-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2023Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide, and while no specific etiologic interventions have been shown to... (Review)
Review
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide, and while no specific etiologic interventions have been shown to improve outcomes, noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies are life-saving interventions that allow time for lung recovery. However, the inappropriate management of these strategies, which neglects the unique features of respiratory, lung, and chest wall mechanics may result in disease progression, such as patient self-inflicted lung injury during spontaneous breathing or by ventilator-induced lung injury during invasive mechanical ventilation. ARDS characteristics are highly heterogeneous; therefore, a physiology-based approach is strongly advocated to titrate the delivery and management of respiratory support strategies to match patient characteristics and needs to limit ARDS progression. Several tools have been implemented in clinical practice to aid the clinician in identifying the ARDS sub-phenotypes based on physiological peculiarities (inspiratory effort, respiratory mechanics, and recruitability), thus allowing for the appropriate application of personalized supportive care. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies, as well as discuss how identifying ARDS sub-phenotypes in daily practice can help clinicians to deliver personalized respiratory support and potentially improve patient outcomes.
PubMed: 37445211
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134176 -
Biosensors & Bioelectronics Jul 2023Current in-vitro 2D cultures and animal models present severe limitations in recapitulating human physiopathology with striking discrepancies in estimating drug efficacy... (Review)
Review
Current in-vitro 2D cultures and animal models present severe limitations in recapitulating human physiopathology with striking discrepancies in estimating drug efficacy and side effects when compared to human trials. For these reasons, microphysiological systems, organ-on-chip and multiorgans microdevices attracted considerable attention as novel tools for high-throughput and high-content research to achieve an improved understanding of diseases and to accelerate the drug development process towards more precise and eventually personalized standards. This review takes the form of a guide on this fast-growing field, providing useful introduction to major themes and indications for further readings. We start analyzing Organs-on-chips (OOC) technologies for testing the major drug administration routes: (1) oral/rectal route by intestine-on-a-chip, (2) inhalation by lung-on-a-chip, (3) transdermal by skin-on-a-chip and (4) intravenous through vascularization models, considering how drugs penetrate in the bloodstream and are conveyed to their targets. Then, we focus on OOC models for (other) specific organs and diseases: (1) neurodegenerative diseases with brain models and blood brain barriers, (2) tumor models including their vascularization, organoids/spheroids, engineering and screening of antitumor drugs, (3) liver/kidney on chips and multiorgan models for gastrointestinal diseases and metabolic assessment of drugs and (4) biomechanical systems recapitulating heart, muscles and bones structures and related diseases. Successively, we discuss technologies and materials for organ on chips, analyzing (1) microfluidic tools for organs-on-chips, (2) sensor integration for real-time monitoring, (3) materials and (4) cell lines for organs on chips. (Nano)delivery approaches for therapeutics and their on chip assessment are also described. Finally, we conclude with a critical discussion on current significance/relevance, trends, limitations, challenges and future prospects in terms of revolutionary impact on biomedical research, preclinical models and drug development.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Lab-On-A-Chip Devices; Biosensing Techniques; Drug Development; Microphysiological Systems; Liver
PubMed: 37060819
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115271 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Aug 2023Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a complex medical condition associated with low dose chemical exposures. MCS is characterized by diverse features and common... (Review)
Review
Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a complex medical condition associated with low dose chemical exposures. MCS is characterized by diverse features and common comorbidities, including fibromyalgia, cough hypersensitivity, asthma, and migraine, and stress/anxiety, with which the syndrome shares numerous neurobiological processes and altered functioning within diverse brain regions. Predictive factors linked to MCS comprise genetic influences, gene-environment interactions, oxidative stress, systemic inflammation, cell dysfunction, and psychosocial influences. The development of MCS may be attributed to the sensitization of transient receptor potential (TRP) receptors, notably TRPV1 and TRPA1. Capsaicin inhalation challenge studies demonstrated that TRPV1 sensitization is manifested in MCS, and functional brain imaging studies revealed that TRPV1 and TRPA1 agonists promote brain-region specific neuronal variations. Unfortunately, MCS has often been inappropriately viewed as stemming exclusively from psychological disturbances, which has fostered patients being stigmatized and ostracized, and often being denied accommodation for their disability. Evidence-based education is essential to provide appropriate support and advocacy. Greater recognition of receptor-mediated biological mechanisms should be incorporated in laws, and regulation of environmental exposures.
Topics: Humans; Transient Receptor Potential Channels; TRPV Cation Channels; TRPA1 Cation Channel; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity; Cough
PubMed: 37172924
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105227 -
Mycopathologia Oct 2023Despite improvements in treatment and diagnostics over the last two decades, invasive aspergillosis (IA) remains a devastating fungal disease. The number of... (Review)
Review
Despite improvements in treatment and diagnostics over the last two decades, invasive aspergillosis (IA) remains a devastating fungal disease. The number of immunocompromised patients and hence vulnerable hosts increases, which is paralleled by the emergence of a rise in IA cases. Increased frequencies of azole-resistant strains are reported from six continents, presenting a new challenge for the therapeutic management. Treatment options for IA currently consist of three classes of antifungals (azoles, polyenes, echinocandins) with distinctive advantages and shortcomings. Especially in settings of difficult to treat IA, comprising drug tolerance/resistance, limiting drug-drug interactions, and/or severe underlying organ dysfunction, novel approaches are urgently needed. Promising new drugs for the treatment of IA are in late-stage clinical development, including olorofim (a dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitor), fosmanogepix (a Gwt1 enzyme inhibitor), ibrexafungerp (a triterpenoid), opelconazole (an azole optimized for inhalation) and rezafungin (an echinocandin with long half-life time). Further, new insights in the pathophysiology of IA yielding immunotherapy as a potential add-on therapy. Current investigations show encouraging results, so far mostly in preclinical settings. In this review we discuss current treatment strategies, give an outlook on possible new pharmaceutical therapeutic options, and, lastly, provide an overview of the ongoing research in immunotherapy for IA.
Topics: Humans; Aspergillosis; Antifungal Agents; Mycoses; Invasive Fungal Infections; Azoles; Drug Resistance, Fungal
PubMed: 37100963
DOI: 10.1007/s11046-023-00727-z -
Chest Sep 2023In the phase 3 MANDALA trial, as-needed albuterol-budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk vs as-needed albuterol in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
In the phase 3 MANDALA trial, as-needed albuterol-budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk vs as-needed albuterol in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing maintenance therapy. This study (DENALI) was conducted to address the US Food and Drug Administration combination rule, which requires a combination product to demonstrate that each component contributes to its efficacy.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Do both albuterol and budesonide contribute to the efficacy of the albuterol-budesonide combination pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
This phase 3 double-blind trial randomized patients aged ≥ 12 years with mild-to-moderate asthma 1:1:1:1:1 to four-times-daily albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg or 180/80 μg, albuterol 180 μg, budesonide 160 μg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual-primary efficacy end points included change from baseline in FEV area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (FEV AUC) over 12 weeks (assessing albuterol effect) and trough FEV at week 12 (assessing budesonide effect).
RESULTS
Of 1,001 patients randomized, 989 were ≥ 12 years old and evaluable for efficacy. Change from baseline in FEV AUC over 12 weeks was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg vs budesonide 160 μg (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 80.7 [95% CI, 28.4-132.9] mL; P = .003). Change in trough FEV at week 12 was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 and 180/80 μg vs albuterol 180 μg (LSM difference, 132.8 [95% CI, 63.6-201.9] mL and 120.8 [95% CI, 51.5-190.1] mL, respectively; both P < .001). Day 1 time to onset and duration of bronchodilation with albuterol-budesonide were similar to those with albuterol. The albuterol-budesonide adverse event profile was similar to that of the monocomponents.
INTERPRETATION
Both monocomponents contributed to albuterol-budesonide lung function efficacy. Albuterol-budesonide was well tolerated, even at regular, relatively high daily doses for 12 weeks, with no new safety findings, supporting its use as a novel rescue therapy.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03847896; URL: www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov.
Topics: Humans; Child; Budesonide; Formoterol Fumarate; Metered Dose Inhalers; Administration, Inhalation; Asthma; Albuterol; Double-Blind Method; Bronchodilator Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37003355
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.035