Search

Low serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and low sunlight exposure are known risk factors for the development of multiple sclerosis. Add-on vitamin D supplementation trials in established multiple sclerosis have been inconclusive. The effects of vitamin D supplementation to prevent multiple sclerosis is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that oral vitamin D3 supplementation in high-risk clinically isolated syndrome (abnormal MRI, at least three T2 brain and/or spinal cord lesions), delays time to conversion to definite multiple sclerosis, that the therapeutic effect is dose-dependent, and that all doses are safe and well tolerated. We conducted a double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, 1000, 5000 or 10 000 international units (IU) of oral vitamin D3 daily within each study centre (n = 23) and followed for up to 48 weeks. Between 2013 and 2021, we enrolled 204 participants. Brain MRI scans were performed at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks. The main study outcome was conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis based on the 2010 McDonald criteria defined as either a clinical relapse or new brain MRI T2 lesion development. We included 199 cases in the intention-to-treat analysis based on assigned dose. Of these, 116 converted to multiple sclerosis by 48 weeks (58%). Compared to placebo, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for conversion were 1000 IU 0.87 (0.50, 1.50); 5000 IU 1.37 (0.82, 2.29); and 10 000 IU 1.28 (0.76, 2.14). In an adjusted model including age, sex, latitude, study centre and baseline symptom number, clinically isolated syndrome onset site, presence of infratentorial lesions and use of steroids, the hazard ratios (versus placebo) were 1000 IU 0.80 (0.45, 1.44); 5000 IU 1.36 (0.78, 2.38); and 10 000 IU 1.07 (0.62, 1.85). Vitamin D3 supplementation was safe and well tolerated. We did not demonstrate reduction in multiple sclerosis disease activity by vitamin D3 supplementation after a high-risk clinically isolated syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and low sunlight exposure are known risk factors for the development of multiple sclerosis. Add-on vitamin D supplementation trials in established multiple sclerosis have been inconclusive. The effects of vitamin D supplementation to prevent multiple sclerosis is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that oral vitamin D3 supplementation in high-risk clinically isolated syndrome (abnormal MRI, at least three T2 brain and/or spinal cord lesions), delays time to conversion to definite multiple sclerosis, that the therapeutic effect is dose-dependent, and that all doses are safe and well tolerated. We conducted a double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, 1000, 5000 or 10 000 international units (IU) of oral vitamin D3 daily within each study centre (n = 23) and followed for up to 48 weeks. Between 2013 and 2021, we enrolled 204 participants. Brain MRI scans were performed at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks. The main study outcome was conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis based on the 2010 McDonald criteria defined as either a clinical relapse or new brain MRI T2 lesion development. We included 199 cases in the intention-to-treat analysis based on assigned dose. Of these, 116 converted to multiple sclerosis by 48 weeks (58%). Compared to placebo, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for conversion were 1000 IU 0.87 (0.50, 1.50); 5000 IU 1.37 (0.82, 2.29); and 10 000 IU 1.28 (0.76, 2.14). In an adjusted model including age, sex, latitude, study centre and baseline symptom number, clinically isolated syndrome onset site, presence of infratentorial lesions and use of steroids, the hazard ratios (versus placebo) were 1000 IU 0.80 (0.45, 1.44); 5000 IU 1.36 (0.78, 2.38); and 10 000 IU 1.07 (0.62, 1.85). Vitamin D3 supplementation was safe and well tolerated. We did not demonstrate reduction in multiple sclerosis disease activity by vitamin D3 supplementation after a high-risk clinically isolated syndrome., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Objectives: The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, liraglutide, reduces human prostate cancer incidence, and similar GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce in vitro proliferation and in vivo growth of prostate cancer cell lines. Primary human prostate cancer expresses the GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) in vitro . Cancer evolves with stage, and whether advanced-stage human prostate cancer expresses GLP-1R is unknown. We hypothesised and aimed to prove that human metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) expresses the GLP-1R in vivo . We hypothesised that mCRPC would thus be detectable by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using a radiotracer bound to a GLP-1R ligand, as in exendin PET/CT., Materials and Methods: Men with mCRPC, with more than one prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-avid lesion on PET/CT scanning (pathognomic in that setting for prostate cancer lesions), were approached to undergo PET/CT with gallium 68 -Dota-exendin-4. We documented PET/CT PSMA-avid lesions, which were also PET/CT exendin avid, as evidence of in vivo GLP-1R expression., Results: Out of the 24 men referred, three did not meet the inclusion criteria. Seventeen declined, largely because the study offered them no therapeutic benefit. Among the four men imaged, three had no exendin-avid lesions, while one had six osseous PSMA-avid lesions, three of which were also exendin avid., Conclusions: We demonstrated in vivo GLP-1R expression by human mCPRC, detecting PET/CT lesions avid for both PSMA and exendin, in one of four participants. GLP-1R expression may thus occur even in advanced-stage prostate cancer. Our data contribute to growing evidence supporting the testing of GLP-1 receptor agonists for therapeutic benefit in prostate cancer., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported., (© the author(s).)