G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the most intensively studied drug targets, mostly due to their substantial involvement in human pathophysiology and their pharmacological tractability. Here, we report an up-to-date analysis of all GPCR drugs and agents in clinical trials, which reveals current trends across molecule types, drug targets and therapeutic indications, including showing that 475 drugs (~34% of all drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) act at 108 unique GPCRs. Approximately 321 agents are currently in clinical trials, of which ~20% target 66 potentially novel GPCR targets without an approved drug, and the number of biological drugs, allosteric modulators and biased agonists has increased. The major disease indications for GPCR modulators show a shift towards diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer disease, although several central nervous system disorders are also highly represented. The 224 (56%) non-olfactory GPCRs that have not yet been explored in clinical trials have broad untapped therapeutic potential, particularly in genetic and immune system disorders. Finally, we provide an interactive online resource to analyse and infer trends in GPCR drug discovery.

Trends in GPCR drug discovery: new agents, targets and indications

Sepsis and septic shock

Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.

The novel SARS coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 pandemic may be particularly deleterious to patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD). The mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 infection is the requisite binding of the virus to the membrane-bound form of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and internalization of the complex by the host cell. Recognition that ACE2 is the coreceptor for the coronavirus has prompted new therapeutic approaches to block the enzyme or reduce its expression to prevent the cellular entry and SARS-CoV-2 infection in tissues that express ACE2 including lung, heart, kidney, brain, and gut. ACE2, however, is a key enzymatic component of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS); ACE2 degrades ANG II, a peptide with multiple actions that promote CVD, and generates Ang-(1-7), which antagonizes the effects of ANG II. Moreover, experimental evidence suggests that RAAS blockade by ACE inhibitors, ANG II type 1 receptor antagonists, and mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as statins, enhance ACE2 which, in part, contributes to the benefit of these regimens. In lieu of the fact that many older patients with hypertension or other CVDs are routinely treated with RAAS blockers and statins, new clinical concerns have developed regarding whether these patients are at greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, whether RAAS and statin therapy should be discontinued, and the potential consequences of RAAS blockade to COVID-19-related pathologies such as acute and chronic respiratory disease. The current perspective critically examines the evidence for ACE2 regulation by RAAS blockade and statins, the cardiovascular benefits of ACE2, and whether ACE2 blockade is a viable approach to attenuate COVID-19.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpheart.00217.2020

COVID-19, ACE2, and the cardiovascular consequences.

BackgroundVasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. ResultsA total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiote...

https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:682059/UQ682059_OA.pdf

Caleb Mackey

Papers

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock.

1647: outcomes in patients with postoperative vasoplegia receiving angiotensin ii for vasodilatory shock