Explore the vast range of titles available.

Summary Introduction This was an open-label, dose escalation (3 + 3 design), Phase I study of SOR-C13 in patients with advanced tumors of epithelial origin. Primary objectives were to assess safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetics. Secondary goals were to assess pharmacodynamics and efficacy of SOR-C13. Methods SOR-C13 was administered IV QD on days 1–3 and 8–10 of a 21-day cycle. Doses were 2.75 and 5.5 mg/kg (20-min infusion) and 1.375, 2.75, 4.13 and 6.2 mg/kg (90-min infusion). Toxicity was assessed by National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed within the first treatment cycle. Tumors were evaluated, using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, after two cycles. Results Twenty-three patients were treated. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred. DLTs occurred in six patients: asymptomatic, drug-related, transient Grade 2 hypocalcemia (4 patients), and unrelated Grade 3 anemia and Grade 3 atrial fibrillation, 1 patient each. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation eliminated further Grade 2 hypocalcemia. One Grade 3 treatment emergent adverse event, urticaria, was definitely related to SOR-C13. Four possibly drug-related, Grade 3 events (alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase elevation, headache, and hypokalemia) were observed. Of 22 evaluable patients, 54.5% showed stable disease ranging from 2.8 to 12.5 months. The best response was a 27% reduction in a pancreatic tumor with a 55% reduction in CA19–9 levels at 6.2 mg/kg. Conclusion SOR-C13 was safe and tolerated up to 6.2 mg/kg. The Maximal Tolerated Dose (MTD) was not established. Stable disease suggested antitumor activity.

Background Beta-blocker (BB) and calcium channel blocker (CCB) antihypertensive drugs are commonly used in pregnancy. However, data on their relative impact on maternal and foetal outcomes are limited. We leveraged genetic variants mimicking BB and CCB antihypertensive drugs to investigate their effects on risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and birthweight using the Mendelian randomization paradigm. Methods Genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure (SBP) were extracted from summary data of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 757,601 participants. Uncorrelated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with SBP ( p  < 5 × 10 −8 ) in BB and CCB drug target gene regions were selected as proxies for drug target perturbation. Genetic association estimates for the outcomes were extracted from GWASs on 4743 cases and 136,325 controls (women without a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy) for pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, 7676 cases and 130,424 controls (women without any pregnancy-related morbidity) for gestational diabetes, and 155,202 women (who have given birth at least once) for birthweight of the first child. All studies were in European ancestry populations. Mendelian randomization estimates were generated using the two-sample inverse-variance weighted model. Results Although not reaching the conventional threshold for statistical significance, genetically-proxied BB was associated with reduced risk of pre-eclampsia (OR per 10 mmHg SBP reduction 0.27, 95%CI 0.06–1.19, p  = 0.08) and increased risk of gestational diabetes (OR per 10 mmHg SBP reduction 2.01, 95%CI 0.91–4.42, p  = 0.08), and significantly associated with lower birthweight of first child (beta per 10 mmHg SBP reduction − 0.27, 95%CI − 0.39 to − 0.15, p  = 1.90 × 10 −5 ). Genetically-proxied CCB was associated with reduced risk of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.43–0.89, p  = 9.33 × 10 −3 ), and was not associated with gestational diabetes (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.76–1.45, p  = 0.76) or changes in birthweight of first child (beta per 10 mmHg SBP reduction 0.02, 95%CI − 0.04–0.07, p  = 0.54). Conclusions While BB and CCB antihypertensive drugs may both be efficacious for lowering blood pressure in pregnancy, this genetic evidence suggests that BB use may lower birthweight. Conversely, CCB use may reduce risk of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia without impacting gestational diabetes risk or birthweight. These data support further study on the effects of BBs on birthweight.

Endovascular renal denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, but its efficacy in patients with true resistant hypertension has not been shown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of endovascular ultrasound renal denervation in patients with hypertension resistant to three or more antihypertensive medications. In a randomised, international, multicentre, single-blind, sham-controlled trial done at 28 tertiary centres in the USA and 25 in Europe, we included patients aged 18–75 years with office blood pressure of at least 140/90 mm Hg despite three or more antihypertensive medications including a diuretic. Eligible patients were switched to a once daily, fixed-dose, single-pill combination of a calcium channel blocker, an angiotensin receptor blocker, and a thiazide diuretic. After 4 weeks of standardised therapy, patients with daytime ambulatory blood pressure of at least 135/85 mm Hg were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer (stratified by centres) to ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation. Addition of antihypertensive medications was allowed if specified blood pressure thresholds were exceeded. The primary endpoint was the change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 2 months in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02649426. Between March 11, 2016, and March 13, 2020, 989 participants were enrolled and 136 were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=69) or a sham procedure (n=67). Full adherence to the combination medications at 2 months among patients with urine samples was similar in both groups (42 [82%] of 51 in the renal denervation group vs 47 [82%] of 57 in the sham procedure group; p=0·99). Renal denervation reduced daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure more than the sham procedure (−8·0 mm Hg [IQR –16·4 to 0·0] vs –3·0 mm Hg [–10·3 to 1·8]; median between-group difference –4·5 mm Hg [95% CI –8·5 to –0·3]; adjusted p=0·022); the median between-group difference was –5·8 mm Hg (95% CI –9·7 to –1·6; adjusted p=0·0051) among patients with complete ambulatory blood pressure data. There were no differences in safety outcomes between the two groups. Compared with a sham procedure, ultrasound renal denervation reduced blood pressure at 2 months in patients with hypertension resistant to a standardised triple combination pill. If the blood pressure lowering effect and safety of renal denervation are maintained in the long term, renal denervation might be an alternative to the addition of further antihypertensive medications in patients with resistant hypertension. ReCor Medical.

The diamide insecticide class is one of the top-selling insecticides globally. They are used to control a wide range of pests by targeting their ryanodine receptors (RyRs). Here, we report the highest-resolution cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structure of RyR1 in the open state, in complex with the anthranilic diamide chlorantraniliprole (CHL). The 3.2-Å local resolution map facilitates unambiguous assignment of the CHL binding site. The molecule induces a conformational change by affecting the S4–S5 linker, triggering channel opening. The binding site is further corroborated by mutagenesis data, which reveal how diamide insecticides are selective to the Lepidoptera group of insects over honeybee or mammalian RyRs. Our data reveal that several pests have developed resistance via two mechanisms, steric hindrance and loss of contact. Our results provide a foundation for the development of highly selective pesticides aimed at overcoming resistance and therapeutic molecules to treat human myopathies. Cryo-EM structural work defines binding of the insecticide CHL in the pseudo-voltage-sensor domain of ryanodine receptor RyR that triggers conformational changes leading to channel opening and explains the resistance to CHL by some insects.

Cardiac muscle hypercontractility is a key pathophysiological abnormality in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and a major determinant of dynamic left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. Available pharmacological options for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are inadequate or poorly tolerated and are not disease-specific. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, in symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (EXPLORER-HCM) in 68 clinical cardiovascular centres in 13 countries, patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with an LVOT gradient of 50 mm Hg or greater and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–III symptoms were assigned (1:1) to receive mavacamten (starting at 5 mg) or placebo for 30 weeks. Visits for assessment of patient status occurred every 2–4 weeks. Serial evaluations included echocardiogram, electrocardiogram, and blood collection for laboratory tests and mavacamten plasma concentration. The primary endpoint was a 1·5 mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one NYHA class reduction or a 3·0 mL/kg per min or greater pVO2 increase without NYHA class worsening. Secondary endpoints assessed changes in post-exercise LVOT gradient, pVO2, NYHA class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS), and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Symptom Questionnaire Shortness-of-Breath subscore (HCMSQ-SoB). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03470545. Between May 30, 2018, and July 12, 2019, 429 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 251 (59%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to mavacamten (n=123 [49%]) or placebo (n=128 [51%]). 45 (37%) of 123 patients on mavacamten versus 22 (17%) of 128 on placebo met the primary endpoint (difference +19·4%, 95% CI 8·7 to 30·1; p=0·0005). Patients on mavacamten had greater reductions than those on placebo in post-exercise LVOT gradient (−36 mm Hg, 95% CI −43·2 to −28·1; p<0·0001), greater increase in pVO2 (+1·4 mL/kg per min, 0·6 to 2·1; p=0·0006), and improved symptom scores (KCCQ-CSS +9·1, 5·5 to 12·7; HCMSQ-SoB −1·8, −2·4 to −1·2; p<0·0001). 34% more patients in the mavacamten group improved by at least one NYHA class (80 of 123 patients in the mavacamten group vs 40 of 128 patients in the placebo group; 95% CI 22·2 to 45·4; p<0·0001). Safety and tolerability were similar to placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild. One patient died by sudden death in the placebo group. Treatment with mavacamten improved exercise capacity, LVOT obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The results of this pivotal trial highlight the benefits of disease-specific treatment for this condition. MyoKardia.

At a median of 2.2 years, patients with stable coronary artery disease and advanced kidney disease who were treated with an invasive strategy of coronary angiography with revascularization if indicated did not have a lower risk of death or MI than those who were treated with a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone.

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor, has demonstrated a superior blood pressure‐lowering effect compared with renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors in several clinical trials. However, there has been no available evidence on the comparison between sacubitril/valsartan and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a well‐established class of antihypertensive drugs. In this open‐label, multicenter study, we aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus amlodipine, one of the most widely used CCBs, after 8 weeks of treatment. A total of 359 Japanese patients with essential hypertension (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 150 to < 180 mmHg), aged 18–79, were randomly assigned to receive either once‐daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or once‐daily amlodipine 5 mg in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of sacubitril/valsartan compared with amlodipine in mean change in 24‐h SBP from baseline to Week 8, followed by a significance test as a secondary endpoint analysis. The mean change in 24‐h SBP in sacubitril/valsartan was noninferior to that in amlodipine (between‐treatment difference −0.62 mmHg [95% confidential interval: −3.23 to 1.98; p = 0.003 for noninferiority; independent t‐test with noninferiority margin 3.0 mmHg]), with no significant difference observed (p = 0.637). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs). These results suggested that the blood pressure‐lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan is comparable to that of amlodipine, with no marked differences in tolerability between the two groups. Sacubitril/valsartan, a potent antihypertensive drug comparable to amlodipine, is expected to improve blood pressure control in clinical practice.

Prednisone is commonly used for initial short-term therapy of episodic cluster headaches before preventive medication such as verapamil becomes effective, but this strategy has not been tested in large randomised trials. We aimed to access the safety and efficacy of this treatment approach. This study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in ten specialised headache centres in Germany. Patients with episodic cluster headaches who were aged between 18 and 65 years and within a current pain episode for not more than 30 days, received 100 mg oral prednisone for 5 days followed by tapering of 20 mg every 3 days, or matching placebo (17 days total exposure). All patients received oral verapamil for long-term prevention, starting with 40 mg three times daily and increasing to 120 mg three times daily by day 19; patients then continued with verapamil 120 mg throughout the study. Randomisation was computer-generated at a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive web-response system, with stratification according to age, sex, and participating site. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the mean number of attacks within the first week of treatment with prednisone compared with placebo. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache with moderate-to-severe intensity of at least five on a numerical rating scale. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which consisted of all patients who had been randomly assigned to a trial group and received at least one dose of prednisone or placebo. The study was stopped early due to slow recruitment and expired funding. The study was registered with EudraCT (2011–006204–13) and with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004716). Between April 5, 2013, and Jan 11, 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients dropped out immediately and 116 patients were randomly assigned (57 patients to prednisone and 59 patients to placebo); 109 patients were included in the mITT analysis (53 patients assigned to prednisone and 56 patients assigned to placebo). Participants in the prednisone group had a mean of 7·1 (SD 6·5) attacks within the first week compared with 9·5 (6·0) attacks in the placebo group (difference −2·4 attacks, 95% CI −4·8 to −0·03; p=0·002). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the placebo group (inguinal hernia and severe deterioration of cluster headache). A total of 270 adverse events were observed: in the prednisone group, 37 (71%) of 52 patients reported 135 adverse events (most common were headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea) and in the placebo group, 39 (71%) of 55 patients had 135 adverse events (most common were nausea, dizziness, and headache). Oral prednisone was an effective short-term preventive therapy in our population of patients with episodic cluster headache. Our findings support the use of prednisone as a first-line treatment in parallel to the up-titration of verapamil, although the efficacy of prednisone alongside other long-term prevention requires additional investigation. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research.

Nimodipine, an L-type cerebroselective calcium channel antagonist, is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the neuroprotection of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Four randomized, placebo-controlled trials of nimodipine demonstrated clinical improvement over placebo; however, these occurred before precision medicine with pharmacogenomics was readily available. The standard enteral dose of nimodipine recommended after aSAH is 60 mg every 4 h. However, up to 78% of patients with aSAH develop systemic arterial hypotension after taking the drug at the recommended dose, which could theoretically limit its neuroprotective role and worsen cerebral perfusion pressure and cerebral blood flow, particularly when concomitant vasospasm is present. We investigated the association between nimodipine dose changes and clinical outcomes in a consecutive series of 150 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70.7% women) with acute aSAH. We describe the pharmacogenomic relationship of nimodipine dose reduction with clinical outcomes. These results have major implications for future individualized dosing of nimodipine in the era of precision medicine.

Uncertainty remains about the optimal monotherapy for hypertension, with current guidelines recommending any primary agent among the first-line drug classes thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, in the absence of comorbid indications. Randomised trials have not further refined this choice. We developed a comprehensive framework for real-world evidence that enables comparative effectiveness and safety evaluation across many drugs and outcomes from observational data encompassing millions of patients, while minimising inherent bias. Using this framework, we did a systematic, large-scale study under a new-user cohort design to estimate the relative risks of three primary (acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for heart failure, and stroke) and six secondary effectiveness and 46 safety outcomes comparing all first-line classes across a global network of six administrative claims and three electronic health record databases. The framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propensity adjustment, a large set of control outcomes, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested. Using 4·9 million patients, we generated 22 000 calibrated, propensity-score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing all classes and outcomes across databases. Most estimates revealed no effectiveness differences between classes; however, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics showed better primary effectiveness than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: acute myocardial infarction (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75–0·95), hospitalisation for heart failure (0·83, 0·74–0·95), and stroke (0·83, 0·74–0·95) risk while on initial treatment. Safety profiles also favoured thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were significantly inferior to the other four classes. This comprehensive framework introduces a new way of doing observational health-care science at scale. The approach supports equivalence between drug classes for initiating monotherapy for hypertension—in keeping with current guidelines, with the exception of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics superiority to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.