Treatment with telmisartan, a long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, prevents migraine attacks in Japanese non-responders to lomerizine

The Renin Angiotensin System as a Therapeutic Target in Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem, with limited pharmacological options available beyond symptomatic relief. The renin angiotensin system (RAS) is primarily known as a systemic endocrine regulatory system, with major roles controlling blood pressure and fluid homeostasis. Drugs that target the RAS are used to treat hypertension, heart failure and kidney disorders. They have now been used chronically by millions of people and have a favorable safety profile. In addition to the systemic RAS, it is now appreciated that many different organ systems, including the brain, have their own local RAS. The major ligand of the classic RAS, Angiotensin II (Ang II) acts predominantly through the Ang II Type 1 receptor (AT1R), leading to vasoconstriction, inflammation, and heightened oxidative stress. These processes can exacerbate brain injuries. Ang II receptor blockers (ARBs) are AT1R antagonists. They have been shown in several preclinical studies to enhance recovery from TBI in rodents through improvements in molecular, cellular and behavioral correlates of injury. ARBs are now under consideration for clinical trials in TBI. Several different RAS peptides that signal through receptors distinct from the AT1R, are also potential therapeutic targets for TBI. The counter regulatory RAS pathway has actions that oppose those stimulated by AT1R signaling. This alternative pathway has many beneficial effects on cells in the central nervous system, bringing about vasodilation, and having anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative stress actions. Stimulation of this pathway also has potential therapeutic value for the treatment of TBI. This comprehensive review will provide an overview of the various components of the RAS, with a focus on their direct relevance to TBI pathology. It will explore different therapeutic agents that modulate this system and assess their potential efficacy in treating TBI patients.

Lomerizine 2HCl inhibits cell proliferation and induces protective autophagy in colorectal cancer via the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies currently. Despite advances in drug development, the survival and response rates in CRC patients are still poor. In our previous study, a library comprised of 1056 bioactive compounds was used for screening of drugs that could suppress CRC. Lomerizine 2HCl, which is an approved prophylactic drug for migraines, was selected for our studies. The results of in vitro and in vivo assays suggested that lomerizine 2HCl suppresses cell growth and promotes apoptosis in CRC cells. Moreover, lomerizine 2HCl inhibits cell migration and invasion of CRC. RNA sequencing analysis and Western blotting confirmed that lomerizine 2HCl can inhibit cell growth, migration, and invasion through PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway and induces protective autophagy in CRC. Meanwhile, autophagy inhibition by 3‐methyladenine (3‐MA) increases lomerizine 2HCl‐induced cell apoptosis. Taken together, these results imply that lomerizine 2HCl is a potential anticancer agent, and the combination of lomerizine 2HCl and autophagy inhibitors may serve as a novel strategy to increase the antitumor efficacy of agents in the treatment of CRC.

Real world effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in the treatment of migraine: a retrospective cohort study

To date, two randomized, controlled studies support the use of candesartan for migraine prophylaxis but with limited external validity. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in clinical practice and to explore predictors of patient response. Retrospective cohort study including all patients with migraine who received candesartan between April 2008-February 2019. The primary endpoint was the number of monthly headache days during weeks 8-12 of treatment compared to baseline. Additionally, we evaluated the frequency during weeks 20-24. We analysed the percentage of patients with 50% and 75% response rates and the retention rates after three and 6 months of treatment. 120/4121 patients were eligible, aged 45.9 [11.5]; 100 (83.3%) female. Eighty-four patients (70%) had chronic migraine and 53 (42.7%) had medication-overuse headache. The median number of prior prophylactics was 3 (Inter-quartile range 2-5). At baseline, patients had 20.5 ± 8.5 headache days per month, decreasing 4.3 ± 8.4 days by 3 months (weeks 12-16) and by 4.7 ± 8.7 days by 6 months (paired Student's t-test, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a 50% response was 32.5% at 3 months and 31.7% at 6 months, while the retention rate was 85.0% and 58.3%. The number of prior treatments (Odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97) and the presence of daily headache (Odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.97) were associated with a lower probability of response. Candesartan showed beneficial effects in the preventive treatment of migraine in clinical practice, including patients with chronic migraine, medication-overuse headache and resistance to prior prophylactics.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System and Migraine: A Systematic Review of Human Studies

Migraine is a common neurologic condition marked by recurrent episodes of headache. Its pathophysiology is highly complex involving neuronal, inflammatory and vascular mechanisms. The Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) can modulate all these mechanism, being a potential pharmacological target for migraine treatment. We carried out a systematic review of the studies evaluating the involvement of RAS in patients with migraine. There is evidence from genetic studies exploring the relation between migraine and RAS-related genes and from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of Angiotensin II Type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonists and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in migraine prophylaxis. RAS seems to play a role in the pathophysiology of migraine, but more direct evidence is still missing.

Intranasal sumatriptan for acute migraine attacks: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of intranasal sumatriptan, a selective serotonin agonist, compared to placebo or other migraine therapeutics for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as risk ratios (RR), using RevMan software. We performed subgroup and meta-regression analyses for different doses and treatment endpoints. Sixteen RCTs (n = 5925 patients) matched our inclusion criteria. The overall effect-estimate showed that intranasal sumatriptan was superior to placebo in terms of pain relief (RR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.31, 2.21], p < 0.0001) and headache relief (RR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.35, 1.84], p < 0.00001) at 2 h. Although sumatriptan was superior to placebo in terms of headache relief at 30 min (RR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.08, 1.59], p = 0.005), no significant difference was found between both groups in terms of the frequency of pain-free participants at 30 min (RR = 1.18, 95% CI [0.49, 2.88], p = 0.71). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression models showed that increasing the dose of sumatriptan reduced the time needed for headache relief; however, this clinical improvement with higher doses was associated with more frequent adverse events in comparison to smaller doses. In conclusion, intranasal sumatriptan is effective for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. However, it was associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of taste disturbance, compared to the placebo. Future RCTs are recommended to provide head-to-head comparison of different administration routes and drug formulations of sumatriptan.