No abstract

No abstract

Obesity is a growing epidemic, and current medical therapies have proven inadequate. Endogenous satiety hormones provide an attractive target for the development of drugs that aim to cause effective weight loss with minimal side effects. Both glucagon and GLP-1 reduce appetite and cause weight loss. Additionally, glucagon increases energy expenditure. We hypothesized that the combination of both peptides, administered at doses that are individually subanorectic, would reduce appetite, while GLP-1 would protect against the hyperglycemic effect of glucagon. In this double-blind crossover study, subanorectic doses of each peptide alone, both peptides in combination, or placebo was infused into 13 human volunteers for 120 min. An ad libitum meal was provided after 90 min, and calorie intake determined. Resting energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline and during infusion. Glucagon or GLP-1, given individually at subanorectic doses, did not significantly reduce food intake. Coinfusion at the same doses led to a significant reduction in food intake of 13%. Furthermore, the addition of GLP-1 protected against glucagon-induced hyperglycemia, and an increase in energy expenditure of 53 kcal/day was seen on coinfusion. These observations support the concept of GLP-1 and glucagon dual agonism as a possible treatment for obesity and diabetes.

Background & aims The emergence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a worldwide pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious and its severity highly variable. The fatality rate is unpredictable but is amplified by several factors including advancing age, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and obesity. A large proportion of patients with these conditions are treated with lipid lowering medication and questions regarding the safety of continuing lipid-lowering medication in patients infected with COVID-19 have arisen. Some have suggested they may exacerbate their condition. It is important to consider known interactions with lipid-lowering agents and with specific therapies for COVID-19. This statement aims to collate current evidence surrounding the safety of lipid-lowering medications in patients, who have COVID-19. We offer a consensus view based on current knowledge and we rated the strength and level of evidence for these recommendations. Methods Pubmed, Google scholar and Web of Science were searched extensively for articles using search terms: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, coronavirus, Lipids, Statin, Fibrates, Ezetimibe, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, nicotinic acid, bile acid sequestrate, nutraceuticals, red yeast rice, Omega-3-Fatty acids, Lomitapide, hypercholesterolaemia, dyslipidaemia and Volanesorsen. Results & Conclusions : There is no evidence currently that lipid lowering therapy is unsafe in patients with COVID-19 infection. Lipid-lowering therapy should not be interrupted because of the pandemic or in patients at increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In patients with confirmed COVID-19, care should be taken to avoid drug interactions, between lipid-lowering medications and drugs that may be used to treat COVID-19, especially in patients with abnormalities in liver function tests.

Background Most people who begin statins abandon them, most commonly because of side effects. Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess daily symptom scores on statin, placebo, and no treatment in participants who had abandoned statins. Methods Participants received 12 1-month medication bottles, 4 containing atorvastatin 20 mg, 4 placebo, and 4 empty. We measured daily symptom intensity for each using an app (scale 1-100). We also measured the “nocebo” ratio: the ratio of symptoms induced by taking statin that was also induced by taking placebo. Results A total of 60 participants were randomized and 49 completed the 12-month protocol. Mean symptom score was 8.0 (95% CI: 4.7-11.3) in no-tablet months. It was higher in statin months (16.3; 95% CI: 13.0-19.6; P < 0.001), but also in placebo months (15.4; 95% CI: 12.1-18.7; P < 0.001), with no difference between the 2 (P = 0.388). The corresponding nocebo ratio was 0.90. In the individual-patient daily data, neither symptom intensity on starting (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.06; P = 0.28) nor extent of symptom relief on stopping (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98-1.05; P = 0.48) distinguished between statin and placebo. Stopping was no more frequent for statin than placebo (P = 0.173), and subsequent symptom relief was similar between statin and placebo. At 6 months after the trial, 30 of 60 (50%) participants were back taking statins. Conclusions The majority of symptoms caused by statin tablets were nocebo. Clinicians should not interpret symptom intensity or timing of symptom onset or offset (on starting or stopping statin tablets) as indicating pharmacological causation, because the pattern is identical for placebo. (Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo [SAMSON]; NCT02668016 )

Endogenous satiety hormones provide an attractive target for obesity drugs. Glucagon causes weight loss by reducing food intake and increasing energy expenditure. To further understand the cellular mechanisms by which glucagon and related ligands activate the glucagon receptor (GCGR), we investigated the interaction of the GCGR with receptor activity modifying protein (RAMP)2, a member of the family of receptor activity modifying proteins. We used a combination of competition binding experiments, cell surface enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, functional assays assessing the Gαs and Gαq pathways and β-arrestin recruitment, and small interfering RNA knockdown to examine the effect of RAMP2 on the GCGR. Ligands tested were glucagon; glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1); oxyntomodulin; and analog G(X), a GLP-1/glucagon coagonist developed in-house. Confocal microscopy was used to assess whether RAMP2 affects the subcellular distribution of GCGR. Here we demonstrate that coexpression of RAMP2 and the GCGR results in reduced cell surface expression of the GCGR. This was confirmed by confocal microscopy, which demonstrated that RAMP2 colocalizes with the GCGR and causes significant GCGR cellular redistribution. Furthermore, the presence of RAMP2 influences signaling through the Gαs and Gαq pathways, as well as recruitment of β-arrestin. This work suggests that RAMP2 may modify the agonist activity and trafficking of the GCGR, with potential relevance to production of new peptide analogs with selective agonist activities.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has long been regarded as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, however, its routine use in clinical practice has been hampered by difficulties inherent in the measurement of this complex lipoprotein. The major challenges relate to its size heterogeneity and related issues including 1) use of appropriate calibrators 2) standardisation of calibration protocols 3) traceability and 4) reporting units. In the UK, results from the current EQA schemes for Lp(a) suggest that there is considerable work required to standardise Lp(a) measurement. This is becoming increasingly pertinent with the increasing recognition of Lp(a) as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in international guidelines and the emergence of novel antisense therapies to effectively reduce Lp(a). This article raises awareness of the importance measurement of Lp(a) for the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk and gives guidance to clinical laboratories regarding choice of appropriate assays.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the delivery of secondary care services. Self-collection of capillary blood at home can facilitate the monitoring of patients with chronic disease to support virtual clinics while mitigating the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. Objective To investigate the comparability of whole blood capillary and plasma venous samples for 15 routinely used biochemical analytes and to develop and pilot a use-friendly home-collection kit to support virtual outpatient clinical services. Methods To investigate the comparability of whole blood capillary and plasma venous samples for 15 routinely requested biochemical analytes, simultaneous samples of venous and capillary blood were collected in EDTA and lithium-heparin plasma separation tubes that were of 4-6mL and 400-600µL draw volume, respectively. Venous samples were analysed within 4 hours of collection while capillary samples were kept at ambient temperature for 3 days until centrifugation and analysis. Analyte results that were comparable between the matrices were then piloted in a feasibility study in three outpatient clinical services. Results HbA1c, lipid profile and liver function tests were considered comparable and piloted in the patient feasibility study. The home-collect kit demonstrated good patient usability. Conclusion Home collection of capillary blood could be a clinically-useful tool to deliver virtual care to patients with chronic disease.