Does Oil Rich in Alpha-Linolenic Fatty Acid Cause the Same Immune Modulation as Fish Oil in Walker 256 Tumor-Bearing Rats?

Objective: Polyunsaturated fatty acids n-3 (PUFA n-3) have shown effects in reducing tumor growth, in particular eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) abundantly present in fish oil (FO). When these fatty acids are provided in the diet, they alter the functions of the cells, particularly in tumor and immune cells. However, the effects of α-linolenic fatty acid (ALA), which is the precursor of EPA and DHA, are controversial. Thus, our objective was to test the effect of this parental fatty acid. Methods: Non-tumor-bearing and tumor-bearing Wistar rats (70 days) were supplemented with 1 g/kg body weight of FO or Oro Inca® (OI) oil (rich in ALA). Immune cells function, proliferation, cytokine production, and subpopulation profile were evaluated. Results: We have shown that innate immune cells enhanced phagocytosis capacity, and increased processing and elimination of antigens. Moreover, there was a decrease in production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6)) by macrophages. Lymphocytes showed decreased proliferation capacity, increased cluster of differentiation 8 (CD8⁺) subpopulation, and increased TNF-α production. Conclusions: Oil rich in ALA caused similar immune modulation in cancer when compared with FO.     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Anti-goat antibodies as a rare cause of high gonadotropin levels during menopausal transition

Abstract

Objective: To understand the origin of extremely high gonadotropin levels in a perimenopausal woman.

Methods: A 52-year-old woman with a 2?months of amenorrhea followed spontaneous menstrual cycles recovery was referred to our outpatient clinic with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH, 483 mUI/ml), luteinizing hormone (LH, 475 mUI/ml) and prolactin (PRL, 173?ng/ml). She was known to take levosulpiride. The gonadotropin levels did not fit with the clinical features.

Results: A gonadotroph tumor was ruled out. Further analysis confirmed constantly high FSH, LH and PRL levels. The measurements were repeated using different analytical platforms with different results. After serial dilutions, nonlinearity was present suggesting an immunoassay interference. After post-polyethylene glycol recovery, hormone levels appeared in the normal range. Anti-goat antibodies were recognized in the serum of the patient.

Conclusions: This case report shows a case of falsely abnormal high gonadotropin and PRL levels in a woman during menopause transition. In the clinical practice the evaluation of gonadotropin profile is not recommended at this age, but the abnormal levels stimulated further evaluation. An interference in the assay due to anti-goat antibodies resulted in abnormally high level of FSH and LH. A strict collaboration between clinicians and the laboratory is needed, when laboratory findings do not correspond to clinical findings.