Cigarette smoke-induced release of pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-8 (IL-8) from inflammatory as well as structural cells in the airways, including airway smooth muscle (ASM) cells, may contribute to the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite the wide use of pharmacological treatment aimed at increasing intracellular levels of the endogenous suppressor cyclic AMP (cAMP), little is known about its exact mechanism of action. We report here that next to the β2-agonist fenoterol, direct and specific activation of either exchange protein directly activated by cAMP (Epac) or protein kinase A (PKA) reduced cigarette smoke extract (CSE)-induced IL-8 mRNA expression and protein release by human ASM cells. CSE-induced IκBα-degradation and p65 nuclear translocation, processes that were primarily reversed by Epac activation. Further, CSE increased extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) phosphorylation, which was selectively reduced by PKA activation. CSE decreased Epac1 expression, but did not affect Epac2 and PKA expression. Importantly, Epac1 expression was also reduced in lung tissue from COPD patients. In conclusion, Epac and PKA decrease CSE-induced IL-8 release by human ASM cells via inhibition of NF-κB and ERK, respectively, pointing at these cAMP effectors as potential targets for anti-inflammatory therapy in COPD. However, cigarette smoke exposure may reduce anti-inflammatory effects of cAMP elevating agents via down-regulation of Epac1.

Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics show great potential for developing individual treatment modalities to achieve optimal therapy effectiveness. Economic analyses are performed to determine whether pharmacogenetic screening strategies provide good value for money. The current review provides an update of published economic studies. Economic analyses of pharmacogenetic screening programs published between 2000 and July 2010 were included in the review. Information was extracted on research area, genetic information, type of economic analysis, key aspects of adherence to economic guidelines, costs and commercial availability of genetic tests, and the role of the funding party. A total of 42 economic studies on pharmacogenetic screening strategies were included. Over time, more cost-utility analyses were performed, longer time windows were employed, and more extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Considerable differences in costs of screening tests for the same polymorphism were found, which often, but not always, had a large influence on the costs of screening strategies. Most studies were conducted from an academic or hospital perspective without direct links to pharmaceutical or diagnostic manufacturers. The quality of economic analyses of pharmacogenetic screening programs has improved over time. However, input variables are not always clearly described. In particular, substantial variation exists in the reported costs of the pharmacogenetic tests. Often these test costs are considered a major cost driver and could therefore be of particular importance for the interpretation of cost-effectiveness results. Furthermore, the economic studies seem to be conducted to increase awareness of possibilities and perspectives of genetic testing rather than to influence policy decisions on reimbursement. Drug Dev Res 71:492-501, 2010.

No abstract