Inosine Pranobex

The brown trout (Salmo trutta) is a salmonid residing in riverine and coastal waters throughout the Northern Hemisphere, whose various populations evolved into distinct ecological morphs, differing in their migratory tendencies and preferred habitats. Unfortunately, due to progressing degradation of natural environment, the conservation of these populations is of growing importance and is undoubtedly a challenging task. Therefore, various means to refine the preparatory protocols for restocking using hatchery-reared fish are being pursued, some of which involve the administration of immunity-boosting substances. The current study assessed the effects of two dietary immunostimulants: Bioimmuno (4% inosine pranobex and 96% β-glucan) and Focus Plus (commercial preparation by Biomar, Denmark) on two morphs of the brown trout - the river trout (S. trutta morpha fario) and the sea trout (S. trutta morpha trutta). Tissue samples were obtained from ∼75 to 100g fish after 0, 2 and 4 weeks of experimental feeding. Multi-factorial analysis of conducted histological measurements of melanomacrophage centers (MMCs) revealed no changes of their parameters within spleens, but showed a decrease of the occupied tissue area and MMC counts in the livers, progressing with time regardless of the applied diet. Immunohistochemical analysis of CD3⁺ T cells showed their increased recruitment into mucosal folds of pyloric caeca in the 2-week sampling of trouts fed with the diet with 2% Bioimmuno addition, but this effect was not present in the 4-week sampling. When studying all groups jointly within each morph, there was a significant difference in terms of maintained CD3⁺ T cells levels, as sea trouts showed significantly higher tissue areas occupied by these cells than river trouts, both in the pyloric caeca and hepatic parenchyma. The study revealed that feeding with a diet enriched with Bioimmuno for 2 weeks may be a favorable enhancement of rearing protocols of brown trout stocks prior to their release, but more studies need to be conducted to test the possibility of an even shorter feeding period.

To analyze whether the use of an intermittent (IAD) versus continuous (CAD) androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of biochemical progression after primary treatments in prostate cancer can influence the development of nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC-M0).

170 male patients with an histologically confirmed diagnosis of PC, presenting a biochemical progression after primary treatments (82 after radical prostatectomy and 88 after external radiation therapy), nonmetastatic at imaging were considered for continuous (85 cases) or intermittent (85 cases) administration of androgen deprivation therapy.

we retrospectively collect all data regarding histological diagnosis, primary treatment, imaging for M0-M1 staging, PSA at progression, time to biochemical progression from primary therapy, ADT used, IAD cycles, so to compare in 2 groups (IAD vs. CAD) time for progression from the beginning of ADT treatment and type of progression in terms of CRPC-M0 versus CRPC-M1 cases.

no significant (P= .4955) difference in the whole CRPC progression was found between IAD (25.8%) and CAD (30.5%) treatment at a mean of 32.7 ± 7.02 months and 35.6 ± 13.1 months respectively (P= .0738). Mean PSA at CRPC development was significantly higher in the IAD group (5.16 ± 0.68 ng/mL) than in the CAD group (3.1 ± 0.7 ng/mL) (P < .001). In all cases, imaging to detect M status at CRPC development was PET TC scan. At univariate analysis CAD administration significantly increases the RR for CRPC-M0 progression (RR 3.48; 95%CI 1.66-7.29; P = .01) when compared to the IAD administration, and this effect at multivariate analysis remained significant and independent to the other variables (RR 2.34, 95%CI 1.52-5.33; P = .03).

in our population with biochemical progression after primary treatment for PC, the intermittent administration of ADT significantly reduces the risk to develop CRPC-M0 disease when compared to a continuous administration of ADT, whereas no difference between the 2 strategies in terms of CRPC-M1 progression exists.