Agrobacterium rhizogenes rolB gene affects photosynthesis and chlorophyll content in transgenic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants.

Insertion of Agrobacterium rhizogenes rolB gene into plant genome affects plant development, hormone balance and defence. However, beside the current research, the overall transcriptional response and gene expression of rolB as a modulator in plant is unknown. Transformed rolB tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivar Tondino has been used to investigate the differential expression profile. Tomato is a well-known model organism both at the genetic and molecular level, and one of the most important commercial food crops in the world. Through the construction and characterization of a cDNA subtracted library, we have investigated the differential gene expression between transgenic clones of rolB and control tomato and have evaluated genes specifically transcribed in transgenic rolB plants. Among the selected genes, five genes encoding for chlorophyll a/b binding protein, carbonic anhydrase, cytochrome b6/f complex Fe-S subunit, potassium efflux antiporter 3, and chloroplast small heat-shock protein, all involved in chloroplast function, were identified. Measurement of photosynthesis efficiency by the level of three different photosynthetic parameters (Fv/Fm, rETR, NPQ) showed rolB significant increase in non-photochemical quenching and a, b chlorophyll content. Our results point to highlight the role of rolB on plant fitness by improving photosynthesis.

Ranolazine in the treatment of atrial fibrillation: Results of the dose-ranging RAFFAELLO (Ranolazine in Atrial Fibrillation Following An ELectricaL CardiOversion) study.

BACKGROUND: Currently available antiarrhythmic agents for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) have important limitations, leaving an unmet need for safe and effective therapy. Ranolazine is an approved antianginal agent with a favorable safety profile and electrophysiologic properties suggesting a potential role in the treatment of AF. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ranolazine in the prevention of AF recurrence after successful electrical cardioversion and to ascertain the most appropriate dose of this agent. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-control parallel group phase II dose-ranging trial randomized patients with persistent AF (7 days to 6 months) 2 hours after successful electrical cardioversion to placebo, or ranolazine 375 mg, 500 mg, or 750 mg bid. Patients were monitored daily by transtelephonic ECG. The primary end-point was the time to first AF recurrence. RESULTS: Of 241 patients randomized, 238 took at least 1 drug dose. Ranolazine proved to be safe and tolerable. No dose of the drug significantly prolonged time to AF recurrence. AF recurred in 56.4%, 56.9%, 41.7%, and 39.7% of patients in the placebo, ranolazine 375 mg, ranolazine 500 mg, and ranolazine 750 mg groups, respectively. The reduction in overall AF recurrence in the combined 500-mg and 750-mg groups was of borderline significance compared to the placebo group (P = .053) and significant compared to 375-mg group (P = .035). CONCLUSION: No dose of ranolazine significantly prolonged time to AF recurrence. However, the 500-mg and 750 mg-groups combined reduced AF recurrences, suggesting a possible role for this agent in the treatment of AF.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combination therapy versus olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Current hypertension guidelines recommend using two antihypertensive agents when blood pressure (BP) control is not achieved with one single agent. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the antihypertensive benefit of the olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg combination versus olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe hypertension. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, up-titration, multicentre, multinational, phase III study. Following a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in phase, 846 hypertensive patients with mean seated systolic BP (SeSBP) of 160-200 mmHg and mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) of 100-120 mmHg were randomized (1 : 2 ratio) to receive double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg or olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg for 8 weeks (phase A). At week 8, patients not reaching BP goal (<140/90 mmHg; <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) were up-titrated from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg for an additional 8 weeks (phase B). Patients on goal continued their initial treatment. The primary efficacy parameter was the change in mean SeDBP during phase A. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg reduced mean SeDBP significantly more (-18.9 mmHg) than olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (-15.8 mmHg) after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment (difference: -3.1 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg also reduced mean SeSBP significantly more than olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (-5.4 mmHg, p < 0.0001). As a result, BP goal rates at week 8 were significantly higher with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg than with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (58.5% vs 44.3%; odds ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.32, 2.54). During phase B, mean BP reductions were greater in patients up-titrated from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg than in those continuing on olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (SeDBP: -9.3 mmHg vs -0.5 mmHg; SeSBP: -12.4 mmHg vs -0.5 mmHg). Similarly, mean BP reductions were greater in patients up-titrated from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg than in those continuing on olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (SeDBP: -8.0 mmHg vs -0.3 mmHg; SeSBP: -12.1 mmHg vs -0.4 mmHg). In patients not on goal at week 8, addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg or up-titration from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg brought additional patients to goal at week 16 (38.8% vs 36.9%). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg combination is superior to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg monotherapy in reducing SeDBP and SeSBP and increasing BP goal rates after 8 weeks. Patients not on goal at week 8 with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg or olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg benefited from adding HCTZ 12.5 mg or up-titrating to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively, confirming that up-titration is a clinically meaningful way to improve BP control. [ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00441350 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier)].

Achieving lipoprotein goals in patients at high risk with severe hypercholesterolemia: efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with atorvastatin.

BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of statins in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, many patients who are at high risk for heart disease with hypercholesterolemia require additional LDL-C level reduction. The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, has been shown to provide significant incremental reductions in LDL-C levels when co-administered with statins. This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (10 mg) plus response-based atorvastatin titration versus response-based atorvastatin titration alone in the attainment of LDL-C goals in subjects who are at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) and are not at their LDL-C goal on the starting dose of atorvastatin. METHODS: This was a 14-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study conducted in 113 clinical research centers in 21 countries. Participants were adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), CHD, or multiple (> or =2) cardiovascular risk factors, and a LDL-C level > or =130 mg/dL after a 6- to 10-week dietary stabilization and atorvastatin (10 mg/day) open-label run-in period. Eligible subjects continued to receive atorvastatin (10 mg) and were randomized to receive blinded treatment with ezetimibe (10 mg/day; n = 305) or an additional 10 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 316). The atorvastatin dose in both groups was doubled after 4 weeks, 9 weeks, or both when the LDL-C level was not at its goal (< or =100 mg/dL), so that patients receiving combined therapy could reach 40 mg/day and patients receiving atorvastatin alone could reach 80 mg/day. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving their LDL-C level goal at week 14. A secondary end point was the change in LDL-C level and other lipid parameters at 4 weeks after ezetimibe co-administration with 10 mg/day of atorvastatin versus 20 mg/day of atorvastatin monotherapy. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects reaching their target LDL-C level goal of < or =100 mg/dL was significantly higher in the co-administration group than in the atorvastatin monotherapy group (22% vs 7%; P <.01). At 4 weeks, levels of LDL-C, triglycerides, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were reduced significantly more by combination therapy than by doubling the dose of atorvastatin (LDL-C -22.8% versus -8.6%; P <.01). The combination regimen had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of atorvastatin alone. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ezetimibe to the starting dose of 10 mg/day of atorvastatin followed by response-based atorvastatin dose titration to a maximum of 40 mg/day provides a more effective means for reducing LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for CHD than continued doubling of atorvastatin as high as 80 mg/day alone.

Consistency in efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with statins for treatment of hypercholesterolemia in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Women are often not treated as aggressively as men to control levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), despite evidence that women and men realize comparable cardiovascular benefit from lipid-lowering therapy. Statins are the most effective drugs currently available for treating hypercholesterolemia. Despite the impressive cholesterol-lowering capacity of statins, however, many patients on statin therapy fail to reach established target levels of LDL-C. The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, blocks the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol, a mechanism of action complementary to that of statins, which inhibit hepatic cholesterol synthesis. Ezetimibe coadministered with statins produces significant incremental reductions in LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. METHODS: Four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, balanced-parallel group trials compared the efficacy and safety of statin monotherapy (lovastatin or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin or atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg) vs. ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (as above). A gender subset analysis (women, n = 1065; men, n = 796) on data pooled across these four trials was carried out to determine whether ezetimibe plus statin for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia is equally efficacious in women and men. RESULTS: Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe plus statin demonstrated greater efficacy in reducing blood levels of LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides and raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The beneficial effects of ezetimibe were comparable in women and men. The safety profile of subjects receiving ezetimibe plus statin was similar to that of patients receiving statin monotherapy and similar between the two sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe plus statin was more effective than statin alone in improving the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolemia and was equally efficacious in women and men. Ezetimibe plus statin was well tolerated and had a favorable safety profile in both patient subgroups. Ezetimibe coadministered with statins, a dual inhibition treatment strategy that targets both cholesterol absorption and synthesis, is an effective therapeutic option for women with hypercholesterolemia.

Effect of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

This study assessed the effect of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol > or =145 and < or =250 mg/dl and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl were randomized to one of these daily treatments for 12 consecutive weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin monotherapy (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); or placebo. The primary analysis was the change in hs-CRP for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy groups. Ezetimibe plus simvastatin significantly reduced median hs-CRP levels compared with simvastatin monotherapy (-34.8% vs -18.2%, p<0.01), and incremental reductions were observed at each simvastatin dose level. Combination therapy-induced significant changes in individual lipid parameters did not explain the observed decreases in hs-CRP. Thus, ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin resulted in significant incremental decreases in hs-CRP, possibly consistent with an additional anti-inflammatory effect compared with simvastatin monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg administered with pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: After dietary stabilization, 2-12 week screening/washout period, and 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 538 patients with baseline LDL-C > or =3.8 to < or =6.5 mmol/l and TG < or =4.0 mmol/l were randomized to one of eight possible treatments administered daily for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10mg; pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline to study endpoint for ezetimibe 10 mg plus pravastatin (pooled doses) compared to pravastatin alone (pooled doses) and ezetimibe alone. The combined use of ezetimibe and pravastatin resulted in significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG compared to pooled pravastatin alone (p<0.01). Coadministration therapy reduced LDL-C by 34-41%, TG by 21-23%, and increased HDL-C by 7.8-8.4%, depending on the dose of pravastatin. The combined regimen was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to pravastatin alone and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: When coadministered with pravastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG and was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to pravastatin alone.

Effect of ezetimibe coadministered with atorvastatin in 628 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established efficacy of statins, many patients do not achieve recommended LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Contributing factors may be inadequate dosing, increased risk for adverse effects with high-dose monotherapy, and increased potential for intolerance and adverse effects with combinations of available agents. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blind study, 628 patients with baseline LDL-C 145 to 250 mg/dL and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dL were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the following for 12 weeks: ezetimibe (10 mg/d); atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d); ezetimibe (10 mg) plus atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d); or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was percentage reduction in LDL-C for pooled ezetimibe plus atorvastatin versus pooled atorvastatin treatment groups. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin significantly improved LDL-C, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, total cholesterol:HDL-C, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) compared with atorvastatin alone (P<0.01). Coadministration of ezetimibe provided a significant additional 12% LDL-C reduction, 3% HDL-C increase, 8% triglyceride reduction, and 10% hs-CRP reduction versus atorvastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin provided LDL-C reductions of 50% to 60%, triglyceride reductions of 30% to 40%, and HDL-C increases of 5% to 9%, depending on atorvastatin dose. LDL-C reductions with ezetimibe plus 10 mg atorvastatin (50%) and 80 mg atorvastatin alone (51%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to atorvastatin alone and to placebo. When coadministered with atorvastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and triglycerides and increases in HDL-C. Coadministration of ezetimibe and atorvastatin offers a well-tolerated and highly efficacious new treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia.

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study assessed the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe administered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia. After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 548 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =145 mg/dl (3.75 mmol/L) and < or =250 mg/dl (6.47 mmol/L) and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl (3.99 mmol/L) were randomized to one of the following, administered daily for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was percentage decrease in direct LDL cholesterol from baseline to end point for pooled ezetimibe plus lovastatin versus pooled lovastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus lovastatin significantly improved concentrations of LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides compared with lovastatin alone (p <0.01). The coadministration of ezetimibe provided an incremental 14% LDL cholesterol decrease, a 5% HDL cholesterol increase, and a 10% decrease in triglycerides compared with pooled lovastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus lovastatin provided mean LDL cholesterol decreases of 33% to 45%, median triglyceride decreases of 19% to 27%, and mean HDL cholesterol increases of 8% to 9%, depending on the statin dose. The coadministration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus the starting dose of lovastatin (10 mg) provided comparable efficacy to high-dose lovastatin (40 mg) across the lipid profile (LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). Ezetimibe plus lovastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to both lovastatin alone and placebo. The coadministration of ezetimibe and lovastatin may offer a new treatment option in lipid management of patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe administered with simvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of statins, many patients do not achieve lipid targets. Combination therapy with lipid-lowering agents that act via a complementary pathway may allow additional patients to achieve recommended cholesterol goals. METHODS: After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =145 mg/dl to < or =250 mg/dl and triglycerides (TG) < or =350 mg/dl were randomized to one of the following 10 groups administered daily for 12 consecutive weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was percentage reduction from baseline to end point in direct LDL-C for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin groups versus pooled simvastatin groups. RESULTS: Ezetimibe plus simvastatin significantly improved LDL-C (p < 0.01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (p = 0.03), and TG (p < 0.01) compared with simvastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus simvastatin (pooled doses) provided an incremental 13.8% LDL-C reduction, 2.4% HDL-C increase, and 7.5% TG reduction compared with pooled simvastatin alone. Coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin provided LDL-C reductions of 44% to 57%, TG reductions of 20% to 28%, and HDL-C increases of 8% to 11%, depending on the simvastatin dose. Ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin 80 mg alone each provided a 44% LDL-C reduction. The coadministration of ezetimibe with simvastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to those of simvastatin and of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: When coadministered with simvastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG, as well as increases in HDL-C. Coadministration of ezetimibe with simvastatin was well tolerated and comparable to statin alone.