Renal and vascular hypertension-induced inflammation: role of angiotensin II

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We will focus on the recent findings concerning the inflammatory response in vascular and renal tissues caused by hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: Angiotensin II is one of the main factors involved in hypertension-induced tissue damage. This peptide regulates the inflammatory process. Angiotensin II activates circulating cells, and participates in their adhesion to the activated endothelium and subsequent transmigration through the synthesis of adhesion molecules, chemokines and cytokines. Among the intracellular signals involved in angiotensin II-induced inflammation, the production of reactive oxygen species and the activation of nuclear factor-kappaB are the best known. SUMMARY: The pharmacological blockade of angiotensin II actions, by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists, results in beneficial organ protective effects, in addition to the effects of these agents on blood pressure control, that can be explained by the blockade of the angiotensin II-induced pro-inflammatory response. These data provide a rationale for the use of blockers of the renin-angiotensin system to prevent vascular and renal inflammation in patients with hypertension.     

Isolation, identification and determination of the major degradation product in alprazolam tablets during their stability assay

The presence of a degradation product of alprazolam tablets that emerged throughout a short-stability assay has been determined and properly characterized. For this purpose an efficient methodology has been successfully applied, including SPE and HPLC methods for isolation and purification, respectively. LC/MS, MS/MS, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, UV and IR have been employed for structural elucidation confirming the identity of this impurity as 7-chloro-1-methyl-5-phenyl-[1,2,4]triazolo[4,3-a]quinolin-4-amine or triazolaminoquinoleine. The impurity, previously described as a long-term photodegradation product of alprazolam active pharmaceutical ingredient, was rapidly formed in the absence of light, but required the presence of excipients and its rate of formation increased with heat and humidity. In addition, a LC method has been developed and validated including triazolaminoquinoleine for the adequate determination of alprazolam and its mayor degradation product in tablets as pharmaceutical forms.     

Assessment of the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine administered as two different formulations and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in healthy volunteers

Objective

Two open‐label, randomized, cross‐over trials in healthy volunteers were conducted to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Methods

Etravirine was administered as either 800 mg twice a day (bid) (phase II formulation in Study 1) or 200 mg bid (phase III formulation in Study 2) for 8 days followed by a 12 h pharmacokinetic evaluation. After a minimum of 14 days washout, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg once a day was administered for 16 days. Volunteers were randomized to receive co‐administration of etravirine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on either days 1–8 or days 9–16 followed by a 12 h pharmacokinetic evaluation for etravirine on day 8 or 16, respectively. Plasma and urine tenofovir concentrations were determined on days 8 and 16 over 24 h.

Results

The least square mean (LSM) ratio [90% confidence interval (CI)] for the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC_{12 h}) for etravirine co‐administered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs. etravirine alone was 0.69 (0.61–0.79) and 0.81 (0.75–0.88) in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The LSM ratio (90% CI) for the effect of etravirine on tenofovir AUC_{24 h} was 1.16 (1.09–1.23) in Study 1 and 1.15 (1.09–1.21) in Study 2.

Conclusions

These alterations are not considered clinically relevant for either drug and no dose adjustment is necessary when etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate are co‐administered.     

Phenotype determining alleles in GM1 gangliosidosis patients bearing novel GLB1 mutations

Hofer D, Paul K, Fantur K, Beck M, Roubergue A, Vellodi A, Poorthuis BJ, Michelakakis H, Plecko B, Paschke E. Phenotype determining alleles in GM1 gangliosidosis patients bearing novel GLB1 mutations. GM1 gangliosidosis manifests with progressive psychomotor deterioration and dysostosis of infantile, juvenile, or adult onset, caused by alterations in the structural gene coding for lysosomal acid ß‐galactosidase (GLB1). In addition, allelic variants of this gene can result in Morquio B disease (MBD), a phenotype with dysostosis multiplex and entire lack of neurologic involvement. More than 100 sequence alterations in the GLB1 gene have been identified so far, but only few could be proven to be predictive for one of the GM1 gangliosidosis subtypes or MBD. We performed genotype analyses in 16 GM1 gangliosidosis patients of all phenotypes and detected 28 different genetic lesions. Among these, p.I55FfsX16, p.W65X, p.F107L, p.H112P, p.C127Y, p.W161X, p.I181K, p.C230R, p.W273X, p.R299VfsX5, p.A301V, p.F357L, p.K359KfsX23, p.L389P, p.D448V, p.D448GfsX8, and the intronic mutation IVS6‐8A>G have not been published so far. Due to their occurrence in homozygous patients, four mutations could be correlated to a distinct GM1 gangliosidosis phenotype. Furthermore, the missense mutations from heteroallelic patients and three artificial nonsense mutations were characterized by overexpression in COS‐1 cells, and the subcellular localization of the mutant proteins in fibroblasts was assessed. The phenotype specificity of 10 alleles can be proposed on the basis of our results and previous data.     

Preclinical Models Used for Immunogenicity Prediction of Therapeutic Proteins

All therapeutic proteins are potentially immunogenic. Antibodies formed against these drugs can decrease efficacy, leading to drastically increased therapeutic costs and in rare cases to serious and sometimes life threatening side-effects. Many efforts are therefore undertaken to develop therapeutic proteins with minimal immunogenicity. For this, immunogenicity prediction of candidate drugs during early drug development is essential. Several in silico, in vitro and in vivo models are used to predict immunogenicity of drug leads, to modify potentially immunogenic properties and to continue development of drug candidates with expected low immunogenicity. Despite the extensive use of these predictive models, their actual predictive value varies. Important reasons for this uncertainty are the limited/insufficient knowledge on the immune mechanisms underlying immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins, the fact that different predictive models explore different components of the immune system and the lack of an integrated clinical validation. In this review, we discuss the predictive models in use, summarize aspects of immunogenicity that these models predict and explore the merits and the limitations of each of the models.     

2012 AAPS National Biotech Conference Open Forum: A Perspective on the Current State of Immunogenicity Prediction and Risk Management

The immunogenicity profile of a biotherapeutic is determined by multiple product-, process- or manufacturing-, patient- and treatment-related factors and the bioanalytical methodology used to monitor for immunogenicity. This creates a complex situation that limits direct correlation of individual factors to observed immunogenicity rates. Therefore, mechanistic understanding of how these factors individually or in concert could influence the overall incidence and clinical risk of immunogenicity is crucial to provide the best benefit/risk profile for a given biotherapeutic in a given indication and to inform risk mitigation strategies. Advances in the field of immunogenicity have included development of best practices for monitoring anti-drug antibody development, categorization of risk factors contributing to immunogenicity, development of predictive tools, and development of effective strategies for risk management and mitigation. Thus, the opportunity to ask "where we are now and where we would like to go from here?" was the main driver for organizing an Open Forum on Improving Immunogenicity Risk Prediction and Management, conducted at the 2012 American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists'' (AAPS) National Biotechnology Conference in San Diego. The main objectives of the Forum include the following: to understand the nature of immunogenicity risk factors, to identify analytical tools used and animal models and management strategies needed to improve their predictive value, and finally to identify collaboration opportunities to improve the reliability of risk prediction, mitigation, and management. This meeting report provides the Forum participant''s and author''s perspectives on the barriers to advancing this field and recommendations for overcoming these barriers through collaborative efforts.KEY WORDS: ADA, anti-drug antibodies, immunogenicity, neutralizing antibodies, prediction, predictive sciences, risk assesment, risk management, risk mitigation