No abstract

Tumor progression, limited efficacy of current standard treatments, and the rise in patient mortality are associated with gene expression caused by the synergistic action of intratumoral hypoxia and HIF-1α activation. For this reason, recent investigations have focused on HIF-targeting therapeutic agents, with encouraging preclinical and clinical results in solid tumors. Here we describe the efficacy of a HIF-1α inhibitor, Acriflavine, and demonstrate its potency against brain cancer. This safe antibacterial dye induces cell death and apoptosis in several glioma cell lines, targets HIF-1α–mediated pathways, and decreases the level of PGK1, VEGF and HIF-1α in vitro and in vivo. Administered locally via biodegradable polymers, Acriflavine provides significant benefits in survival resulting in nearly 100% long term survival, confirmed by MRI and histological analyses. This study reports preclinical evidence that this safe, small molecule can contribute to brain tumor therapy and highlights the significance of HIF-1α-targeting molecules.

There is limited understanding regarding kratom use among US adults. Although motivations for use are increasingly understood, typical kratom doses, threshold of (low and high) doses for perceived effectiveness, and effects produced during cessation are not well documented. We aimed to extend prior survey work by recruiting adults with current and past kratom exposure. Our goal was to better understand kratom dosing, changes in routines, and perception of effects, including time to onset, duration, and variability of beneficial and adverse outcomes from use and cessation. Among respondents who reported experiencing acute kratom effects, we also sought to determine if effects were perceived as helpful or unhelpful in meeting daily obligations. Finally, we attempted to detect any signal of a relationship between the amount of kratom consumed weekly and weeks of regular use with ratings of beneficial effects from use and ratings of adverse effects from cessation. We conducted an online survey between April-May 2021 by re-recruiting participants from a separate study who reported lifetime kratom use. A total of 129 evaluable surveys were collected. Most (59.7%) had used kratom >100 times and reported currently or having previously used kratom >4 times per week (62 weeks on average). Under half (41.9%) reported that they considered themselves to be a current “regular kratom user.” A majority (79.8%) reported experiencing acute effects from their typical kratom dose and that onset of effects began in minutes but dissipated within hours. Over a quarter reported that they had increased their kratom dose since use initiation, whereas 18.6% had decreased. Greater severity of unwanted effects from ≥1 day of kratom cessation was predicted by more weeks of regular kratom use (β = 6.74, p = 0.02). Acute kratom effects were largely reported as compatible with, and sometimes helpful in, meeting daily obligations. In the absence of human laboratory studies, survey methods must be refined to more precisely assess dose-effect relationships. These can help inform the development of controlled observational and experimental studies needed to advance the public health understanding of kratom product use.

No abstract

This Letter to the Editor is a response to Broyan and colleagues who recently published a Case Report presenting data on 28 patients in the United States who identified kratom as their primary substance of use and who were subsequently induced on buprenorphine/naloxone for a reported diagnosis of kratom use disorder. We applaud the authors for helping to advance the science on kratom and recognize the difficulties in conducting kratom-related clinical assessment and research. However, a number of inconsistences and generalizations were identified in this Case Report, which also lacked some critical context. Importantly, such inconsistencies and generalizations can be observed throughout kratom-specific case reports. We feel this is now an important opportunity to highlight these issues that are present in the Broyan and colleagues Case report but emphasize that they are not unique to it. We do this with the hope that by acknowledging these issues it can help inform editors, clinicians, and researchers who may not be familiar with kratom and, as a result of this unfamiliarity, may inadvertently present findings in a manner that could confuse readers and even misinform clinical researchers and practitioners.