BackgroundResearch into amisulpride use in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) implicates blood–brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction in antipsychotic sensitivity. Research into BBB transporters has been mainly directed towards the ABC superfamily, however, solute carrier (SLC) function in AD has not been widely studied. This study tests the hypothesis that transporters for organic cations contribute to the BBB delivery of the antipsychotics (amisulpride and haloperidol) and is disrupted in AD.MethodsThe accumulation of [3H]amisulpride (3.7–7.7 nM) and [3H]haloperidol (10 nM) in human (hCMEC/D3) and mouse (bEnd.3) brain endothelial cell lines was explored. Computational approaches examined molecular level interactions of both drugs with the SLC transporters [organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1), plasma membrane monoamine transporter (PMAT) and multi-drug and toxic compound extrusion proteins (MATE1)] and amisulpride with the ABC transporter (P-glycoprotein). The distribution of [3H]amisulpride in wildtype and 3×transgenic AD mice was examined using in situ brain perfusion experiments. Western blots determined transporter expression in mouse and human brain capillaries .ResultsIn vitro BBB and in silico transporter studies indicated that [3H]amisulpride and [3H]haloperidol were transported by the influx transporter, OCT1, and efflux transporters MATE1 and PMAT. Amisulpride did not have a strong interaction with OCTN1, OCTN2, P-gp, BCRP or MRP and could not be described as a substrate for these transporters. Amisulpride brain uptake was increased in AD mice compared to wildtype mice, but vascular space was unaffected. There were no measurable changes in the expression of MATE1, MATE2, PMAT OCT1, OCT2, OCT3, OCTN1, OCTN2 and P-gp in capillaries isolated from whole brain homogenates from the AD mice compared to wildtype mice. Although, PMAT and MATE1 expression was reduced in capillaries obtained from specific human brain regions (i.e. putamen and caudate) from AD cases (Braak stage V–VI) compared to age matched controls (Braak stage 0–II).ConclusionsTogether our research indicates that the increased sensitivity of individuals with Alzheimer’s to amisulpride is related to previously unreported changes in function and expression of SLC transporters at the BBB (in particular PMAT and MATE1). Dose adjustments may be required for drugs that are substrates of these transporters when prescribing for individuals with AD.

No abstract

Mutations in leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) and glucocerebrosidase (GBA) represent two most common genetic causes of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Both genes are important in the autophagic-lysosomal pathway (ALP), defects of which are associated with α-synuclein (α-syn) accumulation. LRRK2 regulates macroautophagy via activation of the mitogen activated protein kinase/extracellular signal regulated protein kinase (MAPK/ERK) kinase (MEK) and the calcium-dependent adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathways. Phosphorylation of Rab GTPases by LRRK2 regulates lysosomal homeostasis and endosomal trafficking. Mutant LRRK2 impairs chaperone-mediated autophagy, resulting in α-syn binding and oligomerization on lysosomal membranes. Mutations in GBA reduce glucocerebrosidase (GCase) activity, leading to glucosylceramide accumulation, α-syn aggregation and broad autophagic abnormalities. LRRK2 and GBA influence each other: GCase activity is reduced in LRRK2 mutant cells, and LRRK2 kinase inhibition can alter GCase activity in GBA mutant cells. Clinically, LRRK2 G2019S mutation seems to modify the effects of GBA mutation, resulting in milder symptoms than those resulting from GBA mutation alone. However, dual mutation carriers have an increased risk of PD and earlier age of onset compared with single mutation carriers, suggesting an additive deleterious effect on the initiation of PD pathogenic processes. Crosstalk between LRRK2 and GBA in PD exists, but its exact mechanism is unclear. Drugs that inhibit LRRK2 kinase or activate GCase are showing efficacy in pre-clinical models. Since LRRK2 kinase and GCase activities are also altered in idiopathic PD (iPD), it remains to be seen if these drugs will be useful in disease modification of iPD.

Background As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small. Objectives The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020. Data Sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies. Study Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study. Analysis Methods Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance. Result Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed. Limitations No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included. Conclusions and Implications Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes. Protocol Registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.