Vorapaxar enhanced mitochondria-associated ferroptosis primes cancer immunotherapy via targeting FOXO1/HMOX1 axis.

A combined dual antiplatelet treatment consisting of aspirin and the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor clopidogrel is still considered the standard of care treatment in most of the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Numerous research studies during the last decade, however, have highlighted possible shortcomings of the oral antiplatelet agent clopidogrel, namely its large response variability resulting in an unpredictable response for the individual patient,1,2 the association of both a low3 or enhanced response4,5 with a worse clinical outcome and the dependency of individual responsiveness on nongenetic and genetic variables.6 Response by Pare and Eikelboom on p 513 Clopidogrel is a prodrug that requires bioactivation into its active thiol metabolite before it targets the P2Y12 receptor on blood platelets. In vivo bioactivation of the drug is a 2-step process that is closely linked to the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Different isoenzymes are responsible for clopidogrel bioactivation and among them the isoenzyme CYP2C19 was found to play a key role in this setting by contributing to both clopidogrel bioactivation steps.7 In this context, common genetic variants within the CYP2C19 gene have been the subject of considerable attention and have stimulated numerous research projects in recent years.8–14 Beyond CYP2C19, other genes involved in clopidogrel absorption, bioactivation or interplay with the blood platelet and their receptors have been associated with drug responsiveness and clinical outcome as well. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests a possible role of genotyping in patients undergoing coronary stenting with a view on optimizing response to P2Y12 receptor inhibitors during and after the procedure. We review available evidence on the need of individualizing antiplatelet treatment regimens in everyday clinical practice. ### Genetic Determinants for Clopidogrel Response and Clinical Outcome In recent years, multiple genetic factors within different candidate genes being involved in clopidogrel absorption, bioactivation, and …

Successful Investigational New Drug Preparation without Reinventing the Wheel

“Black box” 101: How the Food and Drug Administration evaluates, communicates, and manages drug benefit/risk

The future of drug safety: What the IOM report may mean to the emergency department

British chef and food activist Jamie Oliver ignited a firestorm in January 2011 when he mentioned on the Late Show with David Letterman that castoreum, a substance used to augment some strawberry and vanilla flavorings, comes from what he described as “rendered beaver anal gland.”1 The next year, vegans were outraged to learn that Starbucks used cochineal extract, a color additive derived from insect shells, to dye their strawberry Frappuccino® drinks2 (eventually, the company decided to transition to lycopene, a pigment found in tomatoes3). Although substances like castoreum and cochineal extract may be long on the “yuck factor,”4 research has shown them to be perfectly safe for most people; strident opposition arose not from safety issues but from the ingredients’ origins. But these examples demonstrate that the public often lacks significant knowledge about the ingredients in foods and where they come from. This is not a new development; the public relationship to food additives has a long history of trust lost, regained, and in some cases lost again. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 19385 was passed shortly after the deaths of 100 people who took an untested new form of a popular drug, which contained what turned out to be a deadly additive.6 The new law was consumer oriented and intended to ensure that people knew what was in the products they bought, and that those products were safe. The law has been amended over the years in attempts to streamline and bring order to the sprawling task of assessing and categorizing the thousands of substances used in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. One result of this streamlining is that under current U.S. law, companies can add certain types of ingredients to foods without premarket approval from the thin-stretched Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In other words, there are substances in the food supply that are unknown to the FDA. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that a “growing number of substances … may effectively be excluded from federal oversight.”7 Is this a problem? The answer depends on whom you ask.

Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) induction by hemin or Panhematin protects against experimental pancreatitis. As a preclinical first step toward determining whether HO-1 upregulation is a viable target in acute pancreatitis (AP) patients, we tested the hypothesis that HO-1 expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) subsets of hospitalized patients with mild AP is upregulated then normalizes upon recovery and that cells from AP patients have the potential to upregulate their HO-1 ex vivo if exposed to Panhematin. PBMCs were isolated on days 1 and 3 of hospitalization from the blood of 18 AP patients, and PMBC HO-1 levels were compared with PMBCs of 15 hospitalized controls (HC) and 7 volunteer healthy controls (VC). On day 1 of hospitalization, AP patients compared with VCs had higher HO-1 expression in monocytes and neutrophils. Notably, AP monocyte HO-1 levels decreased significantly upon recovery. Panhematin induced HO-1 in ex vivo cultured AP PBMCs more readily than in HC or VC PBMCs. Furthermore, PBMCs from acutely ill AP patients on day 1 were more responsive to HO-1 induction compared with day 3 upon recovery. Similarly, mouse splenocytes had enhanced HO-1 inducibility as their pancreatitis progressed from mild to severe. In conclusion, AP leads to reversible PBMC HO-1 upregulation that is associated with clinical improvement and involves primarily monocytes. Leukocytes from AP patients or mice with AP are primed for HO-1 induction by Panhematin, which suggests that Panhematin could offer a therapeutic benefit.

Regulatory and Clinical Expert Perspective of the 2022 FDA Draft Guidance “Celiac Disease: Developing Drugs for Adjunctive Treatment to a Gluten-Free Diet”

A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposal aims to speed the evaluation process for new high-risk medical devices that are intended to address unmet medical needs,1 much like existing expedited approval processes, such as the humanitarian device exemption rule for devices intended to treat rare diseases. Such programs are strongly supported by the medical device industry and some patient advocacy groups, which have criticized the FDA for being too stringent in its evidentiary requirements for investigational devices, leading to delays in the approval of potentially helpful products.2–4 For example, in 2011, the FDA approved a transcatheter aortic valve replacement system that demonstrated significant improvements over conventional treatment options for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis.5,6 However, the United States was the 43rd country to approve the device, roughly 4 years after the European Union.7 Yet expedited approval for high-risk medical devices raises the possibility that these devices will not be as effective as predicted in their limited premarket testing or that they could cause unanticipated harms after approval.8 Of course, well-studied devices may present unexpected safety concerns years after approval,9,10 and even the most rigorous conventional premarket approval process will result in some devices later found to be unsafe or ineffective.11–13 Safety of approved medical devices and the proper scope of premarket testing remain contentious issues after recalls of several widely used devices, including popular models of implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads14,15 and metal-on-metal hip implants.16 Inherent limitations in premarket testing, along with the prospect of lowered evidentiary standards for expedited device reviews, place greater pressures on postapproval monitoring of devices to follow clinical performance and to identify emerging public health problems. Medical device manufacturers routinely perform this sort of vigilance, …

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a remarkable hybrid. Part regulatory agency, part public health agency, it sits at the intersection of science, law, and public policy. The FDA’s mission can be considered in the context of 2 broad dimensions: the products it regulates and its core functions. Both fall under the rubric of protecting and promoting the public health. The FDA’s remit is both broad and diverse: altogether, the agency has regulatory responsibility for >20% of the US economy. The products it is charged with overseeing through its various centers1 encompass food and cosmetics (regulated by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition); food and drugs for animals, including companion animals and animals used for food (regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine); and medical devices, drugs, and biologics (regulated by the Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Drug Evaluation and Research, and Biologics Evaluation and Research, respectively). Tobacco products were added to the FDA’s portfolio by the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, and are overseen by the Center for Tobacco Products. Regardless of the specific product regulated, the FDA’s core mission remains the same: to protect the US population by helping to ensure the fundamental safety of the food Americans consume and the medical products prescribed by their clinicians. At the same time, this primary mission is complemented by a mandate to promote the public health by reviewing research and taking appropriate action on the marketing of regulated products in a timely manner. Not only do people need access to advances in nutrition and medical therapies, but also the American spirit is itself characterized by a strong current of scientific and technological innovation. At first glance, differences in these 2 priorities, protecting the public safety and promoting the public health through encouraging innovation, might …

Advancing together and moving forward: Combination gene and cellular immunotherapies

ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline update on the use of immunotherapy in early stage and advanced renal cell carcinoma

Epidemiology and characteristics of clinical trials supporting US FDA approval of novel cancer drugs

In the present study, we describe forkhead box O3 (FOXO3)-specific, cytotoxic CD8+ T cells existent among peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of cancer patients. FOXO3 immunogenicity appears specific, as we did not detect reactivity toward FOXO3 among T cells in healthy individuals. FOXO3 may naturally serve as a target antigen for tumor-reactive T cells as it is frequently over-expressed in cancer cells. In addition, expression of FOXO3 plays a critical role in immunosuppression mediated by tumor-associated dendritic cells (TADCs). Indeed, FOXO3-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) were able to specifically recognize and kill both FOXO3-expressing cancer cells as well as dendritic cells. Thus, FOXO3 was processed and presented by HLA-A2 on the cell surface of both immune cells and cancer cells. As FOXO3 programs TADCs to become tolerogenic, FOXO3 signaling thereby comprises a significant immunosuppressive mechanism, such that FOXO3 targeting by means of specific T cells is an attractive clinical therapy to boost anticancer immunity. In addition, the natural occurrence of FOXO3-specific CTLs in the periphery suggests that these T cells hold a function in the complex network of immune regulation in cancer patients.

Direct-Acting Antivirals for Chronic Hepatitis C: Can Drug Properties Signal Potential for Liver Injury?

Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1291 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1291 1. Purpose of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1291 2. Document Development Process . . . . . . . . . .1291 3. Definitions, Terminology, and Regulations . . .1292 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1292 2. Generics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1293 3. Bioequivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1293 4. Biologics and Biosimilars. . . . . . . . . . .1294 2. Pharmacogenomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1295 3. Federal Regulations and State Laws . . . . . . . . . . .1296 4. Therapeutic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1296 1. Therapeutic Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1296 2. Therapeutic Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1297 3. Generic Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . …