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.     

Collecting and evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment: why and how?

Plasma provided by COVID-19 convalescent patients may provide therapeutic relief as the number of COVID-19 cases escalates steeply worldwide. Prior findings in various viral respiratory diseases including SARS-CoV-related pneumonia suggest that convalescent plasma can reduce mortality, although formal proof of efficacy is still lacking. By reducing viral spread early on, such an approach may possibly downplay subsequent immunopathology. Identifying, collecting, qualifying and preparing plasma from convalescent patients with adequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing Ab titres in an acute crisis setting may be challenging, although well within the remit of most blood establishments. Careful clinical evaluation should allow to quickly establish whether such passive immunotherapy, administered at early phases of the disease in patients at high risk of deleterious evolution, may reduce the frequency of patient deterioration, and thereby COVID-19 mortality.     

Symptoms During or Shortly After Isolated Carpal Tunnel Release and Problems Within 24?hours After Surgery

This study used the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (NSAS) database to measure the incidence of and risk factors for symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center and problems within 24 h after isolated carpal tunnel release (CTR). The NSAS contained records on 400,000 adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who were treated with CTR in 2006, based on ICD-9 codes. The type of anesthesia used and factors associated with symptoms and problems were sought in bivariate and multivariable statistical analyses. The mean duration of the procedure was 16 ± 8.8 min. Only 5 % were performed under local anesthesia without sedation, 45 % with IV sedation, 28 % regional anesthesia, and 19 % general anesthesia. Symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center or a problem within 24 h after discharge were recorded in 10 % of patients, all of them minor and transient, including difficulties with pain and its treatment. The strongest risk factors were male sex, age of 45 years and older, and participation of an anesthesiologist. Local anesthesia and regional anesthesia were associated with more perioperative symptoms and postoperative problems. Most CTR are performed with some sedation in the United States. CTR is a safe procedure: one in 10 patients will experience a minor issue in the perioperative or immediate postoperative period.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.