Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
TRPC channels are a family of nonselective cation channels that regulate ion homeostasis and intracellular Ca2+ signaling in numerous cell types. Important physiological functions such as vasoregulation, neuronal growth, and pheromone recognition have been assigned to this class of ion channels. Despite their physiological relevance, few selective pharmacological tools are available to study TRPC channel function. We, therefore, screened a selection of pharmacologically active compounds for TRPC modulating activity. We found that the synthetic gestagen norgestimate inhibited diacylglycerol-sensitive TRPC3 and TRPC6 with IC50s of 3–5 µM, while half-maximal inhibition of TRPC5 required significantly higher compound concentrations (>10 µM). Norgestimate blocked TRPC-mediated vasopressin-induced cation currents in A7r5 smooth muscle cells and caused vasorelaxation of isolated rat aorta, indicating that norgestimate could be an interesting tool for the investigation of TRP channel function in native cells and tissues. The steroid hormone progesterone, which is structurally related to norgestimate, also inhibited TRPC channel activity with IC50s ranging from 6 to 18 µM but showed little subtype selectivity. Thus, TRPC channel inhibition by high gestational levels of progesterone may contribute to the physiological decrease of uterine contractility and immunosuppression during pregnancy.
Background Anti-angiogenic treatment is believed to have at least cystostatic effects in highly vascularized tumours like pancreatic cancer. In this study, the treatment effects of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide and gemcitabine were compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods A multi-national, open-label, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, phase II pilot study was conducted in 20 centers in 7 countries. Cilengitide was administered at 600 mg/m2 twice weekly for 4 weeks per cycle and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 for 3 weeks followed by a week of rest per cycle. The planned treatment period was 6 four-week cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, quality of life (QoL), effects on biological markers of disease (CA 19.9) and angiogenesis (vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor), and safety. An ancillary study investigated the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in a subset of patients. Results Eighty-nine patients were randomized. The median overall survival was 6.7 months for Cilengitide and gemcitabine and 7.7 months for gemcitabine alone. The median PFS times were 3.6 months and 3.8 months, respectively. The overall response rates were 17% and 14%, and the tumor growth control rates were 54% and 56%, respectively. Changes in the levels of CA 19.9 went in line with the clinical course of the disease, but no apparent relationships were seen with the biological markers of angiogenesis. QoL and safety evaluations were comparable between treatment groups. Pharmacokinetic studies showed no influence of gemcitabine on the pharmacokinetic parameters of Cilengitide and vice versa. Conclusion There were no clinically important differences observed regarding efficacy, safety and QoL between the groups. The observations lay in the range of other clinical studies in this setting. The combination regimen was well tolerated with no adverse effects on the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of either agent.