Why the study?
Does tadalafil prevent doxorubicin-induced left ventricle diastolic dysfunction in juvenile mice?
Does tadalafil prevent doxorubicin-induced left ventricle diastolic dysfunction in juvenile mice?
Tadalafil prevents early doxorubicin-induced left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and cytoskeletal protein alterations in a juvenile mouse model, suggesting a potential cardioprotective strategy for childhood cancer survivors.
Tadalafil prevented early Dox-induced LV diastolic dysfunction in juvenile mice; hypothesis-generating for PDE5 inhibition in pediatric cardiotoxicity and requires clinical trials.
The chemotherapeutic use of doxorubicin (Dox) is hindered due to the development of irreversible cardiotoxicity. Specifically, childhood cancer survivors are at greater risk of Dox-induced cardiovascular complications. Because of the potent cardioprotective effect of phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, we examined the effect of long-acting PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil (Tada) against Dox cardiotoxicity in juvenile mice. C57BL/6J mice (6 weeks old) were treated with Dox (20 mg/kg, i.v.) and (or) Tada (10 mg/kg daily for 14 days, p.o.). Cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography following 5 and 10 weeks after Dox treatment. The expression of cardiac proteins was examined by Western blot analysis. Dox treatment caused diastolic dysfunction in juvenile mice indicated by increasing the E/E' (early diastolic myocardial velocity to early tissue Doppler velocity) ratio as compared with control at both 5 and 10 weeks after Dox treatment. Co-treatment of Tada and Dox preserved left ventricular diastolic function with reduction of E/E'. Dox treatment decreased the expression of SERCA2 and desmin in the left ventricle; however, only desmin loss was prevented with Tada. Also, Dox treatment increased the expression of myosin heavy chain (MHCβ), which was reduced by Tada. We propose that Tada could be a promising new therapy for improving cardiac function in survivors of childhood cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagiub et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: