Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy (Mar 2022)
The effect of trehalose administration on vascular inflammation in patients with coronary artery disease
Abstract
Background: In recent years, several trials investigated the role of anti-inflammatory agents in reducing cardiovascular events. Trehalose is a natural disaccharide able to reduce inflammation by enhancing macrophage autophagic activity. This action has been demonstrated to attenuate atherosclerotic plaque development in various pro-atherogenic animal models. However, at present, no data about the efficacy of this compound in human subjects have been published. Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial involving 15 patients with history of myocardial infarction and evidence of systemic inflammation (defined as C-reactive protein > 2 mg/L). The patients were randomly assigned, in 2:1 ratio, to receive either intravenous trehalose (15 g once weekly) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was the change in arterial wall inflammation, assessed by quantifying 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake in carotid arteries and ascending aorta. Results: The MDS TBR change of the index vessel at 3-month follow-up was not significant in treatment and placebo groups. Furthermore, we could not demonstrate any significant difference between the trehalose group and control group in changes of cIMT from baseline to 3 months in the overall population. No significant changes in echocardiographic measurement were noted after trehalose treatment. Except for the change in urea level in placebo group (31.00 ± 6.59 vs. 25.60 ± 6.402 P = 0.038) no other changes were detected after treatment. Also, there was a significant difference between changes in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) trehalose and placebo groups. Conclusion: This was the first study that specifically assessed the effects of intravenous trehalose on atherogenesis in human subjects. Trehalose treatment was characterized by an optimal safety profile, but no significant reduction in arterial wall inflammation could be observed. This might be a consequence of the small sample size of this trial. Larger studies are needed to better assess the efficacy of this compound in this clinical context.