Gene-Tailored Treatments for Brain Disorders: Challenges and Opportunities.

Brain disorders pose major challenges to medicine and treatment innovation. This is because their spectrum spans inflammatory, degenerative, traumatic/ischaemic, and neoplastic disease processes with a complex and often ill- understood aetiology. An improved genetic and genomic understanding of specific disease pathways offers new approaches to these challenges, but at present it is in its infancy. Here, we review different aspects of the challenges facing neuromedicine, give examples of where there are advances, and highlight challenges to be overcome. We see that some disorders such as Huntington's disease are the product of single gene mutations, whose discovery has been leading to the development of new targeted interventions. In the field of neurosurgery, the identification of a number of mutations allows an elaborated genetic analysis of brain tumours and opens the door to individualised therapies. Psychiatric disorders remain the area where progress is slow. Genetic analyses show that for major common disorders such as schizophrenia and depression there are no single gene alterations which offer options for targeted therapy development. However, new approaches are being developed to leverage genetic information to predict patients' responses to treatment. These recent developments hold promise for early diagnosis, follow-up with personalised treatments with adjusted therapeutic doses, predictable responses, reduced adverse drug reactions, and personal health planning. The scenario is promising but calls for increased support for curiosity-driven research into the mechanisms of normal brain functioning as well as challenging adaptations of health care and research infrastructures, encompassing legal frameworks for analysing large amounts of personal data, a flexible regulatory framework for correlating big data analyses in cooperative networks between academia and the drug development industry, and finally new strategies for brain banking in order to increase access to brain tissue samples. To make personalised medicine for brain disorders a reality, a joint effort between all relevant stakeholders - among which patients and patient organisations should play an important role - is required.

Tolerability of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol combination therapy in children aged 5 to 11 years with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease afflicting millions of children worldwide. Short-acting ß2-agonist reliever medications and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapies are effective treatments; however, many children remain uncontrolled with short-acting ß2-agonist and ICS treatment, in which case guidelines recommend adding a long-acting ß2-agonist. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the safety profile, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI) combined with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) administered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler (GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom) in children aged 5 to 11 years with persistent asthma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, repeated-dose, 2-way crossover study, data from 8- to 11-year-old children with asthma were reviewed before those from 5- to 7-year-old children with asthma. Patients received once-daily FF/VI, 100/25 µg, or FF, 100 µg, in the morning for 14 days, followed by a ≥7-day washout period before switching to the other treatment for 14 days; the study duration was ≤11 weeks. Primary end points were adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory measurements, peak expiratory flow, maximum heart rate, blood pressure, and electrocardiographic parameters. Secondary end points comprised PK (AUC0-4, Cmax) and PD (serum potassium [0-4 hours], serum cortisol [0-12 hours], and glucose [0-4 hours]) parameters on day 14. RESULTS: Twenty-six children were randomized (58% boys; mean age, 8.1 years). No clinically significant changes in the primary end points were observed. Five patients reported 4 and 2 AEs with FF/VI and FF therapy, respectively. After FF/VI or FF treatment, the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) for FF AUC0-4 (1.02 [0.86-1.22]) and FF Cmax (0.98 [0.65-1.48]) were similar. For serum glucose (0-4 hours) concentration, a difference of 0.50 mM (95% CI, 0.19-0.82 mM) was observed for FF/VI versus FF; no differences were observed for other PD parameters. No AEs were judged to be serious or treatment related. The PK profile of FF did not seem to be altered by VI and was not affected by age or sex. The significance of an increased serum glucose level is difficult to judge as measurements were taken from nonfasted patients. Results can be compared only with active treatment, and the ability to generalize is limited by the small number of patients in this single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily repeated dosing of FF/VI, 100/25 µg, using the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler was as well tolerated as FF, 100 µg, in this small, selected population of 5- to 11-year-old, mostly white/caucasian children with persistent asthma.

Evaluation of antidepressant properties of the p38 MAP kinase inhibitor losmapimod (GW856553) in Major Depressive Disorder: Results from two randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre studies using a Bayesian approach.

Pro-inflammatory cytokines (PICs) may play important pathophysiological roles in some forms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The p38 MAPK inhibitor losmapimod (GW856553) attenuates the pro-inflammatory response in humans by reducing PIC production. Losmapimod (7.5 mg BD) was administered for 6 weeks in two randomised, placebo-controlled trials in subjects with MDD enriched with symptoms of loss of energy/interest and psychomotor retardation (Studies 574 and 009). Primary efficacy endpoints were the Bech 6-item depression subscale of the HAMD-17 (the 'Bech,') for Study 009; and the Bech, Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (IDS-C), HAMD-17, and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (self-rated) (QIDS-SR) for Study 574. Key cytokine biomarker levels were also measured. Study 574 (n=24) was terminated prematurely in light of emerging data from an internal study in rheumatoid arthritis. Efficacy results available at termination favoured losmapimod (Bech, 6 weeks: endpoint drug vs. placebo difference = -4.10; 95% CI, -7.36, -0.83; p=0.017). A subsequent study, Study 009 (n=128), designed using a Bayesian approach based on a prior derived from Study 574, showed no advantage for losmapimod (Bech, 6 weeks: endpoint drug vs. placebo difference = 1.11; 95% credible interval, -0.22, 2.50). Biomarker data showed no significant changes. In conclusion 7.5 mg BID losmapimod was not effective in MDD.

Dothiepin-induced transient hypomania and extrapyramidal syndrome.

A case has been reported here, who developed transient hypomanic symptoms as well as extrapyramidal symptoms after being switched from sertraline to dothiepin therapy. The possible mechanisms and clinical implications of the same are discussed.

A randomized, controlled study comparing the effects of vestipitant or vestipitant and paroxetine combination in subjects with tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: Tinnitus is a common symptom that demonstrates a significant comorbidity with anxiety and depression. The novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, vestipitant, has anxiolytic properties and a good safety profile. Vestipitant was investigated for potential effect against chronic tinnitus as a stand-alone treatment and in conjunction with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, paroxetine. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, crossover study. SETTING: Tertiary neurotologic and audiologic center with additional referrals from a secondary university hospital center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four adult patients with tinnitus were randomized into the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analogue scale (VAS) measurements of tinnitus loudness (intensity), pitch and distress, VAS measurements of arousal/anxiety, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, and plasma concentrations of trial drugs. RESULTS: No statistically significant treatment benefit effect was detected for tinnitus (intensity, pitch, and distress) VAS scores, arousal-anxiety VAS scores, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, or tinnitus aggravation scores assessed on Days 1 and 14. However, a statistically significant worsening of tinnitus intensity and distress scores was observed after vestipitant compared with placebo for the mean data collected over the treatment period. No relevant differences in vestipitant plasma concentrations were observed between the subjects given the combination with paroxetine and those receiving vestipitant alone. No specific relationships were observed between tinnitus intensity and vestipitant plasma concentrations. CONCLUSION: Although well-tolerated vestipitant, alone or in combination with paroxetine, was not effective in ameliorating tinnitus in this patient group.