Pancreatic Cancer Cachexia: The Role of Nutritional Interventions.

Pancreatic cancer is a cancer with one of the highest mortality rates and many pancreatic cancer patients present with cachexia at diagnosis. The definition of cancer cachexia is not consistently applied in the clinic or across studies. In general, it is "defined as a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass with or without loss of fat mass that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support and leads to progressive functional impairment." Many regard cancer cachexia as being resistant to dietary interventions. Cachexia is associated with a negative impact on survival and quality of life. In this article, we outline some of the mechanisms of pancreatic cancer cachexia and discuss nutritional interventions to support the management of pancreatic cancer cachexia. Cachexia is driven by a combination of reduced appetite leading to reduced calorie intake, increased metabolism, and systemic inflammation driven by a combination of host cytokines and tumour derived factors. The ketogenic diet showed promising results, but these are yet to be confirmed in human clinical trials over the long-term. L-carnitine supplementation showed improved quality of life and an increase in lean body mass. As a first step towards preventing and managing pancreatic cancer cachexia, nutritional support should be provided through counselling and the provision of oral nutritional supplements to prevent and minimise loss of lean body mass.

Antiviral Activity, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of AL-794, a Novel Oral Influenza Endonuclease Inhibitor: Results of an Influenza Human Challenge Study.

Background: AL-794 is an orally active prodrug of ALS-033719, which selectively inhibits the endonuclease domain of influenza virus A and B polymerase. Methods: In a phase 1, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study, healthy subjects were inoculated intranasally with influenza virus (A/Perth/16/2009 H3N2) after confirmation of infection or on day 4. Subjects received 50 mg of AL-794, 150 mg of AL-794, or placebo twice daily for 5 days. Viral load, influenza symptoms, pharmacokinetics, and safety were evaluated. Results: A total of 61 subjects were inoculated. In 42 infected subjects, the mean peak viral load for 50-mg AL-794 recipients, 150-mg AL-794 recipients, and placebo recipients was 3.54, 2.77, and 3.72 log10 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)/mL, respectively. The mean influenza viral load area under the curve in the corresponding treatment groups was 137, 87.5, and 142 log10 TCID50/mL·h, respectively, and the median time to virus nondetection was 117, 75.3, and 108 hours, respectively. AL-794 was well tolerated, and no viral resistance to ALS-033719 was identified. Conclusion: Following oral administration of AL-794, significant dose-dependent antiviral activity was noted, with a greater decrease in viral load, symptoms, and mucus weight at the 150-mg dose, compared with the 50-mg dose, and no safety concerns for either dose or placebo. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02588521.

Phase I study on safety and pharmacokinetics of a novel influenza endonuclease inhibitor, AL-794 (JNJ-64155806), following single- and multiple-ascending doses in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, first-in-human Phase I study evaluated pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of AL-794 (prodrug of ALS-033719), a potent endonuclease inhibitor of influenza A and B in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers were randomized to AL-794 (50-2,000 mg single ascending doses, fasting) or placebo (5 cohorts, n=6:2 AL-794: placebo/cohort) in part 1, and AL-794 (50-600 mg multiple ascending doses, twice-daily, fed or fasted) or placebo (3 cohorts, n=8:2 AL-794: placebo/cohort) for 7 days in part 2. In part 3, 8 healthy volunteers from part 1 received 450 mg AL-794 (n=6) or placebo (n=2) following a high-fat meal. All dosing was done with an oral suspension. Blood and urine samples for pharmacokinetics were collected at scheduled times and analysed for ALS-033719 and ALS-033927 (inactive glucuronide) plasma concentrations using LC-MS/MS. RESULTS: ALS-033719 plasma concentrations increased dose proportionately up to 150 mg but less than proportionately above 150 mg. Steady-state was generally achieved by the third dose. ALS-033719 exposure increased following administration with a standard meal (19%-33%) or high-fat meal (3-3.6-fold). ALS-033927 was the major metabolite observed. Renal elimination was negligible (0.2%). Seventeen AL-794-treated healthy volunteers reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE; part 1: n=6, 24%; part 2: n=11, 69%). The most common TEAEs were headache (part 1: n=3; part 2: n=5) and dizziness (part 1: n=2; part 2: n=6). CONCLUSIONS: AL-794 up to 200 mg twice daily achieved ALS-033719 exposures which are expected to be efficacious and were generally tolerated. Further studies are planned to characterize safety and antiviral activity.

Randomised trial of the effect of a gastrin/CCK2 receptor antagonist on esomeprazole-induced hypergastrinaemia: evidence against rebound hyperacidity.

PURPOSE: Hypergastrinaemia induced by proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy may cause ECL-cell and parietal-cell hyperplasia and rebound hyperacidity and dyspepsia after PPI withdrawal. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of different dosage-regimens of netazepide, a gastrin/CCK2 receptor antagonist, on PPI-induced hypergastrinaemia and elevated chromogranin A (CgA). METHODS: Six groups of eight healthy subjects participated in a randomised, double-blind study of esomeprazole 40 mg daily for 28 days, in combination with netazepide 1, 5 or 25 mg or placebo, daily, during the last 14 days of esomeprazole or during 14 days after treatment withdrawal. Fasting serum gastrin and plasma CgA were measured during treatment and after withdrawal, as biomarkers of acid suppression and ECL-cell activity, respectively. Dyspepsia was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Esomeprazole increased gastrin and CgA. Netazepide increased gastrin, but not CgA, and inhibited dose dependently the CgA response to esomeprazole. Gastrin and CgA returned to baseline within 2-3 days of esomeprazole withdrawal; netazepide did not shorten that time. There was no rebound dyspepsia after esomeprazole withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole and netazepide each increase gastrin, consistent with a secondary effect of gastric acid suppression, but by different mechanisms. Esomeprazole-induced hypergastrinaemia stimulates ECL cells and thereby increases CgA. Netazepide-induced hypergastrinaemia does not increase CgA, because netazepide blocks gastrin/CCK2 receptors on ECL cells. Co-administration of netazepide 5 mg abolishes the effect of esomeprazole-induced hypergastrinaemia on ECL cells. The quick return to baseline of gastrin and CgA and absence of dyspepsia after esomeprazole withdrawal do not support the concept of rebound hyperacidity.

Sample size calculation for the Power Model for dose proportionality studies.

There are several approaches to assess or demonstrate pharmacokinetic dose proportionality. One statistical method is the traditional ANOVA model, where dose proportionality is evaluated using the bioequivalence limits. A more informative method is the mixed effects Power Model, where dose proportionality is assessed using a decision rule for the estimated slope. Here we propose analytical derivations of sample sizes for various designs (including crossover, incomplete block and parallel group designs) to be analysed according to the Power Model.