Final analysis of the phase III non-inferiority COLUMBA study of subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the primary analysis of the phase III COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation [SD]) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581 (SD, 315) µg/mL for DARA SC and 496 (SD, 231) µg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs. 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs. 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. (Clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03277105.

Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory myeloma: a cytogenetic subgroup analysis of POLLUX.

High cytogenetic risk abnormalities confer poor outcomes in multiple myeloma patients. In POLLUX, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. We report an updated subgroup analysis of POLLUX based on cytogenetic risk. The cytogenetic risk was determined using fluorescence in situ hybridization/karyotyping; patients with high cytogenetic risk had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10-5) was assessed via the clonoSEQ® assay V2.0. 569 patients were randomized (D-Rd, n = 286; Rd, n = 283); 35 (12%) patients per group had high cytogenetic risk. After a median follow-up of 44.3 months, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd in standard cytogenetic risk (median: not estimable vs 18.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; P < 0.0001) and high cytogenetic risk (median: 26.8 vs 8.3 months; HR, 0.34; P = 0.0035) patients. Responses with D-Rd were deep, including higher MRD negativity and sustained MRD-negativity rates versus Rd, regardless of cytogenetic risk. PFS on subsequent line of therapy was improved with D-Rd versus Rd in both cytogenetic risk subgroups. The safety profile of D-Rd by cytogenetic risk was consistent with the overall population. These findings demonstrate the improved efficacy of daratumumab plus standard of care versus standard of care in RRMM, regardless of cytogenetic risk.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous daratumumab for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma involves a lengthy infusion that affects quality of life, and infusion-related reactions are common. Subcutaneous daratumumab is thought to be easier to administer and to cause fewer administration-related reactions. In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intravenous daratumumab. METHODS: In this ongoing, multicentre (147 sites in 18 countries), open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) if they had confirmed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria; received at least three previous lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, or were double refractory to both a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule and balanced using randomly permuted blocks to receive daratumumab subcutaneously (subcutaneous group) or intravenously (intravenous group). Randomisation was stratified on the basis of baseline bodyweight (≤65 kg, 66-85 kg, >85 kg), previous therapy lines (≤four vs >four), and myeloma type (IgG vs non-IgG). Patients received 1800 mg of subcutaneous daratumumab co-formulated with 2000 U/mL recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 or 16 mg/kg of intravenous daratumumab once weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter (28-day cycles) until progressive disease or toxicity. The co-primary endpoints were overall response and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough; cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose). The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined using a 60% retention of the lower bound (20·8%) of the 95% CI of the SIRIUS trial. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat population. The pharmacokinetic-evaluable population included all patients who received all eight weekly daratumumab doses in cycles 1 and 2 and provided a pre-dose pharmacokinetics blood sample on day 1 of cycle 3. The safety population included all patients who received at least one daratumumab dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03277105. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2017, and Dec 27, 2018, 655 patients were screened, of whom 522 were recruited and randomly assigned (subcutaneous group n=263; intravenous group n=259). Three patients in the subcutaneous group and one in the intravenous group did not receive treatment and were not evaluable for safety. At a median follow-up of 7·5 months (IQR 6·5-9·3), overall response and Ctrough met the predefined non-inferiority criteria. An overall response was seen in 108 (41%) of 263 patients in the subcutaneous group and 96 (37%) of 259 in the intravenous group (relative risk 1·11, 95% CI 0·89-1·37). The geometric means ratio for Ctrough was 107·93% (90% CI 95·74-121·67), and the maximum Ctrough was 593 µg/mL (SD 306) in the subcutaneous group and 522 µg/mL (226) in the intravenous group. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were anaemia (34 [13%] of 260 patients evaluable for safety in the subcutaneous group and 36 [14%] of 258 patients in the intravenous group), neutropenia (34 [13%] and 20 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (36 [14%] and 35 [14%]). Pneumonia was the only serious adverse event in more than 2% of patients (seven [3%] in the subcutaneous group and 11 [4%] in the intravenous group). There was one death resulting from a treatment-related adverse event in the subcutaneous daratumumab group (febrile neutropenia) and four in the intravenous group (sepsis [n=2], hepatitis B reactivation [n=1], and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous daratumumab was non-inferior to intravenous daratumumab in terms of efficacy and pharmacokinetics and had an improved safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. These data could contribute to the approval of the subcutaneous daratumumab formulation by regulatory bodies. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Daratumumab-based regimens are highly effective and well tolerated in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of patient age: subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CASTOR and POLLUX studies.

The phase 3 POLLUX and CASTOR studies demonstrated superior benefit of daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone or bortezomib/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab was analyzed according to age groups of 65 to 74 years and ≥75 years. Patients received ≥1 prior line of therapy. In POLLUX, patients received lenalidomide/dexamethasone ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-2; every two weeks, cycles 3-6; monthly until progression). In CASTOR, patients received eight cycles of bortezomib/dexamethasone ± daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-3; every three weeks, cycles 4-8; monthly until progression). Patients aged >75 years received dexamethasone 20 mg weekly. For patients aged ≥75 years in POLLUX (median follow-up: 25.4 months), daratumumab/lenalido-mide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalido-mide/dexamethasone (median: 28.9 versus 11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.69; P=0.0042) and increased overall response rate (93.1% versus 76.5%; P=0.0740). Neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (daratumumab: 44.8%; control: 31.4%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 12 (41.4%) patients. For patients aged ≥75 years in CASTOR (median follow-up: 19.4 months), daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib/dexamethasone (median: 17.9 versus 8.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.65; P=0.0022) and increased overall response rate (95.0% versus 78.8%; P=0.1134). Thrombocytopenia was the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (daratumumab: 45.0%; control: 37.1%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13 (65.0%) patients. Similar findings were reported for patients aged 65 to 74 years in both studies. Taken together, this subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety of daratumumab was largely consistent with the overall populations.

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of POLLUX.

In the POLLUX study, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone significantly reduced risk of progression/death versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We provide one additional year of follow up and include the effect on minimal residual disease and in clinically relevant subgroups. After 25.4 months of follow up, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone prolonged progression-free survival versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone (median not reached vs 17.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.53; P<0.0001). The overall response rate was 92.9% versus 76.4%, and 51.2% versus 21.0% achieved a complete response or better, respectively (both P<0.0001). At the 10-5 sensitivity threshold, 26.2% versus 6.4% were minimal residual disease-negative, respectively (P<0.0001). Post hoc analyses of clinically relevant patient subgroups demonstrated that progression-free survival was significantly prolonged for daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Patients previously treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide and those refractory to bortezomib received similar benefits (all P<0.01). Treatment benefit with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone was maintained in high-risk patients (median progression-free survival 22.6 vs 10.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.13; P=0.0921) and patients with treatment-free intervals of >12 and ≤12 months and >6 and ≤6 months. No new safety signals were observed. In relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients, daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone continued to improve progression-free survival and deepen responses versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02076009.

Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab showed promising efficacy alone and with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1-2 study involving patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 569 patients with multiple myeloma who had received one or more previous lines of therapy to receive lenalidomide and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 13.5 months in a protocol-specified interim analysis, 169 events of disease progression or death were observed (in 53 of 286 patients [18.5%] in the daratumumab group vs. 116 of 283 [41.0%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.52; P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test). The Kaplan-Meier rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 83.2% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.2) in the daratumumab group, as compared with 60.1% (95% CI, 54.0 to 65.7) in the control group. A significantly higher rate of overall response was observed in the daratumumab group than in the control group (92.9% vs. 76.4%, P<0.001), as was a higher rate of complete response or better (43.1% vs. 19.2%, P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.4% of the patients had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 4.6% of those in the control group (P<0.001); results below the threshold for minimal residual disease were associated with improved outcomes. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 during treatment were neutropenia (in 51.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group vs. 37.0% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 12.7% vs. 13.5%), and anemia (in 12.4% vs. 19.6%). Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the patients and were mostly of grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly lengthened progression-free survival among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher rate of neutropenia than the control therapy. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; POLLUX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02076009 .).

Quantitative ER and PgR assessment as predictors of benefit from lapatinib in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Lapatinib, a dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and HER2 inhibitor, remains unproven in non-HER2-amplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC). EGF30008, a phase III trial of letrozole and lapatinib versus letrozole and placebo, demonstrated that lapatinib significantly improves outcome for postmenopausal women with HER2-amplified, but not HER2-negative, MBC. The hypothesis that low hormone receptor status is associated with benefit in this HER2-negative cohort was tested. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A blinded retrospective biomarker evaluation used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to semiquantify estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) expression (n = 821/952). HER2 status was determined by IHC and confirmed by FISH (n = 326). Effects of these biomarkers on progression-free survival (PFS) were examined in patients with available tissue. RESULTS: In HER2-negative, ER-positive MBC, median PFS was analyzed by ER and PgR expression (H-score) by quartile (Q). There was significant improvement in patients with low ER expression (Q1, H-score <160) with lapatinib and letrozole (13.6 vs. 6.7 months; P = 0.01). No benefit was associated with stronger ER expression (Q2/3, H-score ≥ 160 and <250; 13.6 vs. 14.2 months; Q4, H-score ≥ 250; 11.2 vs. 14.2 months). There was no association between PgR H-score and benefit from lapatinib. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive disease, weak ER expression is associated with worse outcome with letrozole treatment compared with the combination. The addition of lapatinib significantly improved PFS for this patient subgroup and augments data supporting interaction between steroid hormone and peptide hormone signaling. A prospective study validating this hypothesis is required.

The acid pocket: a target for treatment in reflux disease?

The nadir esophageal pH of reflux observed during pH monitoring in the postprandial period is often more acidic than the concomitant intragastric pH. This paradox prompted the discovery of the "acid pocket", an area of unbuffered gastric acid that accumulates in the proximal stomach after meals and serves as the reservoir for acid reflux in healthy individuals and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients. However, there are differentiating features between these populations in the size and position of the acid pocket, with GERD patients predisposed to upward migration of the proximal margin onto the esophageal mucosa, particularly when supine. This upward migration of acid, sometimes referred to as an "acid film", likely contributes to mucosal pathology in the region of the squamocolumnar junction. Furthermore, movement of the acid pocket itself to a supradiaphragmatic location with hiatus hernia increases the propensity for acid reflux by all conventional mechanisms. Consequently, the acid pocket is an attractive target for GERD therapy. It may be targeted in a global way with proton pump inhibitors that attenuate acid pocket development, or with alginate/antacid combinations that colocalize with the acid pocket and displace it distally, thereby demonstrating the potential for selective targeting of the acid pocket in GERD.

Quality-adjusted survival analysis of first-line treatment of hormone-receptor-positive HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with letrozole alone or in combination with lapatinib.

AIM: Compare first-line lapatinib plus letrozole (L + Let) versus letrozole monotherapy (Let) in hormone-receptor-positive HER2 + metastatic breast cancer, employing Q-TWiST (quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity) analysis to account for differences in progression times, with offsets for the impact of adverse events during the treatment period. METHODS: The area under survival curves for each treatment group was partitioned into distinct health states of varying utility: toxicity (TOX), time without toxicity or disease progression (TWiST), and the period following disease progression until death or end of follow-up (REL). The utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations was derived for each group. The threshold utility analysis evaluates how varying utility values across the states affects Q-TWiST differences between groups, although the method is limited by not varying utilities within each health state. RESULTS: The primary analysis population was the HER2 + subgroup (n = 219). There was no significant difference between treatments in mean duration of grade 3/4 adverse events prior to progression (L + Let = 1.95 weeks; Let = 2.14 weeks; P = 0.90). Using utility weights of 0.5 for TOX and REL, L + Let was favored for quality-adjusted survival by 8.8 weeks (P = 0.09). The Q-TWiST difference between treatment groups ranged from 8 to 9.5 weeks, favoring combination therapy for all hypothetical utility levels, but none of the comparisons were statistically significant at P = 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between L + Let versus Let in mean duration of severe adverse events. Quality-adjusted survival was favored for the combination treatment arm for all utility levels examined when toxicity was defined by grade 3/4 AEs, but differences between groups were not statistically significant.

Quality of life in hormone receptor-positive HER-2+ metastatic breast cancer patients during treatment with letrozole alone or in combination with lapatinib.

BACKGROUND: A phase III trial compared lapatinib plus letrozole (L + Let) with letrozole plus placebo (Let) as first-line therapy for hormone receptor (HR)(+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients whose tumors were human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2(+) was significantly longer for L + Let than for Let (8.2 months versus 3 months; p = .019). This analysis focuses on quality of life (QOL) in the HER-2(+) population. METHODS: QOL was assessed at screening, every 12 weeks, and at withdrawal using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B). Changes from baseline were analyzed and the proportions of patients achieving minimally important differences in QOL scores were compared. Additional exploratory analyses evaluated how QOL changes reflected tumor progression status. RESULTS: Among the 1,286 patients randomized, 219 had HER-2(+) tumors. Baseline QOL scores were comparable in the two arms. Mean changes in QOL scores were generally stable over time for patients who stayed on study. The average change from baseline on the FACT-B total score in both arms was positive at all scheduled visits through week 48. There was no significant difference between the two treatment arms in the percentage of QOL responders. CONCLUSION: The addition of lapatinib to letrozole led to a significantly longer PFS interval while maintaining QOL during treatment, when compared with letrozole alone, thus confirming the clinical benefit of the combination therapy in the HR(+) HER-2(+) MBC patient population. This all oral regimen provides an effective option in this patient population, delaying the need for chemotherapy and its accompanying side effects.

Lapatinib plus letrozole as first-line therapy for HER-2+ hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of letrozole plus lapatinib versus letrozole plus placebo in women with hormone receptor (HR)(+) human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2(+) tumors receiving first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women (n = 1,286) with HR(+) MBC were randomized to daily oral treatment with letrozole (2.5 mg) plus lapatinib (1,500 mg) versus letrozole (2.5 mg) plus placebo. Of the 1,286 patients enrolled in the phase III study, 219 had HER-2(+) tumors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in HER-2(+) patients. RESULTS: Results in the HR(+) HER-2(+) population (n = 219) are presented. The addition of lapatinib to letrozole resulted in a significantly lower risk for disease progression than with letrozole alone (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.96). The PFS time was 8.2 months, versus 3.0 months. The objective response rate (ORR) (28% versus 15%) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) (48% versus 29%) were also significantly greater in lapatinib-treated women. The most common adverse events in the lapatinib group were diarrhea (68%) and rash (46%), primarily grade 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lapatinib to letrozole is well tolerated and leads to a significantly greater PFS time, ORR, and CBR than with letrozole alone in women with MBC who coexpress HR and HER-2.

Lapatinib combined with letrozole versus letrozole and placebo as first-line therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Cross-talk between human epidermal growth factor receptors and hormone receptor pathways may cause endocrine resistance in breast cancer. This trial evaluated the effect of adding lapatinib, a dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor blocking epidermal growth factor receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole as first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR-positive MBC were randomly assigned to daily letrozole (2.5 mg orally) plus lapatinib (1,500 mg orally) or letrozole and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the HER2-positive population. Results In HR-positive, HER2-positive patients (n = 219), addition of lapatinib to letrozole significantly reduced the risk of disease progression versus letrozole-placebo (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.96; P = .019); median PFS was 8.2 v 3.0 months, respectively. Clinical benefit (responsive or stable disease >or= 6 months) was significantly greater for lapatinib-letrozole versus letrozole-placebo (48% v 29%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.8; P = .003). Patients with centrally confirmed HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors (n = 952) had no improvement in PFS. A preplanned Cox regression analysis identified prior antiestrogen therapy as a significant factor in the HER2-negative population; a nonsignificant trend toward prolonged PFS for lapatinib-letrozole was seen in patients who experienced relapse less than 6 months since prior tamoxifen discontinuation (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = .117). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the lapatinib-letrozole arm versus letrozole-placebo arm (diarrhea, 10% v 1%; rash, 1% v 0%, respectively), but they were manageable. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrated that a combined targeted strategy with letrozole and lapatinib significantly enhances PFS and clinical benefit rates in patients with MBC that coexpresses HR and HER2.

Specificity is complex and time consuming: mutual exclusivity in tyrosine kinase-mediated signaling.

Most fundamental cellular processes are transduced through tyrosine kinase (TK)-mediated pathways. For transduction without corruption, the protein-protein interactions involved have to be mutually exclusive. Many of these proteins bind via homologous domains whose binding characteristics suggest that their innate specificity is not sufficiently high to account for the integrity of signal transduction. Stimulation of TK-mediated signals is often accompanied by recruitment of a precise, multimolecular protein complex that is itself capable of imposing specificity. Furthermore, this complex provides protection against phosphatase activity, controlling the longevity of the active signaling complex, and thus influencing outcomes in subsequent downstream events.

Glucose-dependent regulation of cholesterol ester metabolism in macrophages by insulin and leptin.

Insulin resistance, obesity, and diabetes are characterized by hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and hyperleptinemia and are associated with increased risk of atherosclerosis. In an effort to understand how this occurs, we have investigated whether these factors cause disregulation of cholesterol ester metabolism in J774.2 macrophages. Raising glucose levels alone was sufficient to increase uptake of acetylated low density lipoprotein but did not stimulate synthesis of cholesterol esters. In the presence of high glucose, both insulin and leptin increased the rate of cholesterol ester synthesis, although they did not further increase uptake of acetylated low density lipoprotein. However, in the presence of high glucose both insulin and leptin caused a significant increase in the activity of acyl-CoA: cholesterol O-acyltransferase (ACAT) combined with a significant reduction in the level of hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL). Because ACAT is the main enzyme responsible for cholesterol ester synthesis and HSL contributes significantly to neutral cholesterol ester hydrolase activity, this suggests that glucose primes the J774.2 cells so that in the presence of high insulin or leptin they will store cholesterol esters. This contrasts with 3T3-L1 adipocytes, where HSL activity and expression are increased by insulin in high glucose conditions. These findings may provide an explanation for the observation that in conditions characterized by hyperglycemia, hyperleptinemia, and hyperinsulinemia, triglyceride lipolysis in adipocytes is increased while hydrolysis of cholesterol esters in macrophages is decreased, contributing to foam cell formation.

Biphasic regulation of extracellular-signal-regulated protein kinase by leptin in macrophages: role in regulating STAT3 Ser727 phosphorylation and DNA binding.

Activation of the transcription factor signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) requires dimerization that is induced by phosphorylation of Tyr705, but its activity can be further modulated by phosphorylation at Ser727 in a manner that is dependent on cell context and the stimulus used. The role of STAT3 Ser727 phosphorylation in leptin signalling is currently not known. While cells transfected with the signalling-competent long form of the leptin receptor (ObRb) have been used to study leptin signalling, these are likely to be of limited use in studying STAT3 Ser727 phosphorylation due to the importance of cell background in determining the nature of the response. However, we have recently found that J774.2 macrophages endogenously express high levels of ObRb, and using these cells we find that leptin stimulates STAT3 phosphorylation on both Tyr705 and Ser727. The phosphorylation of Ser727 was not affected by rapamycin or the protein kinase C inhibitor H7 [1-(5-isoquinolinylsulphonyl)-2-methylpiperazine dihydrochloride]. While the MEK-1 [mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAP kinase)/extracellular-signal-related kinase (ERK) kinase-1] inhibitor PD98059 [(2-amino-3'-methoxyphenyl)oxanaphthalen-4-one] had no effect on leptin-stimulated phosphorylation of STAT3 Tyr705, it greatly attenuated leptin's effects on STAT3 Ser727 phosphorylation. Further, Ob's effect on the DNA binding activity of STAT3 was also greatly reduced at all time points by PD98059. Leptin-induced ERK activation in J774.2 cells shows a biphasic pattern, with an initial reduction in ERK phosphorylation for up to 10 min following leptin stimulation, while at later time points phosphorylation of ERK was increased above basal levels. The increase in ERK activity corresponded with an increase in both phosphorylation of Ser727 and STAT3 DNA binding activity. These data provide the first evidence that ERK-mediated phosphorylation of Ser727 is required for full stimulation of STAT3 by leptin.