European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)]. CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Pharmacological inhibition of neuropeptide Y receptors Y1 and Y5 reduces hypoxic breast cancer migration, proliferation, and signaling.

BACKGROUND: Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is an abundant neurohormone in human breast carcinomas that acts on a class of G-protein coupled receptors, of which NPY1R and NPY5R are the most highly expressed. This abundance is exploited for cancer imaging, but there is interest in pharmacological inhibition of the NPYRs to interrogate their functional relevance in breast cancer. We previously reported that NPY1R and NPY5R mRNA abundance is increased by hypoxia inducible factors, which sensitizes these receptors to NPY stimulation leading to enhanced migration and proliferation. METHODS/RESULTS: Here, we measured the effects of NPY1R and NPY5R antagonists in normoxia and hypoxia on migration, proliferation, invasion, and signaling in 2D and 3D models of breast cancer cell lines MDA-MB-231 and MCF7. Antagonizing NPY1R and/or NPY5R in hypoxia compared to normoxia more greatly reduced MAPK signaling, cell proliferation, cell migration and invasion, and spheroid growth and invasion. The estrogen receptor positive MCF7 cells were significantly less invasive in 3D spheres when NPY5R was specifically inhibited. There were some discrepancies in the responses of each cell line to the isoform-specific antagonists and oxygen availability, therefore further investigations are required to dissect the intricacies of NPYR signaling dynamics. In human breast tumor tissue, we show via immunofluorescence that NPY5R protein levels and colocalization with hypoxia correlate with advanced cancer, and NPY1R protein correlates with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Antagonizing the NPYRs has been implicated as a treatment for a wide variety of diseases. Therefore, these antagonists may aid in the development of novel cancer therapeutics and patient-based treatment plans.

A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. RESULTS: We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty). CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.

Spheroids as a 3D Model of the Hypoxic Tumor Microenvironment.

Spheroids enable the study of tumors and tumor hypoxia using a more representative model of the physiological environment compared to 2D cell culture. Spheroids can be grown in a cell suspension or when adhered to a solid scaffold. The spheroid formation method used is dependent on cell type. Here we describe the most common spheroid formation methods, including hanging drop, low adhesion plates, hydrogel, micropatterned plates, and microfluidics. After spheroids are formed, they can be used for drug treatment trials and analyzed using Western Blots, qPCR, and microscopy. Microscopy can then be used to measure the invasiveness of cells when a basement membrane is added to spheroids and for monitoring changes in the proliferation, quiescent, and necrotic zones of spheroids.

Expression of hypoxia inducible factor-dependent neuropeptide Y receptors Y1 and Y5 sensitizes hypoxic cells to NPY stimulation.

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is an abundant neurohormone in the central and peripheral nervous system involved in feeding behavior, energy balance, nociception, and anxiety. Several NPY receptor (NPYR) subtypes display elevated expression in many cancers including in breast tumors where it is exploited for imaging and diagnosis. Here, we address how hypoxia, a common feature of the tumor microenvironment, influences the expression of the NPYRs. We show that NPY1R and NPY5R mRNA abundance is induced by hypoxia in a hypoxia inducible factor (HIF)-dependent manner in breast cancer cell lines MCF7 and MDA-MB-231. We demonstrate that HIFs bind to several genomic regions upstream of the NPY1R and NPY5R transcription start sites. In addition, the MAPK/ERK pathway is activated more rapidly upon NPY5R stimulation in hypoxic cells compared with normoxic cells. This pathway requires insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R) activity in normoxia, but not in hypoxic cells, which display resistance to the radiosensitizer and IGF1R inhibitor AG1024. Furthermore, hypoxic cells proliferate and migrate more when stimulated with NPY relative to normoxic cells and exhibit a more robust response to a Y5-specific agonist. Our data suggest that hypoxia-induced NPYRs render hypoxic cells more sensitive to NPY stimulation. Considering that breast tissue receives a constant supply of NPY, hypoxic breast tumors are the perfect storm for hyperactive NPYR. This study not only highlights a new relationship between the HIFs and NPYR expression and activity but may inform the use of chemotherapeutics targeting NPYRs and hypoxic cells.