DOCSLIB.ORG

Antimalarial Combinations — Current Clinical Practices 649

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antimalarial Combinations — Current Clinical Practices 649 Antimalarial Combinations — Current Clinical Practices 649 Antimalarial Combinations — 110 Current Clinical Practices BIRANCHI NARAYAN MOHAPATRA, CBK MOHANTY Malaria is a major public health problem of the Antimalarial combination therapy is defined as the world. An estimated 300-500 million cases and 1 to 2.7 simultaneous use of two or more blood schizonticidal million deaths occur each year due to malaria1. In India drugs with independent mode of action and thus over the past two decades malaria incidence has been unrelated by biochemical targets in the parasite4. fluctuating between 2-3 million cases each year. India has 40% of all malaria cases outside Africa2. Effective Rationale for Antimalarial Combination Quinine monotherapy for malaria has been available for Combination chemotherapy has been well estab- more than 350 years long before the causative organism lished in TB, and Leprosy which has been recently of the disease were identified3. Chloroquine remains the applied to malaria3,4. The combination is often more chief drug as monotherapy which was later joined effective. It prevents and delays the emergence of by amodiaquine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and resistance by killing of mutant resistant parasite to one Mefloquine. drug by the partner drug. To achieve this, the partner Resistance to antimalarials has been documented for drug must be independently effective. The possible dis- 4 P. falciparum, P. vivax and recently P. malariae . In advantages of combination treatment are the potential P. falciparum, resistance has been observed to almost all risk or increasing adverse effect and increased cost4. currently available antimalarials (Amodiaquine, Chloro- quine, Mefloquine, Quinine and Sulfadoxine-Pyrimetha- What is not considered to be mine) except for artemisinin and its derivatives4. P. vivax Combination Therapy resistance to Chloroquine, Pyrimethamine has also been Drug combinations such as Sulfadoxine-Pyrimetha- observed, though in Indian subcontinent it is still mine, Sulfalene-Pyrimethamine, Proguanil-Dapsone, sensitive3,4. Chlorproguanil-Dapsone and Atovaquone-Proguanil Multi-drug resistance (MDR) is defined as resistance rely on synergy between the two components. The drug to three or more antimalarial compounds from different targets in the malaria parasite are linked. These chemical classes4. Generally, the first two classes are 4- combinations are operationally considered as single aminoquinolines (e.g. Chloroquine) and antifolate products and treatment with them is not considered to (Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine)4. MDR malaria presents be antimalarial combination therapy. Multiple-drug as the biggest therapeutic challenge to health care in therapies that include a non-antimalarial medicine to most malaria endemic area resulting in higher mortality, enhance the antimalarial effect of a blood schizontocidal morbidity and increasing the burden of malaria. To drug (Chloroquine and Chlorpheniramine) are also not counter the threat of resistance of P. falciparum to antimalarial combination therapy. monotherapy and to improve the treatment outcome, combinations of antimalarials are now recommended ANTIMALARIAL COMBINATIONS by WHO for the treatment of falciparum malaria and There are two broad groups of antimalarial combina- may be used in other type of malaria4. tions. 650 Medicine Update 1. Artemisinin based combination therapy (ACT) 1. Artemether + Lumefantrine (AL) 2. Non-artemisinin based combination therapy (Non- 2. Artesunate + Mefloquine (AS + MQ) ACT) 3. Artesunate + Sulfadoxine–Pyrimethamine (AS +SP) Artemisinin Based Combination Therapy (ACT) 4. Artesunate + Amodiaquine (AS + AQ) All the above four regimens are effective with minor Artemisinin and its derivatives (aresunate, differences in their potency and adverse effect (Table artemether, artemotil, dihydroartemisinin) preduce 1)4,5,8-10. But all are superior as antimalarial therapy in rapid clearance of parasitemia and rapid resolution of comparison to monotherapy3,4. A systematic review has P. falciparum symptoms. They act by inhibiting a encoded observed statistically insignificant rise at detection of scercoplasmic endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATpase parasite on 28 days. But fewer side effects with AL in and not by inhibiting haem metabolic pathway as comparison to AS + MQ.8 However, one study has suggested earlier3. They reduce parasite numbers by a shown irreversible hearing impairment with AL3. factor of approximately 10,000 in each a sexual cycle, which is more than other current antimalarials (which Artesunet + doxycycline/tetracycline/clindamycin reduce parasite number 100 to 1000 fold per cycle). for 7 days has been considered as a second line regimen Artemisinin and its deriveatives are eliminated rapidly. for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria4. When given in combination with rapidly eliminated compounds (tetracyclines, clindamycin), a 7-days course Non-artemisinin Based Combination of treatment with artemisinin compound is required. But Therapy (Non-ACT) when given in combination with slowly eliminated antimalarials, shorter courses of treatment (3 days) are I. Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine + Chloroquine (SP effective4. +CQ): Chloroquine interferes with parasitic hem- In 3-day ACT regimens, the artemisinin compound degradation pathway and thereby prevents detoxi- is present in the body during only two a sexual parasite fication harmful products of metabolism whereas life-cycles(each lasting 2 days, except for P. malariae Sulfadoxine and Pyrimethamine inhibits dihydro- infections). This exposure to 3 days of artemisinin pteroate synthase (DHPS) and dihydrofolate reduc- treatment reduces the number of parasites in the body tase (DHFR) respectively, resulting in prevention by a factor of approximately one hundred million (104 × of folic acid in parasite3. 104=108). However, complete clearance of parasites is However, there is no convincing evidence that dependent on the partner medicine being effective and SP + CQ provides any additional benefit over SP, persisting at parasiticidal concentrations until all the hence not recommended3,4,6. infecting parasites have been killed. Thus, the partner II. Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine + Amodiaquine (SP + compounds need to be relatively slowly eliminated. As AQ): The mechanism of action of AQ is similar to result of this, the artemisinin component is protected chloroquine. In a recent systematic review SP + AQ from resistance by the partner medicine, provided it is efficacious and the partner medicine is partly protected combination has resulted in significantly lower risk of treatment failure than SP or AQ monotherapy. by the artemisinin derivative. Courses of ACTs of less 6 than 3 days are not recommended as they are less Serious adverse effects are rare . WHO recommends efficacious, and provide less protection of the slowly its use in uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria where 4 eliminated partner antimalarial4. more effective ACT is not available . The artemisinin compounds are active against all III. Quinine + tetracycline / doxycycline: tetracycline four species of malaria parasites that infect humans and and doxycycline probably act by inhibiting the are generally well tolerated. The only significant adverse binding of aminoacyl tRNA to the ribosome of effect to emerge from extensive clinical trials has been parasite. Tetracycline and doxycycline maintain rare type 1 hypersensitivity reactions (manifested activities against MDR malaria parasite. The initially by urticaria). These drugs also have gametocidal combinations have been advocated as a second line effect. This helps in preventing transmissions of therapy for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. malaria4. The evidence of their superiority in comparison Tetracycline and doxycycline are not recommen- to monotherapies have been clearly documented3-5. ded in pregnancy and children. Currently, there are four ACTs which have been IV. Quinine + clindamycin: The combination is recommended by WHO for treatment of uncomplicated effective against MDR malaria. Both of them have P. falciparum malaria. They are: short half life thereby reducing the selection of Antimalarial Combinations — Current Clinical Practices 651 Table 1: Dose schedule of currently available ACT tetracycline/doxycycline/clindamycin should be preferred over quinine + tetracycline/doxycycline/ Name of Regimen Dose Duration clindamycin4,11. Artemether + 1.5 mg/kg/dose 0, 8, 24, 36, 48, 60 (hr) In vivax malaria, chloroquine with primaquine is still Lumefantrine +9.0 mg/kg/dose effective but ACT can be used except AS + SP. Artesunate + 4 mg/ kg/day + Once daily for 3 days Multidrug resistant malaria parasite has forced the Mefloquine 15 mg/kg/day On 2nd day use of combinations antimalarial regimen. Artemisinin + 10mg/kg/day On 3rd day based combinations are preferred until better combi- nation regimens are found. There is no place mono- Artesunate + 4 mg/kg/day + Once daily for 3 days Amodiaquine 10 mg base/kg/day Once daily for 3 days therapy in malaria. Artesunate + 4 mg/kg/day + Once daily for 3 days REFERENCES Sulfdoxine – 25 mg/kg/day – Once on 1st day Pyrimethamine 1.25 mg/kg/day 1. WHO, 2000. WHO expert committee on malaria. Twentieth report World Health Organisation, Geneva, Technical Report Series, No. 892. resistance parasite. Clindamycin is preferred in 2. Pareek A, Nandy A, Kocher D, Patel KH, Mishra SK, Mathur pregnancy and children. It is considered as second PC. Efficacy and safety of a/b Arteether for treatment of acute line drug for uncomplicated P. falciparum
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pharmacogenetic Testing: a Tool for Personalized Drug Therapy Optimization
    pharmaceutics Review Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Tool for Personalized Drug Therapy Optimization Kristina A. Malsagova 1,* , Tatyana V. Butkova 1 , Arthur T. Kopylov 1 , Alexander A. Izotov 1, Natalia V. Potoldykova 2, Dmitry V. Enikeev 2, Vagarshak Grigoryan 2, Alexander Tarasov 3, Alexander A. Stepanov 1 and Anna L. Kaysheva 1 1 Biobanking Group, Branch of Institute of Biomedical Chemistry “Scientific and Education Center”, 109028 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] (T.V.B.); [email protected] (A.T.K.); [email protected] (A.A.I.); [email protected] (A.A.S.); [email protected] (A.L.K.) 2 Institute of Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, 119992 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] (N.V.P.); [email protected] (D.V.E.); [email protected] (V.G.) 3 Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Sechenov University, 119992 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-499-764-9878 Received: 2 November 2020; Accepted: 17 December 2020; Published: 19 December 2020 Abstract: Pharmacogenomics is a study of how the genome background is associated with drug resistance and how therapy strategy can be modified for a certain person to achieve benefit. The pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing becomes of great opportunity for physicians to make the proper decision regarding each non-trivial patient that does not respond to therapy. Although pharmacogenomics has become of growing interest to the healthcare market during the past five to ten years the exact mechanisms linking the genetic polymorphisms and observable responses to drug therapy are not always clear. Therefore, the success of PGx testing depends on the physician’s ability to understand the obtained results in a standardized way for each particular patient.
    [Show full text]
  • Plague Plague
    Disease Planning Guide - Plague Mass Post Exposure Prophylaxis I. Disease-specific guidance: The following guide should only be used in events where a plague epidemic has been identified, an Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration has been issued and a state and local emergency declaration has been issued by the proper authorities. Model Standing Order – Pg 1 Clients will arrive at dispensing sites with a voucher indicating which medication, if any, they should receive. Specific guidance related to dispensing is shown in red . Model Standing Order – Pg 2 Clients that present this voucher will not receive medication for the individual named on the form. Dispensers may collect “Do Not Dispense Medication” vouchers for records purposes. Model Standing Order – Pg 3 II. PERSONS FOR WHOM PROPHYLAXIS MAY BE ORDERED Persons who have a confirmed or suspect exposure to Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague, as determined by the local or State Health Officer. Table 1: Recommended Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Inhalational Plague Patient Category Therapy Recommendation Duration 10 days Adults Doxycycline , 100 mg PO BID or Ciprofloxacin , 500 mg PO BID 10 days Ciprofloxacin , 15 mg/kg PO BID, max 500 mg/dose or Doxycycline : >45 kg: 100 mg PO BID Children <45 kg: 2.2 mg/kg PO BID ***************************************** If susceptibility to penicillin has been confirmed: Amoxicillin : >20 kg: 500 mg PO TID <20 kg: 80 mg/kg/day PO divided TID 10 days Doxycycline , 100 mg PO BID or Pregnant women Ciprofloxacin , 500 mg PO BID ***************************************** If susceptibility to penicillin has been confirmed: Amoxicillin 500 mg PO TID 10 days Immunocompromised Doxycycline , 100 mg PO BID or Ciprofloxacin , 500 mg PO BID Adapted from: Working Group on Civilian Biodefense.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Docetaxel Treatment of Prostate Cancer: from Discovery to Implementation
    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Review Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Docetaxel Treatment of Prostate Cancer: From Discovery to Implementation Reka Varnai 1,2, Leena M. Koskinen 3, Laura E. Mäntylä 3, Istvan Szabo 4,5, Liesel M. FitzGerald 6 and Csilla Sipeky 3,* 1 Department of Primary Health Care, University of Pécs, Rákóczi u 2, H-7623 Pécs, Hungary 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, Doctoral School of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Vörösmarty u 4, H-7621 Pécs, Hungary 3 Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 10, FI-20520 Turku, Finland 4 Institute of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary 5 Faculty of Sciences, Doctoral School of Biology and Sportbiology, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary 6 Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia * Correspondence: csilla.sipeky@utu.fi Received: 17 June 2019; Accepted: 5 August 2019; Published: 8 August 2019 Abstract: Prostate cancer is the fifth leading cause of male cancer death worldwide. Although docetaxel chemotherapy has been used for more than fifteen years to treat metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, the high inter-individual variability of treatment efficacy and toxicity is still not well understood. Since prostate cancer has a high heritability, inherited biomarkers of the genomic signature may be appropriate tools to guide treatment. In this review, we provide an extensive overview and discuss the current state of the art of pharmacogenomic biomarkers modulating docetaxel treatment of prostate cancer. This includes (1) research studies with a focus on germline genomic biomarkers, (2) clinical trials including a range of genetic signatures, and (3) their implementation in treatment guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacogenomic Testing for Selected Conditions Final Evidence Report
    Pharmacogenomic testing for selected conditions Final evidence report December 9, 2016 Health Technology Assessment Program (HTA) Washington State Health Care Authority PO Box 42712 Olympia, WA 98504-2712 (360) 725-5126 www.hca.wa.gov/about-hca/health-technology-assessment [email protected] Pharmacogenomic Testing for Selected Conditions A Health Technology Assessment Prepared for Washington State Healthcare Authority FINAL REPORT December 9, 2016 Acknowledgement This report was prepared by: Hayes, Inc. 157 S. Broad Street Suite 200 Lansdale, PA 19446 P: 215.855.0615 F: 215.855.5218 This report is intended to provide research assistance and general information only. It is not intended to be used as the sole basis for determining coverage policy or defining treatment protocols or medical modalities, nor should it be construed as providing medical advice regarding treatment of an individual’s specific case. Any decision regarding claims eligibility or benefits, or acquisition or use of a health technology is solely within the discretion of your organization. Hayes, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for such decisions. Hayes employees and contractors do not have material, professional, familial, or financial affiliations that create actual or potential conflicts of interest related to the preparation of this report. WA – Health Technology Assessment December 9, 2016 Table of Contents EVIDENCE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Combination Antibiotic Therapy on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Presented by Kasra Nick Fallah In
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UT Digital Repository The Effects of Combination Antibiotic Therapy on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Presented by Kasra Nick Fallah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for completion of the Health Science Scholars honors program in the College of Natural Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin Spring 2018 Gregory C. Palmer, Ph.D. Date Supervising Professor Texas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Department of Medical Education Ruth Buskirk, Ph.D. Date Biology Honors Advisor Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences Table of Contents Abstract (3) Chapter 1: Literature Review (4) 1.1: The History of Antibiotics (4) 1.1.1: The Discovery of Penicillin (4) 1.1.2: The Different Classes of Antibiotics (7) 1.1.3: The Mechanisms of Action of Antibiotics (13) 1.2: Antibiotic Resistance (16) 1.2.1: The Rise of Antibiotic Resistance (16) 1.2.2: Mechanisms of Resistance (17) 1.2.3: How Antibiotic Resistance Spreads (20) 1.2.4: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (21) 1.3: Streptomyces (24) 1.3.1: Selman Waksman (24) 1.3.2: Streptomyces: A Possible Solution to Antibiotic Resistance (25) 1.4: Combination Antibiotic Therapy (27) 1.4.1: The Positive/Negative Effects of Combination Antibiotic Therapy (27) 1.4.2: Drug Interactions (29) 1.4.3: Antibiotic Stewardship (30) Chapter 2: Research Manuscript (32) 2.1: Introduction (32) 1 2.2: Methods (35) 2.2.1: Strains, Media, and Growth Conditions (35) 2.2.2: Bacterial Strain Isolation and Identification (35) 2.2.3: Ethyl acetate Extractions (36) 2.2.4: Disc Assays (36) 2.3: Results & Discussion (38) 2.3.1: Isolation of Bacteria (38) 2.3.2: Organic Extractions (41) 2.3.3: Inhibition of MSSA and MRSA (41) 2.3.4: Inhibitory effect of the antibiotic produced by S.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Antimalarial Therapies and Advances in the Development of Semi-Synthetic Artemisinin Derivatives
    Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2018) 90(1 Suppl. 2): 1251-1271 (Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences) Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170830 www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal Current Antimalarial Therapies and Advances in the Development of Semi-Synthetic Artemisinin Derivatives LUIZ C.S. PINHEIRO1, LÍVIA M. FEITOSA1,2, FLÁVIA F. DA SILVEIRA1,2 and NUBIA BOECHAT1 1Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos Farmanguinhos, Fiocruz, Departamento de Síntese de Fármacos, Rua Sizenando Nabuco, 100, Manguinhos, 21041-250 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Química, Avenida Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, Cidade Universitária, 21941-909 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Manuscript received on October 17, 2017; accepted for publication on December 18, 2017 ABSTRACT According to the World Health Organization, malaria remains one of the biggest public health problems in the world. The development of resistance is a current concern, mainly because the number of safe drugs for this disease is limited. Artemisinin-based combination therapy is recommended by the World Health Organization to prevent or delay the onset of resistance. Thus, the need to obtain new drugs makes artemisinin the most widely used scaffold to obtain synthetic compounds. This review describes the drugs based on artemisinin and its derivatives, including hybrid derivatives and dimers, trimers and tetramers that contain an endoperoxide bridge. This class of compounds is of extreme importance for the discovery of new drugs to treat malaria. Key words: malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, artemisinin, hybrid.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Combinations: Mathematical Modeling and Networking Methods
    pharmaceutics Review Drug Combinations: Mathematical Modeling and Networking Methods Vahideh Vakil † and Wade Trappe *,† Wireless Information Network Laboratory (WINLAB), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-848-932-0909 † Current address: Technology Centre of New Jersey, 671 Route 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, USA. Received: 12 February 2019; Accepted: 27 April 2019; Published: 2 May 2019 Abstract: Treatments consisting of mixtures of pharmacological agents have been shown to have superior effects to treatments involving single compounds. Given the vast amount of possible combinations involving multiple drugs and the restrictions in time and resources required to test all such combinations in vitro, mathematical methods are essential to model the interactive behavior of the drug mixture and the target, ultimately allowing one to better predict the outcome of the combination. In this review, we investigate various mathematical methods that model combination therapies. This survey includes the methods that focus on predicting the outcome of drug combinations with respect to synergism and antagonism, as well as the methods that explore the dynamics of combination therapy and its role in combating drug resistance. This comprehensive investigation of the mathematical methods includes models that employ pharmacodynamics equations, those that rely on signaling and how the underlying chemical networks are affected by the topological structure of the target proteins, and models that are based on stochastic models for evolutionary dynamics. Additionally, this article reviews computational methods including mathematical algorithms, machine learning, and search algorithms that can identify promising combinations of drug compounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Codevelopment of Two Or More New Investigational Drugs for Use in Combination
    Guidance for Industry Codevelopment of Two or More New Investigational Drugs for Use in Combination U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) June 2013 Clinical Medical Guidance for Industry Codevelopment of Two or More New Investigational Drugs for Use in Combination Additional copies are available from: Office of Communications Division of Drug Information, WO51, Room 2201 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20993 Phone: 301-796-3400; Fax: 301-847-8714 [email protected] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) June 2013 Clinical Medical Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2 III. DETERMINING WHETHER CODEVELOPMENT IS AN APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OPTION ........................................................................................................ 2 IV. NONCLINICAL CODEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4 A. Demonstrating the Biological Rationale for the Combination...................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Motivators and Barriers to Use of Combination Therapies in Patients with HIV Disease
    Motivators and Barriers To Use Of Combination Therapies In Patients With HIV Disease Ruthann Richter Maureen Michaels President, Michaels Opinion Research Bruce Carlson Research Associate, Michaels Opinion Research Thomas J. Coates PhD AIDS Research Institute and Center for AIDS Prevention Studies UCSF CAPS Monograph Series, occasional paper #5, January 1998 Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California San Francisco Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Study Design III. Key Findings A. Motivators to Initiate Therapy B. Barriers to Initiation of Therapy C. Other Factors That Influence Decision-Making D. Issues and Concerns of Women IV. Study Implications I. Introduction The successful two-drug combination therapy in 1994 and protease inhibitors in 1995 set the stage for a new era in treatment of HIV disease, creating a burst of optimism over the prospect that HIV might be a controllable disease. Initial studies of protease containing triple-drug regimens suggested that these combinations could, in some cases, slow clinical progression of the disease and prolong the lives of patients. 1, 2 In anecdotal reports, physicians and patients described a kind of "Lazarus" effect in which previously disabled individuals found themselves regaining lost functions, returning to work and planning their futures, instead of preparing for death. There are still many unknowns about these multi-drug regimens, including their durability of effect and how many individuals for whom they will be effective.3, 4 Nonetheless, the drugs have proven quite effective in clinical trials and are helping many people stay alive longer and experience better quality of life while they are alive. We thought it important to understand better why people do and do not take advantage of these therapeutic advances.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Treatment Strategies to Reduce Antibiotic Resistance in an In
    Comparing treatment strategies to reduce antibiotic resistance in an in vitro epidemiological setting Daniel C. Angsta,1,2 , Burcu Tepekulea,1,3 , Lei Suna,4, Balazs´ Bogosa,5 , and Sebastian Bonhoeffera aInstitute of Integrative Biology, Department for Environmental System Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland Edited by Bruce R. Levin, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, and approved February 23, 2021 (received for review November 23, 2020) The rapid rise of antibiotic resistance, combined with the increas- dynamics for infection and patient migration. We complement ing cost and difficulties to develop new antibiotics, calls for this by simulating the same processes using an epidemiological treatment strategies that enable more sustainable antibiotic use. model (Fig. 1A). The development of such strategies, however, is impeded by Our approach mimics a hospital with continuous admission the lack of suitable experimental approaches that allow test- and discharge of patients (Fig. 1B). The central unit represent- ing their effects under realistic epidemiological conditions. Here, ing an individual patient is a well in a microtiter plate, which we present an approach to compare the effect of alternative can either contain only bacterial growth medium (uninfected multidrug treatment strategies in vitro using a robotic liquid- patient/well), or contain sensitive or resistant strains (infected handling platform. We use this framework to study resistance patient/well). As a model organism, we used Escherichia coli evolution and spread implementing epidemiological population MG1655. To increase the likelihood to observe de novo resis- dynamics for treatment, transmission, and patient admission and tance, we used a mutS knockout which exhibits an around discharge, as may be observed in hospitals.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacogenetics of Pemetrexed Combination Therapy in Lung Cancer: Pathway Analysis Reveals Novel Toxicity Associations
    The Pharmacogenomics Journal (2014) 14, 411–417 & 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 1470-269X/14 www.nature.com/tpj ORIGINAL ARTICLE Pharmacogenetics of pemetrexed combination therapy in lung cancer: pathway analysis reveals novel toxicity associations A Corrigan1,6, JL Walker2,6, S Wickramasinghe1, MA Hernandez1, SJ Newhouse3, AA Folarin3, CM Lewis2, JD Sanderson4, J Spicer5 and AM Marinaki1 Identification of polymorphisms that influence pemetrexed tolerability could lead to individualised treatment regimens and improve quality of life. Twenty-eight polymorphisms within eleven candidate genes were genotyped using the Illumina Human Exome v1.1 BeadChip and tested for their association with the clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma patients receiving pemetrexed/platinum doublet chemotherapy (n ¼ 136). GGH rs11545078 was associated with a reduced incidence of grade X3 toxicity within the first four cycles of therapy (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, P ¼ 0.018), as well as reduced grade X3 haematological toxicity (OR 0.13, P ¼ 0.048). DHFR rs1650697 conferred an increased risk of grade X3 toxicity (OR 2.14, P ¼ 0.034). Furthermore, FOLR3 rs61734430 was associated with an increased likelihood of disease progression at mid-treatment radiological evaluation (OR 4.05, P ¼ 0.023). Polymorphisms within SLC19A1 (rs3788189, rs1051298 and rs914232) were associated with overall survival. This study confirms previous pharmacogenetic associations and identifies novel markers of pemetrexed toxicity. The Pharmacogenomics Journal (2014) 14, 411–417; doi:10.1038/tpj.2014.13; published online 15 April 2014 INTRODUCTION (FPGS).16 Polyglutamation serves for both prolongation of cellular Pemetrexed is a folate antimetabolite approved for the treatment retention of pemetrexed and also increases the affinity of the 5,17 of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both in drug for its cellular targets.
    [Show full text]
  • Present and Future of Combination Therapy of Autoimmune Diseases
    For reprint orders, please contact: EDITORIAL [email protected] Present and future of combination therapy of autoimmune diseases disease remission, enabling changes in dosing and ‘A dual therapeutic strategy targeting scheduling of those drugs with the least conven- the dominating proinflammatory ient safety profile, leading certainly to a more milieu as well as the more specific individualized approach to medicine and open- immune response is, in our view, ing the possibility of identifying a strategy leading especially promising.’ to long-lasting remission. Treatment regimens for rheumatological diseases Combination of nonbiologics have changed considerably over the past 20 years. It has become common practice, that patients are To date, treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) started on disease-modifying antirheumatic mainly focused on the inflammatory pathogenic drugs (DMARDs) therapy early in the course of component of the disease. Significant progress in their disease. In order to achieve synergy without the induction of disease remission has been subsequent increase in toxicity, long-term remis- achieved by the use of powerful immunosuppres- sion and slowing of radiological damage, the sants and cytostatic drugs, such as corticosteroids, combination of several DMARDs with different methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide, in the mechanisms of action was tested and found to be early stage of the disease [1,2]. Biologics have effective in some combinations [5,6]. For instance, recently been added for treatment-resistant dis- in two open-label randomized trials in patients ease, more specifically targeting components that with early RA, the combination of MTX, sulfa- play a role in the disease pathogenesis [3,4]. Unfor- salazine, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and pred- tunately, persistent disease remission can only be nisolone demonstrated greater clinical achieved as long as the drugs are administered, improvement and significantly less radiographic and only then can progression of joint damage be progression compared with a single DMARD prevented.
    [Show full text]