The effects of modulating Ca2+‐induced Ca2+ release (CICR) in single cardiac myocytes were investigated using low concentrations of caffeine (< 500 μm) in reduced external Ca2+ (0.5 mm). Caffeine produced a transient potentiation of systolic [Ca2+]i (to 800 % of control) which decayed back to control levels. Caffeine decreased the steady‐state sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca2+ content. As the concentration of caffeine was increased, both the potentiation of the systolic Ca2+ transient and the decrease in SR Ca2+ content were increased. At higher concentrations, the potentiating effect decayed more rapidly but the rate of recovery on removal of caffeine was unaffected. A simple model in which caffeine produces a fixed increase in the fraction of SR Ca2+ which is released could account qualitatively but not quantitatively for the above results. The changes in total [Ca2+] during systole were obtained using measurements of the intracellular Ca2+ buffering power. Caffeine initially increased the fractional release of SR Ca2+. This was followed by a decrease to a level greater than that under control conditions. The fraction of systolic Ca2+ which was pumped out of the cell increased abruptly upon caffeine application but then recovered back to control levels. The increase in fractional loss is due to the fact that, as the cytoplasmic buffers become saturated, a given increase in systolic total[Ca2+] produces a larger increase in free [Ca2+] and thence of Ca2+ efflux. These results confirm that modulation of the ryanodine receptor has no maintained effect on systolic Ca2+ and show the interdependence of SR Ca2+ content, cytoplasmic Ca2+ buffering and sarcolemmal Ca2+ fluxes. Such analysis is important for understanding the cellular basis of inotropic interventions in cardiac muscle.

No abstract

The meta-analysis we performed included only five studies and was restricted to analysis of the changes in cholesterol levels relative to baseline. However, the results suggest that ezetimibe co-administered with ongoing statin therapy provides significant additional lipid-lowering in patients not at LDL-C goal on statin therapy alone, allowing more patients to reach their LDL-C goal.

Meta-analyses were restricted by the limited number of studies with similar trial design and method of statin titration. Results indicate that add-on ezetimibe is significantly more effective in reducing LDL-C levels than doubling statin dose, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goal.

Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.

This systematic review compared the relative efficacy of 5-fluorouracil 0.5% in salicylic acid 10% (5-FU/SA), ingenol mebutate (IMB) and imiquimod 2.5%/3.75% (IMI) for actinic keratosis on the face, forehead or scalp. Only 11 publications, relating to 7 randomised controlled trials, met inclusion criteria and it was only possible to compare the effect of all 3 treatments on complete clinical clearance, and the effect of 5-FU/SA and IMB on actinic keratosis recurrence rate. Despite a higher vehicle response rate for 5-FU/SA, complete clinical clearance was higher than IMB and IMI (55.4, 42.2, and 25.0-30.6/34.0-35.6%, [corrected] respectively). 5-FU/SA was also associated with lower actinic keratosis recurrence rate than IMB at 12 months post-treatment (32.7 vs. 53.9%). Although qualitative assessment suggested a numerical advantage of 5-FU/SA over IMB and IMI in terms of complete clinical clearance and sustained clearance, clinical data from longer term trials, with comparable outcome measures, are required to corroborate these findings.

Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively.In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, anti-malarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term; and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.

No abstract