Exosome-like nanoparticles (ELNs), which are plant-derived extracellular membrane vesicles, can regulate mammalian gene expression. ELNs can cross the blood-brain barrier, making them potential therapeutic agents or drug-delivery carriers for neuroinflammation-related diseases. Here, we investigated the anti-neuroinflammatory potential of ELNs extracted from Allium tuberosum (A-ELNs). A-ELNs were extracted, and their miRNA profile was characterized. A-ELNs were also applied to BV-2 microglial and MG-6 cells derived from C57/BL6 mice stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), followed by an examination of levels of inflammatory-related factors. To test their drug-carrying potential, A-ELNs were mixed with dexamethasone, an anti-inflammatory drug, to prepare dexamethasone-incorporated A-ELNs (Dex-A-ELNs). A-ELNs showed a particle size of 145 ± 2 nm and characteristic miRNAs. A-ELNs significantly decreased the LPS-induced nitric oxide (NO) and inflammatory cytokines levels in BV-2 and MG-6 cells. The mRNA expression of heme oxygenase-1 was significantly increased, and that of inducible NO synthase and inflammatory cytokines was significantly decreased by A-ELNs in BV-2 cells. Dex-A-ELNs inhibited NO production in BV-2 cells more potently than either A-ELNs or dexamethasone alone. A-ELNs can alleviate microglial inflammation. Their effects can be potentiated by incorporating anti-inflammatory drugs, such as dexamethasone, making them potential therapeutic agents or drug-delivery carriers for neuroinflammation.

Aggression is the most common adverse effect of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This study aimed to investigate the association of aggression with AED use. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) from adverse event reports, submitted to the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database between 2004 and 2020, was used to calculate and investigate the association between AEDs and aggression. We also analyzed the association of aggression with the combined use of AEDs and the relationship between AED-associated aggression and patient characteristics. A total of 433 patients developed aggression. Significant aggression signals were detected for perampanel (crude ROR: 325.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 118.48–752.58, p < 0.01), levetiracetam (crude ROR: 17.14, 95% CI: 10.33–26.90, p < 0.01), lacosamide (crude ROR: 16.90, 95% CI: 2.02–62.51, p < 0.01), lamotrigine (crude ROR: 15.98, 95% CI: 9.99–24.39, p < 0.01), valproate (crude ROR: 6.68, 95% CI: 4.27–10.02, p < 0.01), and carbamazepine (crude ROR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.17–4.59, p < 0.01). The combined therapy with perampanel and levetiracetam had a significant aggression signal (adjusted ROR: 25.90, 95% CI: 1.14–59.10, p < 0.01). In addition, we found that aggression frequently occurred in patients <60 year (adjusted ROR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.49–5.56, p < 0.01) treated with levetiracetam. These results may be useful for minimizing the risk of aggression during the treatment of AEDs.

In the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), resistance to BCR‐ABL inhibitors makes it difficult to continue treatment and is directly related to life expectancy. Therefore, asciminib was introduced to the market as a useful drug for overcoming drug resistance. While combining molecular targeted drugs is useful to avoid drug resistance, the new BCR‐ABL inhibitor asciminib and conventional BCR‐ABL inhibitors should be used as monotherapy in principle. Therefore, we investigated the synergistic effect and mechanism of the combination of asciminib and imatinib. We generated imatinib‐resistant cells using the human CML cell line K562, examined the effects of imatinib and asciminib exposure on cell survival using the WST‐8 assay, and comprehensively analyzed genetic variation related to drug resistance using RNA‐seq and real‐time PCR. A synergistic effect was observed when imatinib and asciminib were combined with or without imatinib resistance. Three genes, GRRP1, ESPN, and NOXA1, were extracted as the sites of action of asciminib. Asciminib in combination with BCR‐ABL inhibitors may improve the therapeutic efficacy of conventional BCR‐ABL inhibitors and prevent the development of resistance. Its dosage may be effective even at minimal doses that do not cause side effects. Further verification of this mechanism of action is needed. Additionally, cross‐resistance between BCR‐ABL inhibitors and asciminib may occur, which needs to be clarified through further validation as soon as possible.