Investigation on a focus of human trichinellosis revealed by an atypical clinical case: after wild-boar (Sus scrofa) pork consumption in northern Italy.

Trichinellosis is one of the most serious foodborne parasitic zoonoses in Europe. Wild carnivorous and omnivorous hosts are the main reservoirs of Trichinella spp. nematodes in nature. In the winter of 2008-2009, an atypical clinical case of trichinellosis occurred for the consumption of pork from a wild boar (Sus scrofa) hunted in southwestern Alps in Italy. The symptomatic individual showed delayed development of oedemas in the lower limbs and eosinophilia, which appeared three months after infection. Muscle samples harboured 3.8 larvae/g, which were identified as Trichinella britovi. During the epidemiological investigation, anti-Trichinella IgG were detected in five hunters.

Long-term efficacy of a combination of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil ± hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension stratified by age, race and diabetes status: a substudy of the COACH trial.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of a 44-week open-label extension study is presented. The efficacy and safety of the combination of amlodipine (AML) + olmesartan medoxomil (OM), with and without the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in patients aged ≥65 and <65 years, Blacks and non-Blacks and patients with and without type 2 diabetes. After an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the study, patients initiated therapy on AML 5 + OM 40 mg per day, were uptitrated stepwise to AML 10 + OM 40 mg per day, with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg, and 25 mg if blood pressure (BP) goal was not achieved (<140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes). Endpoints included the change from baseline in mean seated systolic BP, mean seated diastolic BP and achievement of BP goal. BP decreased from baseline for all treatments in each prespecified subgroup. By the end of the study, BP goal was achieved in 61.0% of patients aged ≥65 years, 68.1% of patients aged <65 years, 63.3% of Blacks, 67.8% of non-Blacks, 26.9% of patients with diabetes and 72.9% of patients without diabetes. The combination of AML + OM ± HCTZ was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by these subgroups.

Efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine plus olmesartan medoxomil in patients with difficult-to-treat hypertension.

Hypertension is particularly prevalent in patients aged ≥65 years, those with a body mass index ≥30 kg m(-2), Blacks and those with type II diabetes. Here we report a prespecified secondary analysis of the efficacy of amlodipine (10 mg day(-1)), olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg day(-1)), a combination of the two and placebo in these subgroups. Patients were randomized to treatment for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in mean seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Secondary efficacy endpoints included the change from baseline in mean seated systolic BP (SBP), proportions of patients achieving BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes), and the number and percentage of patients achieving a range of BP targets. Safety and tolerability of amlodipine 5 and 10 mg, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20 and 40 mg, and all possible combinations of the two were also assessed. For each prespecified subgroup, all active treatments resulted in significant BP reductions from baseline (P<0.05). The antihypertensive effect of the combination of amlodipine+olmesartan medoxomil was generally greater than the constituent amlodipine or olmesartan medoxomil monotherapies, regardless of subgroup. In general, more patients receiving combination therapy achieved BP goal than those treated with monotherapies. The safety and tolerability of combinations were similar to monotherapies across the subgroups. These results suggest that the combination of amlodipine+olmesartan medoxomil provides a safe and effective option for the treatment of hypertension in challenging patient populations.

A comparison of simvastatin and atorvastatin up to maximal recommended doses in a large multicenter randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: At higher doses, simvastatin has been shown to produce significantly greater increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I than atorvastatin. To extend and confirm these findings, a 36-week, randomized, double-blind, dose-titration study was performed in 826 hypercholesterolemic patients to compare the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on HDL cholesterol, apo A-I, and clinical and laboratory safety. PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS: Simvastatin, across a range of doses, will be more effective than atorvastatin at raising HDL cholesterol and apo A-I levels. METHODS: A total of 826 hypercholesterolemic patients were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized, parallel, 36-week, dose-escalation study. Patients randomized to simvastatin received 40 mg/day for the first 6 weeks, 80 mg/day for the next 6 weeks, and remained on 80 mg/day for the final 24 weeks. Patients randomized to atorvastatin received 20 mg/day for the first 6 weeks, 40 mg/day for the next 6 weeks, and 80 mg/day for the remaining 24 weeks. RESULTS: During the first 12 weeks of the study, simvastatin increased HDL cholesterol and apo A-I more than the comparative doses of atorvastatin, while producing slightly lower reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. At the maximal dose comparison, simvastatin 80 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg, the HDL cholesterol and apo A-I differences favoring simvastatin were larger than at the lower doses. In addition, at the maximal dose comparison, the incidence of drug-related clinical adverse experiences was approximately two-fold higher with atorvastatin 80 mg than with simvastatin 80 mg (23 versus 12%, p < 0.001), due predominantly to a greater incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms with atorvastatin (10 versus 3%, p < 0.001). The incidence of clinically significant alanine aminotransferase elevations was also higher with atorvastatin 80 mg than with simvastatin 80 mg (3.8 versus 0.5%, p < 0.010), especially in women (6.0 versus 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: At the doses compared in this study, simvastatin led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and apo A-I levels than atorvastatin. At the maximum dose comparison, there were fewer drug-related gastrointestinal symptoms and clinically significant aminotransferase elevations with simvastatin.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day: long-term experience in a large group of patients with hypercholesterolemia. World Wide Expanded Dose Simvastatin Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol promote the development of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease. HYPOTHESIS: Simvastatin 80 mg/day will be more effective than simvastatin 40 mg/day at reducing LDL cholesterol and will be well tolerated. METHODS: Two similar, randomized, multicenter, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, 48-week studies were performed to evaluate the long-term lipid-altering efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day in patients with hypercholesterolemia. One study conducted in the US enrolled patients meeting the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) LDL cholesterol criteria for pharmacologic treatment. In the other multinational study, patients with LDL cholesterol levels > or = 4.2 mmol/l were enrolled. At 20 centers in the US and 19 countries world-wide, 1,105 hypercholesterolemic patients, while on a lipid-lowering diet, were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:3 to receive simvastatin 40 mg (n = 436) or 80 mg (n = 669) once daily for 24 weeks. Those patients completing an initial 24-week base study were enrolled in a 24-week blinded extension. Patients who had started on the 80 mg dose in the base study continued on the same dose in the extension, while those who had started on the 40 mg dose were rerandomized at a 1:1 ratio to simvastatin 40 or 80 mg in the extension. RESULTS: There was a significant advantage in the LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of the 80 mg dose compared with that of the 40 mg dose, which was maintained over the 48 weeks of treatment. The mean percentage reductions (95% confidence intervals) from baseline in LDL cholesterol for the 40 and 80 mg groups were 41% (42, 39) and 47% (48, 46), respectively, for the 24-week base study, and 41% (43, 39) and 46% (47, 45), respectively, after 48 weeks of treatment (p < 0.001 between groups). Larger reductions in total cholesterol and triglycerides were also observed with the 80 mg dose compared with the 40 mg dose at Weeks 24 and 48. Both doses were well tolerated, with close to 95% of patients enrolled completing the entire 48 weeks of treatment. Myopathy (muscle symptoms plus creatine kinase increase > 10 fold upper limit of normal) and clinically significant hepatic transaminase increases (> 3 times the upper limit of normal) occurred infrequently with both doses. There was no significant difference between the groups in the number of patients with such increases, although there were more cases for both with the 80 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 40 mg dose, simvastatin 80 mg produced greater reductions in LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. Both doses were well tolerated.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day: worldwide long-term experience in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Clinical data suggesting that larger decreases in low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) result in greater reductions in coronary heart disease events have led to the establishment of aggressive LDL-C targets for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. In view of this, the efficacy and safety of a new maximum dose of simvastatin, 80 mg, were evaluated in 9 studies involving 2819 hypercholesterolemic patients. This report focuses on the combined results from the 4 main or Pivotal studies in which a total of 1936 patients received simvastatin 40 or 80 mg for 36 to 48 weeks. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Pivotal studies had similar randomized, multicenter, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group designs. Their combined results demonstrated a significant advantage in the LDL-C-lowering effect for the 80 mg dose. At week 24, the mean percentage reductions (95% confidence intervals) from baseline in LDL-C for the 40 and 80 mg groups were -39.8% (-40.9, -38.7) and -45.7% (-46.5, -45.0) respectively (p < 0.001, between groups), and larger reductions in total cholesterol and triglycerides were also observed in the 80 mg group. Both doses were well tolerated. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed and the overall clinical event profiles were similar in the two groups. Clinically significant hepatic transaminase increases (> 3 times the upper limit of normal/ULN) and myopathy (muscle symptoms plus creatine kinase increase > 10 times ULN) occurred infrequently with both doses. Simvastatin 80 mg had a comparable efficacy and safety profile in women and men as well as in non-elderly and elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin 80 mg provides additional LDL-C and triglyceride reductions compared to the 40 mg dose and has an excellent safety and tolerability profile.

Efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day in hypercholesterolemic patients. The Expanded Dose Simvastatin U.S. Study Group.

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind parallel-group study was performed to evaluate the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day, a dose twice the current maximum recommended dose. At 20 centers in the United States, 521 male and female hypercholesterolemic patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:3 to receive simvastatin 40 or 80 mg once daily, respectively, for 24 weeks in conjunction with a lipid-lowering diet. Patients met National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol criteria for pharmacologic treatment. The mean percentage reductions (95% confidence intervals) from baseline in LDL cholesterol averaged at weeks 18 and 24 were 38% (-40 to -36) and 46% (-47 to -45) for the 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (p <0.001 between groups). One third of patients on the 40- and 80-mg doses achieved an LDL cholesterol reduction of 46% and > or = 53%, respectively. Decreases in apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and triglycerides were also significantly greater among patients receiving 80 mg/day. Simvastatin was well tolerated in both groups. Two patients (0.6%) in the 80-mg group developed myopathy. Consecutive, clinically significant hepatic transaminase elevations occurred in 3 (1.0%) and 6 (1.9%) patients in the 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (p= 0.486). In conclusion, simvastatin 80 mg/day provided substantial reductions in LDL cholesterol, allowing most patients to reach their NCEP target levels; it also had an excellent safety and tolerability profile.

The efficacy and six-week tolerability of simvastatin 80 and 160 mg/day.

The hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor simvastatin is the most effective of the currently approved hypolipidemic drugs and has been shown to reduce mortality and coronary morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease. For these patients the United States National Cholesterol Education Program advocates reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol to <100 mg/dl. However, in some patients this cannot be achieved using monotherapy with simvastatin 40 mg/day, the current maximal recommended dose. To evaluate the effectiveness of extending the dosage range, 156 subjects with LDL cholesterol >160 mg/dl and triglycerides (TG) <350 mg/dl were randomized to simvastatin at doses of 40, 80, and 160 mg/day in a 26 week, double-blind, 3-period, complete block crossover study. Each active treatment period was 6 weeks in duration with intervening 2 week washout periods. Median reductions from baseline in LDL cholesterol were 41%, 47%, and 53% in the 40-, 80-, and 160-mg groups, respectively. The corresponding reductions in plasma TG were 21%, 23%, and 33%. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increased by 6% to 8% in each group. One patient (0.7%) taking 160 mg developed myopathy; 1 patient (0.7%) taking 80 mg, and 3 (2.1%) taking 160 mg had transaminase elevations > 3 times the upper limit of normal. No new or unexpected adverse effects were observed. We conclude that simvastatin at doses of 80 and 160 mg/day provides additional efficacy with a low short-term incidence of adverse effects; our results support the continued investigation of simvastatin at these doses.

Expanded-dose simvastatin is effective in homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.

Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HFH) have abnormalities in both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor alleles, resulting in severe hypercholesterolaemia and premature coronary heart disease. Limited treatment options are available and the response to drug therapy has been poor. In the present paper, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of simvastatin at doses beyond the current maximal dose of 40 mg/day in patients with HFH. After a 4 week placebo diet run-in period, 12 patients with well-characterized HFH were randomized to simvastatin 80 mg/day administered in three divided doses (n = 8; group 1) or 40 mg once daily (n = 4; group 2). After 9 weeks, the dose in group 1 was increased to 160 mg/day while the dose in group 2 was kept at 40 mg/day, but with the drug given in three divided doses and treatment continued for an additional 9 weeks. All 12 patients completed the study and there were no serious or unexpected adverse effects. LDL-cholesterol concentrations fell by 14% at the 40 mg/day dose, but were reduced further at the higher doses (25% at the 80 mg/day and by 31% at the 160 mg/day dosage, P < 0.0001). Excretion of urinary mevalonic acid, as an index of in vivo cholesterol biosynthesis, was reduced but did not correlate with reduction in LDL-cholesterol in the individual patients. The magnitude of response to therapy was not predicted by the LDL-receptor gene defect as patients with the same LDL-receptor mutations responded differently to the same dose of simvastatin therapy. The ability of expanded doses of simvastatin (80 or 160 mg/day) to reduce LDL-cholesterol levels in patients with HFH, even if receptor negative, suggests that at these doses, the drug reduces LDL production. Simvastatin therapy, at doses of 80 or 160 mg/day, should therefore be considered in all patients with HFH, either as an adjunct to apheresis, or as monotherapy for those patients who do not have access to apheresis or other such treatment modalities.

Effects of lovastatin on natural killer cell function and other immunological parameters in man.

Suppression of cholesterol synthesis by 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, such as lovastatin, has been shown to inhibit mitogen stimulated proliferation of natural killer (NK) cells and other lymphocytes in vitro. This effect is only partially overcome by provision of exogenous free or lipoprotein cholesterol but is reversed by mevalonate, suggesting that proliferating lymphocytes have a specific requirement for a nonsterol isoprenoid product of mevalonate. The effect of lovastatin (20 mg bid) on a range of immune function parameters was determined in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ex vivo study in 52 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. No significant differences (P < 0.05) were found between lovastatin and placebo groups for basal NK or interleukin-2 (IL-2)-induced cell-mediated cytotoxicity, PHA-stimulated lymphocyte proliferation, or relative numbers of T lymphocytes (CD3+), B lymphocytes (CD19+), total NK cells (CD3-, CD16+, CD56+) and CD57+ NK cells or in immunoglobulin levels after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment. In contrast to previous in vitro data, no statistically or clinically significant changes were observed in any parameter of lymphocyte function in patients treated with lovastatin.

Is cyclophilin involved in the immunosuppressive and nephrotoxic mechanism of action of cyclosporin A?

In this report we have approached two questions relating to the mechanism of action of cyclosporin A (CsA). First, we address whether the major cytosolic protein for CsA, cyclophilin, is directly involved in mediating the immunosuppressive activity of this drug, and, in particular, whether inhibition of this protein's peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (PPIase) activity results in inhibition of murine T cell activation. Second, we ask whether the nephrotoxicity observed with CsA is related to inhibition of PPIase-dependent pathways in cells other than lymphocytes. Using a series of 61 cyclosporin analogues, we generally found a good correlation between cyclophilin binding and immunosuppressive activity for the majority of analogues analyzed. However, a number of compounds of distinct structural classes were found that could interact with cyclophilin but were much less immunosuppressive than expected. The inability of these analogues to inhibit lymphocyte activation could not be explained by their failure to enter the cell and bind to cyclophilin under the conditions used in the cellular assays. Surprisingly, a nonimmunosuppressive analogue, MeAla-6, which bound well to cyclophilin and was active as a PPIase inhibitor, did not induce renal pathology in vivo. Furthermore, another analogue, MeBm2t, which was immunosuppressive in vitro, possessed little or no activity as a PPIase inhibitor. These findings pose serious questions concerning a direct role of cyclosporin in mediating CsA's immunosuppressive and nephrotoxic activities. In addition, they raise doubts about whether PPIase has a direct function in lymphocyte signal transduction.

The immunosuppressive macrolides FK-506 and rapamycin act as reciprocal antagonists in murine T cells.

The structurally related immunosuppressive macrolides FK-506 and rapamycin (RAP) were previously shown to inhibit T cell stimulation through different mechanisms. FK-506 acts similarly to cyclosporin A (CsA) and prevents IL-2 production and IL-2R expression. RAP has little or no effect on these events but markedly impedes the response to IL-2. The present study was initiated to examine the possibility of a complementation between the immunosuppressive actions of RAP and FK-506 or CsA on various murine T cell responses. RAP potentiated the effect of CsA on proliferation and IL-2R expression in T cells stimulated with ionomycin + PMA. However, in the same system, RAP acted as a potent antagonist of FK-506 suppression. RAP also blocked FK-506- but not CsA-mediated inhibition of IL-2 mRNA induction. By using model systems sensitive to inhibition by RAP but not FK-506 we further demonstrated that FK-506 reciprocally behaves as an antagonist of RAP. In one such model, the stimulation of splenic T cells with IL-2 + PMA, FK-506, but not CsA, reversed the suppressive effect of RAP on proliferation. FK-506 also antagonized RAP-mediated inhibition with respect to the induction of Ly-6E Ag expression by IFN in YAC cells. To explore further the competition between the two macrolides at the cellular level, we performed binding experiments with a radiolabeled derivative of FK-506. Both FK-506 and RAP, but not CsA, inhibited the binding of this probe in YAC cells. Taken together, these data demonstrate that FK-506 and RAP antagonize each other's biologic activity and physically interact with a common receptor site(s) in T cells. Moreover, CsA acts at a site distinct from the cellular target(s) of FK-506 or RAP.

Distinct mechanisms of suppression of murine T cell activation by the related macrolides FK-506 and rapamycin.

FK-506 and the structurally related macrolide rapamycin (RAP) were investigated in comparison with cyclosporin A (CsA) for their immunosuppressive effects on murine T cells. All three agents suppressed the proliferation of splenic T cells triggered by lectins or antibodies to CD3 and Ly-6C. FK-506 or CsA also inhibited proliferation, IL-2 production, and IL-2R expression in splenic T cells activated with ionomycin + PMA. However, RAP minimally affected IL-2 production and IL-2R expression in these cells, although it reduced proliferation. Similarly, FK-506 and CsA, but not RAP, suppressed IL-2 production by activated DO.11.10 T hybridoma cells. In such a system, as well as in normal T cells stimulated with high ionomycin concentrations, FK-506 and CsA enhanced proliferation, indicating that they both abrogate negative signals associated with T cell activation. On the contrary, RAP diminished the autonomous proliferation of hybridoma cells, whereas FK-506 and CsA had little effect. The proliferative response induced in D10.G4 cells by IL-1 + ionomycin but not that induced by IL-1 + PMA was sensitive to inhibition by FK-506 and CsA. In contrast, RAP inhibited equally well both types of stimulation. Finally, T cell proliferation driven by IL-2 or IL-4 was found to be relatively resistant to FK-506 or CsA but sensitive to RAP. Altogether, these data demonstrate that FK-506 and CsA alter similar calcium-associated events of T cell activation and block T cell proliferation primarily by suppressing lymphokine production. RAP interferes with a different set of events and inhibits T cells by impairing their response to growth-promoting lymphokines.

Hemorrhagic bullous lesions in morphea.

The case of a 20-year-old girl who had morphea with bullous lesions is reported. Two bullae appeared on an indurated patch of morphea on the right side of the trunk. A half-moon-shaped lesion was localized along the superior border of the patch and the other followed the anterior border and extended into the patch. Both contained a hemorrhagic fluid. The bullae spontaneously regressed in a few months without therapy. We emphasize the very rare occurrence of hemorrhagic bullous lesions as a complication of morphea.

A study of the correlation between cyclophilin binding and in vitro immunosuppressive activity of cyclosporine A and analogues.

In order to establish whether CyP is the pharmacologically relevant CsA receptor, the CyP binding v immunosuppressive activity was measured for an extensive, structurally varied group of CsA analogues. Overall, CyP binding was found to parallel immunosuppressive activity. Other than MeAla6-CsA, the few exceptions to the correlation could be ascribed to cellular metabolism. These results strongly implicate CyP or a related protein in the mechanism of action of cyclosporine.