Targeting myocardial reperfusion injuries with cyclosporine in the CIRCUS Trial – pharmacological reasons for failure. (15th January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Monassier, Laurent; Ayme‐Dietrich, Estelle; Aubertin‐Kirch, Gaëlle; Pathak, Atul
• Is Part Of: Fundamental & clinical pharmacology. Volume 30:Number 2(2016:Apr.)
• Page Start: 191
• Page End: 193
• Publication Date: 2016-01-15
• Subjects: CIRCUS -- cyclosporine -- ischaemia -- myocardial -- reperfusion; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1111/fcp.12177
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0767-3981

Abstract

Abstract: The mitochondrial permeability transition (mPTP) is a key feature of cardiac cell death in ischaemia‐reperfusion injury (I/R). The mPTP blocker, cyclosporine A (CsA), has been shown to give protection against reperfusion‐induced myocardial necrosis and troubles generated by acute coronary artery repermeabilization. Nevertheless, the results of the CIRCUS trial (Does Cyclosporine Improve Clinical Outcome in ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients) seem to go against this hypothesis. Pharmacological reasons linked to CsA pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics could be suggested. First, it could be explained by a limited diffusion of the drug in the area at risk, due to the only inclusion of patients with a TIMI 0 or 1 coronary blood flow in the anterior territory and the absence of collateral perfusion. Second, to explain a low tissue diffusion of the compound, blood cell capture and high metabolism could be suggested. Moreover, CsA is highly metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), a polymorphic enzyme leading to variations of C max and AUC between 10–20% in patients using CsA. Finally, CsA blocks calcineurin, a protein implied in I/R damage but calcineurin inhibition could contribute to protection towards I/R damage only when Rcan1, a calcineurin natural inhibitor, expression is low. The results of the CIRCUS trial are disappointing and could contribute to the withdrawal of the mPTP blockade pharmacological strategy as a way to protect the myocardium from I/R lesions. Nevertheless, many pharmacological insights could have contributed to an increased variability and, as a consequence, an important reduction of the pharmacological power of the study.