The Potential of Sheep or Camel Milk Constituents to Contribute to Novel Dressings for Diabetic Wounds.

Impaired wound healing is a complication of diabetes, which constitutes a serious problem in clinical practice. Currently, there is a high demand on the market for local treatment options for difficult-to-heal wounds caused by diabetes. The development of dressings that accelerate wound healing has recently been the subject of much research. Sheep and camel milk is gaining importance due to the content of many bioactive substances with health-promoting effects, such as insulin, LF, proline, or CLA. Sheep and camel milk proteins are a promising source of insulin, antidiabetic, and antihypertensive peptides. Numerous studies show that local administration of insulin has a significant impact on the healing of diabetic wounds. Sheep and camel milk, due to the highest LF content among ruminants, reduces autoimmune inflammatory processes and protects against bacterial and viral infections in the wound environment. Sheep's milk has the highest content of proline and CLA, and their addition to a hydrogel dressing can help in the development of an effective dressing material. The production of hydrogel dressings containing sheep and camel milk, which are naturally rich in the bioactive substances presented in this review, may be a promising step in the market of specialized dressings for difficult-to-heal diabetic wounds.

Real-life effectiveness of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in hepatitis C patients previously treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir.

BACKGROUND: Sofosbuvir, velpatasvir and voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) is the recommended rescue therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection who fail direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). Data are limited on the effectiveness of this treatment after the current first-line therapies. Our aim was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of SOF/VEL/VOX among patients failing sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB). METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study (26 Spanish hospitals), including chronic hepatitis C patients unsuccessfully treated with SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB, and retreated with SOF/VEL/VOX ± ribavirin for 12 weeks between December 2017 and December 2022. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients included: 100 (70.4%) had failed SOF/VEL and 42 (29.6%) GLE/PIB. Patients were mainly men (84.5%), White (93.9%), with hepatitis C virus genotype (GT) 3 (49.6%) and 47.2% had liver cirrhosis. Sustained virological response (SVR) was evaluated in 132 patients who completed SOF/VEL/VOX and were followed 12 weeks after end of treatment; 117 (88.6%) achieved SVR. There were no significant differences in SVR rates according to initial DAA treatment (SOF/VEL 87.9% vs. GLE/PIB 90.2%, p = 0.8), cirrhosis (no cirrhosis 90% vs. cirrhosis 87.1%, p = 0.6) or GT3 infection (non-GT3 91.9% vs. GT3 85.5%, p = 0.3). However, when considering the concurrent presence of SOF/VEL treatment, cirrhosis and GT3 infection, SVR rates dropped to 82.8%. Ribavirin was added in 8 (6%) patients, all achieved SVR. CONCLUSION: SOF/VEL/VOX is an effective rescue therapy for failures to SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB, with an SVR of 88.6%. Factors previously linked to lower SVR rates, such as GT3 infection, cirrhosis and first-line therapy with SOF/VEL were not associated with lower SVRs.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or Molnupiravir for treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at risk of disease progression.

BACKGROUND: In randomized controlled trials, Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and Molnupiravir (MPV) reduced the risk of severe/fatal COVID-19 disease. Real-world data are limited, particularly studies directly comparing the two agents. METHODS: Using the VA National COVID-19 database, we identified previously uninfected, non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 with ≥1 risk factor for disease progression who were prescribed either NMV/r or MPV within 3 days of a positive test. We used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to account for providers' preferences for a specific treatment. Absolute risk difference (ARD) with 95% confidence intervals were determined for those treated with NMV/r vs. MPV. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death within 30 days of treatment prescription using the IPTW approach. Analyses were repeated using propensity-score matched groups. RESULTS: Between January 1 and November 30, 2022, 9,180 individuals were eligible for inclusion (6,592 prescribed NMV/r; 2,454 prescribed MPV). The ARD for hospitalization/death for NMV/r vs MPV was -0.25 (95% CI -0.79 to 0.28). There was no statistically significant difference in ARD among strata by age, race, comorbidities, or symptoms at baseline. Kaplan-Meier curves did not demonstrate a difference between the two groups (p-value = 0.6). Analysis of the propensity-score matched cohort yielded similar results (ARD for NMV/r vs. MPV -0.9, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.23). Additional analyses showed no difference for development of severe/critical/fatal disease by treatment group. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in short term risk of hospitalization or death among at-risk individuals with COVID-19 treated with either NMV/r or MPV.

Feasibility, safety, efficacy and potential scaling-up of sofosbuvir-based HCV treatment in Central and West Africa: (TAC ANRS 12311 trial).

Access to Hepatis C treatment in Sub-Saharan Africa is a clinical, public health and ethical concern. The multi-country open-label trial TAC ANRS 12311 allowed assessing the feasibility, safety, efficacy of a specific care model of HCV treatment and retreatment in patients with hepatitis C in Sub Saharan Africa. Between November 2015 and March 2017, with follow-up until mid 2019, treatment-naïve patients with HCV without decompensated cirrhosis or liver cancer were recruited to receive 12 week-treatment with either sofosbuvir + ribavirin (HCV genotype 2) or sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (genotype 1 or 4) and retreatment with sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + voxilaprevir in case of virological failure. The primary outcome was sustained virological response at 12 weeks after end of treatment (SVR12). Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, safety and SVR12 in patients who were retreated due to non-response to first-line treatment. The model of care relied on both viral load assessment and educational sessions to increase patient awareness, adherence and health literacy. The study recruited 120 participants, 36 HIV-co-infected, and 14 cirrhotic. Only one patient discontinued treatment because of return to home country. Neither death nor severe adverse event occurred. SVR12 was reached in 107 patients (89%): (90%) in genotype 1 or 2, and 88% in GT-4. All retreated patients (n = 13) reached SVR12. HCV treatment is highly acceptable, safe and effective under this model of care. Implementation research is now needed to scale up point-of-care HCV testing and SVR assessment, along with community involvement in patient education, to achieve HCV elimination in Sub-Saharan Africa.

ADORA2A-driven proline synthesis triggers epigenetic reprogramming in neuroendocrine prostate and lung cancers.

Cell lineage plasticity is one of the major causes for the failure of targeted therapies in various cancers. However, the driver and actionable drug targets in promoting cancer cell lineage plasticity are scarcely identified. Here, we found that a G protein-coupled receptor, ADORA2A, is specifically upregulated during neuroendocrine differentiation, a common form of lineage plasticity in prostate cancer and lung cancer following targeted therapies. Activation of the ADORA2A signaling rewires the proline metabolism via an ERK/MYC/PYCR cascade. Increased proline synthesis promotes deacetylases SIRT6/7-mediated deacetylation of histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27), and thereby biases a global transcriptional output toward a neuroendocrine lineage profile. Ablation of Adora2a in genetically engineered mouse models inhibits the development and progression of neuroendocrine prostate and lung cancers, and, intriguingly, prevents the adenocarcinoma-to-neuroendocrine phenotypic transition. Importantly, pharmacological blockade of ADORA2A profoundly represses neuroendocrine prostate and lung cancer growth in vivo. Therefore, we believe that ADORA2A can be used as a promising therapeutic target to govern the epigenetic reprogramming in neuroendocrine malignancies.

Efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral agents for HCV in mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease / Eficacia y seguridad de los antivíricos de acción directa para el VHC en la nefropatía crónica de leve a moderada

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The advent of direct-acting antiviral agents promises to change the management of hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a patient group in which the treatment of hepatitis C was historically challenging. We investigated the safety and efficacy of all-oral, interferon-free direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of hepatitis C in a 'real-world' cohort of patients with CKD. METHODS: We performed an observational single-arm multi-centre study in a large (n = 198) cohort of patients with stage 1-3 CKD who underwent antiviral therapy with DAAs for the treatment of HCV. The primary end-point was sustained virologic response (serum HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL, 12 weeks after treatment ended) (SVR12). We collected data on on-treatment adverse events (AEs), severe AEs, and laboratory abnormalities. RESULTS: The average baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI equation) was 70.06 ± 20.1 mL/min/1.72 m2; the most common genotype was HCV 1b (n = 93, 51%). Advanced liver scarring was found in 58 (46%) patients by transient elastography. Five regimens were adopted: elbasvir/grazoprevir (n = 5), glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (n = 4), ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir/ombitasvir/dasabuvir (PrOD) regimen (n = 40), simeprevir ± daclatasvir (n = 2), and sofosbuvir-based combinations (n = 147). The SVR12 rate was 95.4% (95% CI, 93.8%; 96.8%). There were nine virological failures - eight being relapsers. Adverse events occurred in 30% (51/168) of patients, and were managed clinically without discontinuation of therapy or hospitalization. One of the most common AEs was anaemia (n = 12), which required discontinuation or dose reduction of ribavirin in some cases (n = 6); deterioration of kidney function occurred in three (1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: All-oral, interferon-free therapy with DAAs for chronic HCV in mild-to-moderate CKD was effective and well-tolerated in a 'real-world' clinical setting. Studies are in progress to address whether sustained viral response translates into better survival in this population

ANTECEDENTES Y OBJETIVOS: La aparición de los antivíricos de acción directa (AAD) promete cambiar el tratamiento de la infección por el virus de la hepatitis C (VHC) en los pacientes con nefropatía crónica (NC), un grupo de pacientes en el que el tratamiento de la hepatitis C siempre supuso una dificultad. Se investiga la seguridad y la eficacia de los antivíricos de acción directa, sin interferones orales, en todos los casos para el tratamiento de la hepatitis C en una cohorte en condiciones reales de pacientes con NC. MÉTODOS: Se llevó a cabo un estudio multicéntrico, de un solo grupo y observacional en una cohorte amplia (n = 198) de pacientes con NC en estadio 1-3 a los que se administró tratamiento antivírico con AAD para el VHC. El criterio principal de valoración fue la respuesta virológica sostenida (ARN sérico del VHC < 15 UI/ml, 12 semanas después de la finalización del tratamiento) (RVS12). Se recogieron los datos sobre acontecimientos adversos (AA) surgidos durante el tratamiento, AA graves y anomalías analíticas. RESULTADOS: La FGe inicial media (ecuación de CKD-EPI) fue de 70,06 ± 20,1 ml/min/1,72 m2; el genotipo más frecuente fue VHC 1b (n = 93; 51%). Se observó cicatrización hepática avanzada en 58 (46%) pacientes mediante elastografía transitoria. Se adoptaron 5 pautas: elbasvir/grazoprevir (n = 5), glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (n = 4), pauta de paritaprevir/ombitasvir/dasabuvir (PrOD) potenciada con ritonavir (n = 40), simeprevir ± daclatasvir (n = 2) y combinaciones basadas en sofosbuvir (n = 147). La tasa de RVS12 fue del 95,4% (IC del 95%: 93,8; 96,8%). Hubo 9 fracasos virológicos, 8 de ellos recidivantes. Se produjeron acontecimientos adversos en el 30% (51/168) de los pacientes, que se trataron clínicamente sin suspensión del tratamiento ni hospitalización. Uno de los AA más frecuentes fue la anemia (n = 12), que precisó la suspensión o la reducción de la dosis de ribavirina en algunos casos (n = 6); se produjo deterioro de la función renal en 3 casos (1,7%). CONCLUSIONES: El tratamiento sin interferón oral en todos los casos con AAD para el VHC crónico en la NC de leve a moderada fue eficaz y bien tolerado en un contexto de la práctica clínica real. Hay estudios en curso para abordar si la respuesta viral sostenida se traduce en una mejor supervivencia en esta población

Interacciones de los nuevos inhibidores de la proteasa para el tratamiento de la hepatitis C: telaprevir y boceprevir / Systematic review of new protease inhibitors interactions: telaprevir and boceprevir

Introducción: Los nuevos inhibidores de la proteasa (IPs), telaprevir y boceprevir, con peginterferón y ribavirina, han aumentado la tasa de respuesta en pacientes con el Virus de la Hepatitis C genotipo 1. Ambos son metabolizados y son inhibidores del CYP3A y sustratos, y telaprevir inhibidor, de la glicoproteína P. Nuestro objetivo es analizar las interacciones entre estos IPs y otros medicamentos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistematizada en PubMed y Cochrane y en resúmenes de congresos (últimos 2-5 años). Se realizó otra búsqueda en Medline para revisar artículos de eficacia en fase II y III, en Micromedex y fichas técnicas. Resultados: En PubMed se encontraron dos artículos sobre ensayos en fase I que cumplían los criterios de búsqueda, no así en las bases de datos de la Cochrane. Se seleccionaron catorce resúmenes de congresos, mayoritariamente estudios en fase I. En la búsqueda libre en Pubmed se localizó un ensayo preclínico in vitro/in vivo que analizaba IPs coadministrados con ritonavir. En los ensayos clínicos en fase II y III, no se hizo ninguna mención sobre interacciones. Conclusiones: Actualmente, disponemos de estudios en fase I que establecen la alteración de parámetros farmacocinéticos al combinar los IPs con medicamentos representativos (potentes inductores, potentes inhibidores, fármacos con alta unión a proteínas plasmáticas, etc.), existiendo evidencias contradictorias de estas interacciones. Su incorporación a la terapéutica debe tener en cuenta la posibilidad de interacciones complejas y no del todo conocidas, en cuanto a su mecanismo de acción, que pudieran comprometer su eficacia o incrementar su toxicidad (AU)

Introduction: The new protease inhibitors (PIs), telaprevir and boceprevir, with peginterferon and ribavirin, have increased the response rate in patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. Both are metabolized by CYP3A and they are CYP3A inhibitors. Furthermore, they are substrates, also telaprevir is an inhibitor, for P-glycoprotein. Our aim is to analyze the interactions between these IPs and other medications. Method: We performed a systematic review in PubMed and Cochrane database and in conference abstracts of the last 2-5 years. Another search was performed in Medline to check efficacy clinical trials in phase II and III, in Micromedex database and in label information. Results: In PubMed we found two Phase I clinical trials; we did not find any article in the Cochrane database. 14 conference abstracts were selected, mainly there are phase I studies. In the free search in PubMed was located an in vitro / in vivo preclinical study which analyzed the co-administration of IPs and ritonavir. In phase II and III clinical trials, there was no mention about interactions. Conclusions: Currently, there are pharmacokinetic Phase I studies about the interaction between PIs and representative drugs (potent inducers, potent inhibitors, high protein binding drugs, etc.), but the evidence of these interactions is contradictory. Its incorporation into the therapeutic have to take into account the possibility of complex interactions and not entirely known, about their mechanism of action, which might compromise its effectiveness or increase its toxicity (AU)

Aproximación al paciente con hepatitis C que ha fallado al tratamiento antiviral / Management of hepatitis C patient who failed to respond to antiviral treatment

The patient who fails to an interferon based treatment with or without ribavirin represents a major challenge for the clinician. In the initial evaluation a detailed history of the first course of treatment is critical, since it largely determines the likelihood of response to retreatment. In addition, the use of adequate doses of ribavirin and excellent adherence are key for a successful therapy. During re-treatment, a viral load detectable at 12 weeks at any level is considered an indication to discontinue treatment because of the low probability of achieving sustained response. There are new direct antiviral agents (protease inhibitors) that have been shown to increase response rate in patients who previously failed treatment, nevertheless, these drugs have limitations, such as high cost, activity restricted to certain genotypes, additional adverse effects and low response in previous null-responders. There is great optimism in the development of multiple new therapies with different mechanisms of action that promise to significantly increase the chances of eradicating the virus in these difficult to treat patients.

El paciente que ha fallado a un tratamiento sobre la base de interferón, con o sin ribavirina representa un desafío importante para el clínico. En su enfrentamiento inicial es clave una historia detallada del primer curso de tratamiento, ya que en gran parte determina la posibilidad de respuesta a un re-tratamiento. Por otro lado, el uso de dosis adecuadas de ribavirina y una excelente adherencia son claves en el éxito de la terapia. Durante un re-tratamiento, una carga viral a las 12 semanas detectable en cualquier nivel se considera indicación de suspender el tratamiento por la baja probabilidad de lograr respuesta sostenida. Se debe considerar que existen nuevas drogas antivirales directas (inhibidores de proteasa) que han demostrado aumentar la tasa de respuesta en pacientes que previamente han fallado al tratamiento, no obstante, estas drogas tienen limitaciones tales como alto costo, efectividad restringida a algunos genotipos, efectos adversos adicionales y baja respuesta en pacientes respondedores nulos a un tratamiento previo. Existe gran optimismo en el desarrollo de múltiples nuevas terapias con diferentes mecanismos de acción que prometen aumentar en forma significativa la posibilidad de erradicar el virus en este grupo de pacientes difícil de tratar.