-
Pharmacological Reviews Oct 2020RNA-based therapies, including RNA molecules as drugs and RNA-targeted small molecules, offer unique opportunities to expand the range of therapeutic targets. Various...
RNA-based therapies, including RNA molecules as drugs and RNA-targeted small molecules, offer unique opportunities to expand the range of therapeutic targets. Various forms of RNAs may be used to selectively act on proteins, transcripts, and genes that cannot be targeted by conventional small molecules or proteins. Although development of RNA drugs faces unparalleled challenges, many strategies have been developed to improve RNA metabolic stability and intracellular delivery. A number of RNA drugs have been approved for medical use, including aptamers (e.g., pegaptanib) that mechanistically act on protein target and small interfering RNAs (e.g., patisiran and givosiran) and antisense oligonucleotides (e.g., inotersen and golodirsen) that directly interfere with RNA targets. Furthermore, guide RNAs are essential components of novel gene editing modalities, and mRNA therapeutics are under development for protein replacement therapy or vaccination, including those against unprecedented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, functional RNAs or RNA motifs are highly structured to form binding pockets or clefts that are accessible by small molecules. Many natural, semisynthetic, or synthetic antibiotics (e.g., aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, macrolides, oxazolidinones, and phenicols) can directly bind to ribosomal RNAs to achieve the inhibition of bacterial infections. Therefore, there is growing interest in developing RNA-targeted small-molecule drugs amenable to oral administration, and some (e.g., risdiplam and branaplam) have entered clinical trials. Here, we review the pharmacology of novel RNA drugs and RNA-targeted small-molecule medications, with a focus on recent progresses and strategies. Challenges in the development of novel druggable RNA entities and identification of viable RNA targets and selective small-molecule binders are discussed. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: With the understanding of RNA functions and critical roles in diseases, as well as the development of RNA-related technologies, there is growing interest in developing novel RNA-based therapeutics. This comprehensive review presents pharmacology of both RNA drugs and RNA-targeted small-molecule medications, focusing on novel mechanisms of action, the most recent progress, and existing challenges.
Topics: Aptamers, Nucleotide; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Chemistry Techniques, Analytical; Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats; Coronavirus Infections; Drug Delivery Systems; Drug Development; Drug Discovery; Humans; MicroRNAs; Oligonucleotides, Antisense; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; RNA; RNA, Antisense; RNA, Messenger; RNA, Ribosomal; RNA, Small Interfering; RNA, Viral; Ribonucleases; Riboswitch; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32929000
DOI: 10.1124/pr.120.019554 -
The Lancet. Oncology Jul 2022Cervical cancer screening tests that identify DNA of the main causal agent, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types, are more protective than cervical cytology. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer screening tests that identify DNA of the main causal agent, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types, are more protective than cervical cytology. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess whether tests targeting high-risk HPV (hrHPV) mRNA are as accurate and effective as HPV DNA-based screening tests.
METHODS
We did a systematic review to assess the cross-sectional clinical accuracy to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or 3 or worse (CIN3+) of hrHPV mRNA versus DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening; the longitudinal clinical performance of cervical cancer screening using hrHPV mRNA versus DNA assays; and the clinical accuracy of hrHPV mRNA testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples. We identified relevant studies published before Aug 1, 2021, through a search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL. Eligible studies had to contain comparative data addressing one of our three clinical questions. Aggregated data were extracted from selected reports or requested from study authors if necessary. QUADAS and ROBINS-1 tools were used to assess the quality of diagnostic test accuracy studies and cohort studies. To assess cross-sectional clinical accuracy of mRNA testing versus DNA testing and clinical accuracy of hrHPV mRNA testing on self-collected versus clinician collected samples, we applied meta-analytical methods for comparison of diagnostic tests. To assess the longitudinal clinical performance of cervical cancer screening using hrHPV mRNA versus DNA assays, we compared the longitudinal sensitivity of mRNA tests and validated DNA tests for CIN3+ and the relative detection of CIN3+ among women who screened negative for hrHPV mRNA or DNA (both used as measures of safety) at baseline and pooled estimates by years of follow-up. A random-effect model for pooling ratios of proportions or risks was used to summarise longitudinal performance.
FINDINGS
For the hrHPV mRNA testing with APTIMA HPV Test (APTIMA), the cross-sectional accuracy could be compared with DNA assays on clinician-collected samples in eight studies; longitudinal performance was compared in four studies; and accuracy on self-samples was assessed in five studies. Few reports were retrieved for other mRNA assays, precluding their evaluation in meta-analyses. Compared with validated DNA assays, APTIMA was similarly sensitive (relative sensitivity 0·98 [95% CI 0·95-1·01]) and slightly more specific (1·03 [1·02-1·04]) for CIN2+. The relative sensitivity for CIN3+ was 0·98 (95% CI 0·95-1·01). The longitudinal relative sensitivity for CIN3+ of APTIMA compared with DNA assays assessed over 4-7 years ranged at the study level from 0·91 to 1·05 and in the pooled analysis between 0·95 and 0·98, depending on timepoint, with CIs including or close to unity. The detection rate ratios between 4 and 10 years after baseline negative mRNA versus negative DNA screening were imprecise and heterogeneous among studies, but summary ratios did not differ from unity. In self-collected samples, APTIMA was less sensitive for CIN2+ (relative cross-sectional sensitivity 0·84 [0·74-0·96]) but similarly specific (relative specificity 0·96 [0·91-1·01]) compared with clinician-collected samples.
INTERPRETATION
HrHPV RNA testing with APTIMA had similar cross-sectional sensitivity for CIN2+ and CIN3+ and slightly higher specificity than DNA tests. Four studies with 4-7 years of follow-up showed heterogeneous safety outcomes. One study with up to 10 years of follow-up showed no differences in cumulative detection of CIN3+ after negative mRNA versus DNA screening. APTIMA could be accepted for primary cervical cancer screening on clinician-collected cervical samples at intervals of around 5 years. APTIMA is less sensitive on self-collected samples than clinician-collected samples.
FUNDING
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation of the European Commission, through the RISCC Network, WHO, Haute Autorité de la Santé, European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, and the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; RNA, Messenger; Sensitivity and Specificity; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Smears
PubMed: 35709810
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00294-7 -
International Journal of Cancer Dec 2022To inform optimal approaches for detecting anal precancers, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of anal cancer screening tests... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To inform optimal approaches for detecting anal precancers, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of anal cancer screening tests in different populations with elevated risk for anal cancer. We conducted a literature search of studies evaluating tests for anal precancer and cancer (anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, AIN2+) published between January 1, 1997 to September 30, 2021 in PubMed and Embase. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion and included articles underwent full-text review, data abstraction and quality assessment. We estimated the prevalence of AIN2+ and calculated summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of test positivity, sensitivity and specificity and predictive values of various testing strategies, overall and among population subgroups. A total of 39 articles were included. The prevalence of AIN2+ was 20% (95% CI, 17-29%), and ranged from 22% in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV to 13% in women and 12% in MSM without HIV. The sensitivity and specificity of cytology and HPV testing were 81% and 62% and 92% and 42%, respectively, and 93% and 33%, respectively for cytology and HPV co-testing. AIN2+ risks were similar among those testing positive for cytology, HPV, or co-testing. Limited data on other biomarkers (HPV E6/E7 mRNA and p16/Ki-67 dual stain), suggested higher specificity, but lower sensitivity compared with anal cytology and HPV. Our findings provide important evidence for the development of clinical guidelines using anal cytology and HPV testing for anal cancer screening.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; HIV Infections; Homosexuality, Male; Humans; Ki-67 Antigen; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; RNA, Messenger; Sexual and Gender Minorities
PubMed: 35793241
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34199 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021There is a significant research gap in meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This study analyzed the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a significant research gap in meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This study analyzed the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Published phase I, phase II, and phase III trials analyzing safety and immunogenicity and phase III randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines were included. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and The Lancet for published articles evaluating the relative reduction in COVID-19 risk after vaccination. Selected literatures were published between December 15, 2019 and May 15, 2021 on the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines. This meta-analysis included studies that confirmed cases of COVID-19 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. This study detected 8,926 eligible research articles published on COVID-19 vaccines. Of these, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among the selected articles, 19 randomized clinical trials, 2 non-randomized clinical trials, and 3 observational studies were analyzed. Seven (28%) studies were included in the meta-analysis. The efficacy of the adenovirus vector vaccine was 73% (95% CI = 69-77) and that of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was 85% (95% CI = 82-88) in participants aged ≥18 years. There are no reports of clinical trials in participants aged under 16 years. The production of neutralizing antibodies against receptor-binding domains (RBDs) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in >90% of the vaccinated samples was reported within 0-30 days of the first or the second dose of the vaccine. Pain at the injection site was the most common local symptom in people receiving mRNA vaccines (29%-85% of participants). Fever (0.2%-95%) was the most prevalent in people receiving adenovirus vector vaccines, and fatigue (8.4%-55%) was the most common side effect in people receiving the mRNA vaccines. Studies suggest that mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines can provide moderate to high protection against COVID-19 infection in people over 18 years. Evidence of the long-term protection of the vaccines in people aged under 16 years against the multiple variants of COVID-19 are limited. This study will provide an integrated evaluation on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antibodies, Neutralizing; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Injections, Intramuscular; Middle Aged; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 34707602
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.714170 -
Nature Communications May 2022Safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy is a particular concern affecting vaccination uptake by this vulnerable group. Here we evaluated evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy is a particular concern affecting vaccination uptake by this vulnerable group. Here we evaluated evidence from 23 studies including 117,552 COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant people, almost exclusively with mRNA vaccines. We show that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 7 days after second dose was 89·5% (95% CI 69·0-96·4%, 18,828 vaccinated pregnant people, I = 73·9%). The risk of stillbirth was significantly lower in the vaccinated cohort by 15% (pooled OR 0·85; 95% CI 0·73-0·99, 66,067 vaccinated vs. 424,624 unvaccinated, I = 93·9%). There was no evidence of a higher risk of adverse outcomes including miscarriage, earlier gestation at birth, placental abruption, pulmonary embolism, postpartum haemorrhage, maternal death, intensive care unit admission, lower birthweight Z-score, or neonatal intensive care unit admission (p > 0.05 for all). COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in pregnancy appears to be safe and is associated with a reduction in stillbirth.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Placenta; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; RNA, Messenger; SARS-CoV-2; Stillbirth; Vaccination
PubMed: 35538060
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-30052-w -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jul 2022There have been several local and systemic adverse events associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Pericarditis, myocarditis and myocardial infarction are examples of... (Review)
Review
There have been several local and systemic adverse events associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Pericarditis, myocarditis and myocardial infarction are examples of cardiac complications related to these vaccines. In this article, we conducted a systematic review of case reports and case series to identify the clinical profile, investigations, and management of reported cardiac complications post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, as well as the medRxiv preprint server, with terms including: 'SARS-CoV-2', 'COVID-19', 'messenger RNA vaccine*', 'mRNA-1273 vaccine', 'BNT162 vaccine', 'myocarditis', 'pericarditis', 'stroke' and 'Myocardial Ischemia' up to 25 September 2021. Studies were excluded if they were not case reports or case series, or reported cases from non-mRNA vaccines. Case reports and case series were included that investigated the potential cardiac complications associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The JBI checklist was used to assess quality and data synthesis was conducted using a qualitative methodology called narrative synthesis. Sixty-nine studies, including 43 case reports and 26 case series, were included. Myocarditis/myopericarditis and pericarditis were the most common adverse events among the 243 reported cardiac complications, post mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Males with a median age of 21 years had the highest frequency of myocarditis. Almost three quarters (74.4%) of cases with myocarditis had received the BNT162b2 vaccine and 87.7% had received the second dose of the vaccine. Chest pain (96.1%) and fever (38.2%) were the most common presentations. CK-MB, troponin, and NT-proBNP were elevated in 100%, 99.5% and 78.3% of subjects, respectively. ST-segment abnormality was the most common electrocardiogram feature. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, which is the gold-standard approach for diagnosing myocarditis, was abnormal in all patients diagnosed with myocarditis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the most prescribed medication for the management of myocarditis. Apart from inflammatory conditions, some rare cases of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries, and isolated tachycardia were also reported following immunisation with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We acknowledge that only reviewing case reports and case series studies is one potential limitation of our study. We found that myocarditis was the most commonly reported adverse cardiac event associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which presented as chest pain with a rise in cardiac biomarkers. Further large-scale observational studies are recommended.
Topics: Adult; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Chest Pain; Humans; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Myocarditis; Pericarditis; Vaccination; Young Adult; mRNA Vaccines
PubMed: 34921468
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2318 -
JAMA Pediatrics Apr 2023Evidence of the efficacy and safety of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 5 to 11 years has been emerging. Collecting these data will inform... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Evidence of the efficacy and safety of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 5 to 11 years has been emerging. Collecting these data will inform clinicians, families, and policy makers.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 5 to 11 years in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase databases were searched on September 29, 2022, without language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated children aged 5 to 11 years and reporting efficacy or safety outcomes were included. Studies reporting safety outcomes in vaccinated children only (ie, no control group) were also included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently extracted relevant data from each study. Odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy and safety outcomes and incidences of adverse events (AEs) following vaccination were synthesized using a random-effects model. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infections with or without symptoms. The secondary outcomes included symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. The incidences of each AE following vaccination were also evaluated.
RESULTS
Two randomized clinical trials and 15 observational studies involving 10 935 541 vaccinated children (median or mean age range, 8.0-9.5 years) and 2 635 251 unvaccinated children (median or mean age range, 7.0-9.5 years) were included. Two-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination compared with no vaccination was associated with lower risks of SARS-CoV-2 infections with or without symptoms (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.35-0.64), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.70), hospitalizations (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.68), and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.10). Two randomized clinical trials and 5 observational studies investigated AEs among vaccinated children. Most vaccinated children experienced at least 1 local AE following the first injection (32 494 of 55 959 [86.3%]) and second injection (28 135 of 46 447 [86.3%]). Vaccination was associated with a higher risk of any AEs compared with placebo (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.26-2.91). The incidence of AEs that prevented normal daily activities was 8.8% (95% CI, 5.4%-14.2%) and that of myocarditis was estimated to be 1.8 per million (95% CI, 0.000%-0.001%) following the second injection.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines among children aged 5 to 11 years were associated with measures of efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19-related illnesses. While most children developed local AEs, severe AEs were rare, and most of AEs resolved within several days. These data provide evidence for future recommendations.
Topics: Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; SARS-CoV-2; Parents
PubMed: 36689319
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.6243 -
Ageing Research Reviews Nov 2022Modifications of RNA, collectively called the "epitranscriptome", might provide novel biomarkers and innovative targets for interventions in geroscience but are just... (Review)
Review
Modifications of RNA, collectively called the "epitranscriptome", might provide novel biomarkers and innovative targets for interventions in geroscience but are just beginning to be studied in the context of ageing and stress resistance. RNA modifications modulate gene expression by affecting translation initiation and speed, miRNA binding, RNA stability, and RNA degradation. Nonetheless, the precise underlying molecular mechanisms and physiological consequences of most alterations of the epitranscriptome are still only poorly understood. We here systematically review different types of modifications of rRNA, tRNA and mRNA, the methodology to analyze them, current challenges in the field, and human disease associations. Furthermore, we compiled evidence for a connection between individual enzymes, which install RNA modifications, and lifespan in yeast, worm and fly. We also included resistance to different stressors and competitive fitness as search criteria for genes potentially relevant to ageing. Promising candidates identified by this approach include RCM1/NSUN5, RRP8, and F33A8.4/ZCCHC4 that introduce base methylations in rRNA, the methyltransferases DNMT2 and TRM9/ALKBH8, as well as factors involved in the thiolation or A to I editing in tRNA, and finally the mA machinery for mRNA.
Topics: Aging; AlkB Homolog 8, tRNA Methyltransferase; Animals; Humans; Methyltransferases; MicroRNAs; RNA, Messenger; RNA, Ribosomal; RNA, Transfer; Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PubMed: 35908668
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101700 -
Lasers in Medical Science Jul 2022Gene expression evaluation in cells and biological tissues has been crucial for research in biology, medicine, biotechnology, and diagnostic. Messenger ribonucleic acid... (Review)
Review
Gene expression evaluation in cells and biological tissues has been crucial for research in biology, medicine, biotechnology, and diagnostic. Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) levels show relationship with gene expression, and they can be measured by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for the quantification of steady-state mRNA levels in cells and biological tissues. Radiations emitted from low-power lasers induce photobiomodulation, which is the base of therapeutic protocols for disease treatment. Despite that the understanding on photobiomodulation has been improved by mRNA level evaluation, laser irradiation parameters and procedures are diversified among studies, harming the comparison of RT-qPCR data. In this systematic review, data from mRNA levels reported in photobiomodulation studies were summarized regarding the process, function, and gene. Literature search was conducted for the assessment of published reports on mRNA levels evaluated by RT-qPCR in cells and biological tissues exposed to low-power lasers. Data showed that mRNA levels have been evaluated by RT-qPCR for a variety of genes related to molecular, cellular, and systemic processes after low-power violet-orange, red, and infrared laser exposure. Results from gene expression have increased the understanding of the mechanisms involved in photobiomodulation, and they can be useful to increase the efficacy and safety of clinical applications based on low-power lasers.
Topics: Lasers; Light; Low-Level Light Therapy; RNA, Messenger
PubMed: 35288806
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-022-03541-z -
Trends in Genetics : TIG Feb 2017Our understanding of gene expression has come far since the 'one-gene one-polypeptide' hypothesis proposed by Beadle and Tatum. In this review, we address the gradual... (Review)
Review
Our understanding of gene expression has come far since the 'one-gene one-polypeptide' hypothesis proposed by Beadle and Tatum. In this review, we address the gradual recognition that a growing number of polycistronic genes, originally discovered in viruses, are being identified within the mammalian genome, and that these may provide new insights into disease mechanisms and treatment. We carried out a systematic literature review identifying 13 mammalian genes for which there is evidence for polycistronic expression via translation through an internal ribosome entry site (IRES). Although the canonical mechanism of translation initiation has been studied extensively, here we highlight a process of noncanonical translation, IRES-mediated translation, that is a growing source for understanding complex inheritance, the elucidation of disease mechanisms, and the discovery of novel therapeutic targets. Identification of additional polycistronic genes may provide new insights into disease therapy and allow for new discoveries of both translational and disease mechanisms.
Topics: Animals; Genetic Diseases, Inborn; Humans; Internal Ribosome Entry Sites; Mammals; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Protein Biosynthesis; RNA, Messenger
PubMed: 28012572
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.007