Which drug combination for colorectal cancer?

In Westernised countries, colorectal cancer (CRC) is second only to lung cancer as a cause of death from malignancy, with only 60% of patients alive at 5 years. In Stage II/III CRC, where the standard treatment is 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin, a recent clinical trial has shown that with the addition of oxaliplatin, fewer patients have relapsed or died at 40 months follow-up. The benefit was more pronounced in patients with Stage III than II CRC, and the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/leucovorin should be considered in Stage III CRC. In metastatic CRC, where the standard treatment is 5-FU/leucovorin/irinotecan, a recent clinical trial has shown that the addition of bevacizumab, a mAb, to vascular endothelial growth factor, prolonged progression-free and overall survival. Bevacizumab is likely to become part of the standard therapy for metastatic CRC.     

Which drug combination for colorectal cancer?

In Westernised countries, colorectal cancer (CRC) is second only to lung cancer as a cause of death from malignancy, with only 60% of patients alive at 5 years. In Stage II/III CRC, where the standard treatment is 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin, a recent clinical trial has shown that with the addition of oxaliplatin, fewer patients have relapsed or died at 40 months follow-up. The benefit was more pronounced in patients with Stage III than II CRC, and the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/leucovorin should be considered in Stage III CRC. In metastatic CRC, where the standard treatment is 5-FU/leucovorin/irinotecan, a recent clinical trial has shown that the addition of bevacizumab, a mAb, to vascular endothelial growth factor, prolonged progression-free and overall survival. Bevacizumab is likely to become part of the standard therapy for metastatic CRC.     

Which drug combination for hormone-refractory prostate cancer?

Patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer have a progressive disease with a median survival of approximately 11 months, and currently no treatment offers a survival advantage. The standard drug treatment is a corticosteroid and chemotherapy with mitoxantrone. In a comparison of docetaxel every 3 weeks and prednisone, versus mitoxantrone and prednisone, with a follow-up of approximately 21 months, there were less deaths in the docetaxel group than in the mitoxantrone group (166 of 335 patients and 201 of 337 patients, respectively). Docetaxel also prolonged the duration of survival compared with mitoxantrone (18.9 and 16.5 months, respectively). When given with prednisone, docetaxel was also shown to reduce pain and serum prostate specific antigen levels and improve quality of life compared with mitoxantrone/prednisone. In another trial in hormone-resistant prostate cancer patients, which compared docetaxel and estramustine with mitoxantrone and prednisone during a median follow-up of 32 months, there were fewer deaths with docetaxel/estramustine than with mitoxantrone/prednisone, which were 217 of 338 and 235 of 336 patients, respectively. Median survival was also longer in the docetaxel and estramustine group than in the mitoxantrone/prednisone group (17.5 and 15.6 months, respectively). In conclusion, two combinations (docetaxel/prednisone and docetaxel/estramustine) have been shown to be superior to mitoxantrone/prednisone in hormone-refractory prostate cancer and both should be considered for use. With the present information, there is little to distinguish between these combinations.     

A comprehensive review on Brigatinib – A wonder drug for targeted cancer therapy in non-small cell lung cancer

The mortality rate in patients suffering from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is quite high. This type of cancer mainly occurs due to rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene which leads to form an oncogene of fused gene NPM-ALK. Brigatinib is recently approved by FDA in April 2017 as a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the NSCLC therapy. In the present scenario, it is no less than a wonder drug because it is indicated for the treatment of advanced stages of metastatic ALK positive NSCLC, a fatal disease to overcome the resistance of various other ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib, ceritinib and alectinib. In addition to ALK, it is also active against multiple types of kinases such as ROS1, Insulin like growth factor-1Receptor and EGFR. It can be synthesized by using N-[2-methoxy-4-[4-(dimethylamino) piperidin-1-yl] aniline] guanidine and 2,4,5-trichloropyrimidine respectively in two different ways. Its structure consists of mainly dimethylphosphine oxide group which is responsible for its pharmacological activity. It is active against various cell lines such as HCC78, H2228, H23, H358, H838, U937, HepG2 and Karpas- 299. Results of ALTA (ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of AP26113) phase ½ trial shows that 90?mg of brigatinib for 7?days and then 180?mg for next days is effective in the treatment of NSCLC. Brigatinib has been shown to have favorable risk benefit profile and is a safer drug than the available cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. In comparison to other FDA approved drugs for the same condition, it causes fewer minor adverse reactions which can be easily managed either by changing the dose or by providing good supportive care. This article is intended to provide readers with an overview of chemistry, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profile of brigatinib, which addresses an unmet medical need.     

Are two drugs better than one? A review of combination therapies for hypertension

Introduction: Current guidelines for pharmacotherapy briefly describe a role for combination antihypertensive therapy. However, guidance on whether combination therapy should be used at the time of initiating therapy or as add on, and the choice of combination therapy is scarce.

Areas covered: Current literature suggests that intensive blood pressure control is the key to managing cardiovascular risk. Along with lifestyle management, pharmacotherapy is an central component in the treatment of hypertension. Here, we aim to review the pathophysiology of hypertension, rationale for using combination therapy, and the different combinations of antihypertensive drug classes that are available in the market. Papers from 1967 through 2016 listed on PubMed on this topic were reviewed.

Expert opinion: Based on the review of the literature, combination antihypertensive therapies are more effective than monotherapy and are also well tolerated, safe and cost effective for treatment of hypertension. Further research is needed to help guide the choice of combination antihypertensive therapy in different patient populations based on age, gender, race and comorbidities.     

Bad bugs: good for cancer therapy?

Components of Listeria and Escherichia coli have been used to prime the immune system in a novel approach to fighting cancer.     

Are nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) better than solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs): development, characterizations and comparative evaluations of clotrimazole-loaded SLNs and NLCs?

In recent years, solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) are among the popular research topics for the delivery of lipophilic drugs. Although SLNs have demonstrated several beneficial properties as drug-carrier, limited drug-loading and expulsion of drug during storage led to the development of NLCs. However, the superiority of NLCs over SLNs has not been fully established yet due to the contradictory results. In this study, SLNs and NLCs were developed using clotrimazole as model drug. Size, polydispersity index (PI), zeta potential (ZP), drug-loading (L), drug encapsulation efficiency (EE), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), X-ray diffractometry (XRD), drug release and stability of SLNs and NLCs were compared. Critical process parameters exhibited significant impact on the nanoparticles' properties. Size, PI, ZP and EE of the developed SLNs and NLCs were<100 nm, <0.17, <-22 mV and>82%, respectively. SEM images of SLNs and NLCs revealed spherical shaped particles (≈ 100 nm). DSC and XRD studies indicated slight difference between SLNs and NLCs as well as disappearance of the crystalline peak(s) of the encapsulated drug. NLCs demonstrated faster drug release than SLNs at low drug-loading, whereas there was no significant difference in drug release from SLNs and NLCs at high drug-loading. However, sustained/prolonged drug release was observed from both formulations. Furthermore, this study suggests that the drug release experiment should be designed considering the final application (topical/oral/parenteral) of the product. Regarding stability, NLCs showed better stability (in terms of size, PI, EE and L) than SLNs at 25°C. Moreover, there was no significant difference in drug release profile of NLCs after 3 months storage in compare to fresh NLCs, while significant change in drug release rate was observed in case of SLNs. Therefore, NLCs have an edge over SLNs.     

Nanostructured lipid carriers,solid lipid nanoparticles,and polymeric nanoparticles: which kind of drug delivery system is better for glioblastoma chemotherapy?

Context: Glioblastoma is a malignant brain tumor originating in the central nervous system. Successfully therapy of this disease required the efficient delivery of therapeutic agents to the tumor cells and tissues. Delivery of anticancer drugs using novel nanocarriers is promising in glioma treatment.

Objective: Polymeric nanoparticles (PNPs), solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs), and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) were constructed for the delivery of temozolomide (TMZ). The anti-tumor effects of the three kinds of nanocarriers were compared to provide the optimum choice for gliomatosis cerebri treatment.

Methods: TMZ-loaded PNPs (T-PNPs), SLNs (T-SLNs), and NLCs (T-NLCs) were formulated. Their particle size, zeta potential, drug encapsulation efficiency (EE), and drug loading (DL) capacity were evaluated. Anti-tumor efficacies of the three kinds of nanocarriers were evaluated on U87 malignant glioma cells (U87?MG cells) and mice-bearing malignant glioma model.

Results: T-NLCs displayed the best anti-tumor activity than other formulations in vivo and in vitro. The most significantly glioma inhibition was observed on NLCs formulations than PNPs and SLNs.

Conclusion: This work demonstrates that NLCs can deliver TMZ into U87MG cells more efficiently, with higher inhibition efficacy than PNPs and SLNs. T-NLCs could be an excellent drug delivery system for glioblastoma chemotherapy.     

Pseudomonas aeruginosa serious infections: mono or combination antimicrobial therapy?

P. aeruginosa is a serious cause of infection with reported rates of mortality being up to 61%. Several studies evidenced a correlation between hospital mortality due to P. aeruginosa bloodstream infections and an inappropriate antimicrobial treatment. Increasing resistance in P. aeruginosa isolates complicates the selection of adequate empirical therapy in severe infections and P. aeruginosa is often indistinguishable from other gram-negative bacterial infections. For these reasons, present guidelines for the treatment of suspected P. aeruginosa bacteraemia recommend the rapid introduction of empirical antimicrobial therapy that includes at least one antipseudomonal agent until having microbiological results. Current consensus favours the use of empirical combination, balancing the potential for greater toxicity against the lower emergence of antimicrobial resistance and the greater killing that might be achieved by combination therapies acting synergistically. Advantages and disadvantages of combination therapy towards monotherapy for P. aeruginosa severe infections, current antibiotics used for P. aeruginosa severe infections and main studies published on this issue are reviewed.     

Therapeutic opportunities in Alzheimer disease: one for all or all for one?

In recent years, Alzheimer disease (AD) has received great attention as an incurable and fatal disease that threatens the lives of aging individuals. Debates regarding areas of research and treatment designs have made headlines as scientists in the field question ongoing work. Despite these academic quarrels, significant insights concerning the cellular and molecular basis of AD have illuminated the potential causes and consequences of AD pathogenesis in the human brain. Additionally, assigning relationships among scientific evidence is difficult due to the nature of the disease. It is crucial to note that all findings do not constitute causality as AD has many stages of progression, and therefore a particular finding may reflect disease epiphenomenon. Determining the primary causes of disease are even more problematic when considering that a succinct timeline in which a normal aging brain develops AD-like changes due to a single cause may not be appropriate, as increasing lines of evidence indicate that multiple factors likely contribute to the clinical manifestation of AD. Implications for therapeutic strategies are dramatically affected by viewing AD as a multi-factorial disease state, one specific treatment may not be able to prevent or reverse AD if this is indeed the case. In this regard, the current focus on individual therapeutic targets may prove to be ineffective in the successful treatment of AD; however, if taken in combination, these singular therapies may likely result in the global suppression of AD. In this review, the scientific basis for common AD therapeutics as well as the efficacy of these treatments will be discussed.     

Molecular targeted therapy in ovarian cancer: what is on the horizon?

Over the past two decades, empirical optimization of cytotoxic chemotherapy combinations and surgical debulking procedures have improved outcomes and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. Yet, this disease remains the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, as cure rates seem to have reached a plateau at approximately 20% with conventional chemotherapy. Novel high-throughput genomic and proteomic analyses have improved the molecular understanding of ovarian carcinogenesis, thereby providing a vast array of new potential drug targets with complex signalling interactions. In order to yield the most significant impact on disease outcome, it is necessary to carefully select, and subsequently target, the driving molecular pathway(s) within a tumour or tumour subtype, which are most likely to correspond to high-frequency mutations and genomic aberrations. The identification of biomarkers predictive of response to targeted therapy is essential to avoid poor responses to potentially useful drugs in unselected trial populations. With some promising, albeit early, phase III data on the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab, exciting new opportunities lie ahead with the ultimate goal of personalizing therapies to individual tumour profiles.     

Optimal therapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: doxorubicin, gemcitabine or topotecan?

Ovarian cancer is more fatal than all the other gynaecological malignancies combined. Although most patients respond to first-line combination chemotherapy, the vast majority (50-75%) of patients with advanced disease will relapse. The management of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer is based on their response profile to platinum: patients with platinum-sensitive disease can be rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy, whereas the management of patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory disease remains an area of active investigation. In this review, the data for second-line therapy in this latter group of patients will be summarised and recommendations for their optimal management will be made.     

Histone deacetylation : an attractive target for cancer therapy?

Recent research has elucidated another mechanism for gene expression and signalling protein regulation in malignant cells. Histone deacetylases (HDACs) have been associated with silencing of tumour suppressor genes, and with other functions that promote malignant cell phenotype, such as the function of the chaperone protein heat shock protein (HSP)-90. Malignant cells overexpress some HDACs, and aberrant gene products have been shown to recruit HDACs to DNA to accomplish silencing of differentiation in other genes. Several chemical classes of small molecule inhibitors of HDAC have been synthesized, including small chain fatty acids, benzamides, hydroxamic acids and hybrid molecules. All have shown preclinical activity in vitro and/or in vivo in nanomolar to micromolar concentrations. Some have shown activity in clinical trials. One (vorinostat; suberoylanalide hydroxamic acid [SAHA]) has been approved by the US FDA for therapy of T-cell lymphomas. HDAC inhibitors show the most promising activity as single agents in haematological malignancies rather than solid tumours. Clinical trials testing combinations of HDAC inhibitors with other antineoplastic agents and with demethylating agents have shown promising results. HDAC inhibitors also seem to enhance radiation effects on malignant tissue, while potentially sparing toxicity to normal tissues. In this article, we review the rationale for development of HDAC inhibitors as therapy for malignant diseases, as well as the preclinical and clinical trial data for some HDAC inhibitors under development.     

Paclitaxel: a hope for advanced non-small cell lung cancer?

Recent studies have shown that paclitaxel (Taxol); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Princeton, NJ) is an active agent in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Early trials in patients with advanced NSCLC utilised a 24 h infusion schedule and reported objective tumour responses in 21 - 24% of patients. Shorter infusion schedules have equivalent efficacy, and combined results from 14 separate trials of single agent paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC show an overall tumour response rate of 26%. Alternative schedules of paclitaxel from the traditional regimen every three weeks are under active investigation, but it is premature to assess whether these will yield improved efficacy for patients with advanced NSCLC. A single multicentre randomised trial of paclitaxel versus best supportive care in advanced NSCLC showed a significant survival advantage for the chemotherapy arm. Two large randomised Phase III trials have shown that paclitaxel and cisplatin is modestly more effective than cisplatin and podophyllotoxin combinations. The addition of cisplatin or carboplatin to paclitaxel results in higher response rates than for each of the drugs as single agents, but it is unclear whether the combinations yield superior survival or quality of life compared to single agent paclitaxel, or to other paclitaxel-containing regimens.