Diadenosine pentaphosphate vasodilates the forearm vascular bed: inhibition by theophylline and augmentation by dipyridamole.

BACKGROUND: In rats, diadenosine pentaphosphate (AP(5)A) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of essential hypertension. This study describes for the first time the vasomotor action of AP(5)A in humans by means of the "perfused forearm technique." RESULTS: AP(5)A evoked a dose-dependent forearm vasodilator response equal to that of adenosine but less than that of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) at equimolar doses. The P(1)-purinoceptor antagonist theophylline (0.28 micromol/min per deciliter) reduced the percentage decrease in forearm vascular resistance (FVR) to AP(5)A (0.6, 6, and 20 nmol/min/dL): -8% +/- 6%, -50% +/- 6%, and -68% +/- 4% during saline solution versus -7% +/- 4%, -33% +/- 5%, and -45% +/- 6% during theophylline (mean +/- standard error [SE]; ANOVA for repeated measures; P <.05 for the interaction between purine dose and theophylline; n = 10). An inhibitor of equilibrative nucleoside transport, dipyridamole (7.4 nmol/min per deciliter), augmented the AP(5)A (0.6 and 6 nmol/min per deciliter)-induced reduction in FVR as follows: -34% +/- 6% and -67% +/- 5% during saline versus -49% +/- 5% and -80% +/- 3% during dipyridamole (P <.05 for the effect of dipyridamole; n = 6). The bivalent cation chelator ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid (EDTA) inhibited the rapid degradation of AP(5)A in vitro. In vivo, the highest tolerated intra-arterial EDTA dose was not sufficient to inhibit AP(5)A metabolism. CONCLUSION: Intra-arterial AP(5)A caused a dose-dependent reduction in FVR. This is, at least in part, mediated by its degradation product adenosine. The data do not support an in vivo vasoconstrictor action of AP(5)A, and as such AP(5)A does not seem likely to contribute to the pathogenesis of primary hypertension in humans.

An approach to antiretroviral treatment of HIV disease. Nucleoside monotherapy.

Despite hopes for attack of multiple viral targets, the licensed agents now in use are all of one type: the nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors, of which four, including zidovudine, are available, with a fifth likely to follow. Clinicians and patients are still struggling to learn how best to employ them; but even now, the available trial results can be distilled into rational management plans.

Treatment of HIV infection: the antiretroviral nucleoside analogues. Nucleoside analogues: monotherapy.

At present, the nucleoside analogues are the cornerstone of therapy for HIV infection. Of the three that have been approved for clinical use, AZT is the only one that has clearly proved to prolong survival. ddI is indicated for patients who develop toxicity or resistance to AZT. Current data do not support ddC monotherapy as first-line treatment.

High-level resistance to zidovudine but not to zalcitabine or didanosine in human immunodeficiency virus from children receiving antiretroviral therapy.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates from children receiving long-term therapy with an alternating regimen of zidovudine and zalcitabine, or with didanosine monotherapy, were evaluated for resistance to zidovudine, zalcitabine, and didanosine, and for mutations known to be associated with zidovudine or didanosine resistance. HIV-1 from four of six patients receiving zidovudine with zalcitabine developed high-level resistance to zidovudine. A mutation in the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase that is highly associated with zidovudine resistance was identified in all four zidovudine-resistant posttherapy isolates. In contrast, none of the HIV-1 isolates from the seven patients receiving didanosine developed high-level resistance to this agent, despite the identification of a didanosine-associated mutation in six of these posttherapy isolates, although small decreases in sensitivity to didanosine were observed. These results indicate that nucleoside analog-associated mutations in HIV-1 occur frequently in children receiving long-term antiretroviral therapy and that alternating combination therapy does not prevent the development of resistance to zidovudine. They also suggest that there may be differences in the degree of resistance conferred by mutations that result from therapy with different nucleoside analogs. These findings underscore the need for studies to define the clinical importance of these mutations, and for treatment strategies to overcome the emergence of viral resistance in vivo.