatment and foot orthoses are considered to be the first line approach. Furthermore, strengthening of arch and ankle stabilising muscles are thought to contribute to active compensation of the deformity leading to stress relief of soft tissue structures. There is only limited evidence concerning the numerous therapy approaches, and so far, no data are available showing functional benefits that accompany these interventions. METHODS After clinical diagnosis and clarification of inclusion criteria (e.g., age 40-70, current complaint of foot and ankle pain more than three months, posterior tibial tendon dysfunction stage I & II, longitudinal arch flattening verified by radiography), sixty participants with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction associated complaints will be included in the study and will be randomly assigned to one of three different intervention groups: (i) foot orthoses only (FOO), (ii) foot orthoses and eccentric exercise (FOE), or (iii) sham foot orthoses only (FOS). Participants in the FOO and FOE groups will be allocated individualised foot orthoses, the latter combined with eccentric exercise for ankle stabilisation and strengthening of the tibialis posterior muscle. Participants in the FOS group will be allocated sham foot orthoses only. During the intervention period of 12 weeks, all participants will be encouraged to follow an educational program for dosed foot load management (e.g., to stop activity if they experience increasing pain). Functional impairment will be evaluated pre- and post-intervention by the Foot Function Index. Further outcome measures include the Pain Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, SF-12, kinematic data from 3D-movement analysis and neuromuscular activity during level and downstairs walking. Measuring outcomes pre- and post-intervention will allow the calculation of intervention effects by 3×3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures. DISCUSSION The purpose of this randomised trial is to evaluate the therapeutic benefit of three different non-surgical treatment regimens in participants with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction and accompanying pes planovalgus. Furthermore, the analysis of changes in gait mechanics and neuromuscular control will contribute to an enhanced understanding of functional changes and eventually optimise conservative management strategies for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01839669.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

BACKGROUND Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Non-selective beta-blockers may reduce risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) are used in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. Experimental data suggest that NSBB inhibit angiogenesis and reduce bacterial translocation, which may prevent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We therefore assessed the effect of NSBB on HCC by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials. METHODS Electronic and manual searches were combined. Authors were contacted for unpublished data. Included trials assessed NSBB for patients with cirrhosis; the control group could receive any other intervention than NSBB. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed with I(2) as a measure of heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of the results after adjusting for multiple testing. RESULTS Twenty-three randomized trials on 2618 patients with cirrhosis were included, of which 12 reported HCC incidence and 23 reported HCC mortality. The mean duration of follow-up was 26 months (range 8-82). In total, 47 of 694 patients randomized to NSBB developed HCC vs 65 of 697 controls (risk difference -0.026; 95% CI-0.052 to -0.001; number needed to treat 38 patients). There was no heterogeneity (I(2) = 7%) or evidence of small study effects (Eggers P = 0.402). The result was not confirmed in sequential analysis, which suggested that 3719 patients were needed to achieve the required information size. NSBB did not reduce HCC-related mortality (RD -0.011; 95% CI -0.040 to 0.017). CONCLUSIONS Non-selective beta-blockers may prevent HCC in patients with cirrhosis.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.