ReportWire

Tag: Clinical Trials

  • UC San Diego Awarded $8M to Expand Stem Cell Therapy Clinical Trials

    UC San Diego Awarded $8M to Expand Stem Cell Therapy Clinical Trials

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Stem cells show particular promise in treating diseases for which few other effective treatments exist. In these therapies, stem cells are introduced into the body where they develop into specialized cells that repair, restore, replace or regenerate cells that have been damaged by the disease.

    As part of a state-wide effort to advance stem cell therapies, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has awarded $8 million to the UC San Diego Alpha Stem Cell Clinic. The funding will support the clinic’s mission of bringing new stem cell-based therapies to patients with difficult-to-treat diseases.

    The Alpha Clinics — named for being the first of their kind — are a network of clinics spanning the state of California, designed to bridge the gap between stem cell research and clinical application. The system brings together clinical, research, regulatory and administrative teams in order to expedite clinical trials and streamline the patient experience.

    “We’re trying to change the way we do medicine,” said Catriona Jamieson, MD, PhD, director of the UC San Diego Alpha Stem Cell Clinic and chief of the Division of Regenerative Medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine. “The Alpha Clinic helps academic and industry experts join forces to bring world-class technologies directly to the patients.”

    The grant is part of a series of recent CIRM awards totaling $72 million to expand the Alpha Clinics network. UC San Diego was one of three founding institutions when the project launched in 2015. The new funding will expand the program to nine sites across the state.

    In the seven years since its inception, the UC San Diego Alpha Stem Cell Clinic has launched 59 clinical trials and treated 277 patients with new therapies for neurodegeneration, diabetes and various forms of cancer. The trials largely test cell, gene and immunotherapies developed through growing partnerships between UC San Diego and local biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

    Recent milestones include the completion of a Phase I trial using neural stem cells to treat spinal cord injury, in which patients showed improved motor function after the treatment, as well as approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a Phase III registration trial of a blood cancer stem cell-targeting monoclonal antibody.

    The latest funding will help expand clinical trials at both La Jolla and Hillcrest Medical Centers and create a Clinical Fellowship Program to educate additional physicians in advanced regenerative medicine therapies.

    Another major goal of the clinic is to improve accessibility and awareness of stem cell science. A portion of the funding will go towards new patient education programs and efforts to make treatments more accessible to historically underserved communities in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

    “Patients come to us when nothing else has worked, so we are thrilled to be able to provide new treatments to our community that are not available in other parts of the country,” said Jamieson. “The Alpha Clinics’ highly collaborative infrastructure will help us develop and validate high-quality stem cell therapies at an unprecedented speed, and the effects will be seen across California and beyond.”

    Funding for the UC San Diego Alpha Stem Cell Clinic comes from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (grant INFR4-13597).

    ###

    [ad_2]

    University of California San Diego

    Source link

  • Strategy Suggests Combining Surrogate Markers for Kidney Disease Progression in Clinical Trials

    Strategy Suggests Combining Surrogate Markers for Kidney Disease Progression in Clinical Trials

    [ad_1]

    Highlights

    • In clinical trials of patients with chronic kidney disease, combining information from the treatment effects on two markers of kidney disease progression—urinary albumin:creatinine ratio change and glomerular filtration rate slope—improves predictions of treatment effects on clinical endpoints.
    • Results from the study will be presented at ASN Kidney Week 2022 November 3–November 6.

    Newswise — Orlando (November 5, 2022) — Change in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) slope are markers that are individually used as surrogates of chronic kidney disease progression in clinical trials. Investigators recently developed a strategy that combines information from the treatment effects on the two to improve the prediction of treatments’ effects on patient outcomes. Their research will be presented at ASN Kidney Week 2022 November 3–November 6.

    The scientists used data from 41 randomized controlled trials of chronic kidney disease progression to develop their strategy and then applied the results to the design of a phase 2 trial to assess design implications (such as sample size and follow-up time) for using UACR change and GFR slope individually or in combination.

    The analysis revealed that in phase 2 clinical trials with sample sizes of 100–200 patients per arm or follow-up times ranging between 1 and 2 years, combining UACR change and GFR slope improves predictions of treatments’ effects on clinical endpoints.

    “Currently, UACR change and GFR slope are often evaluated as separate endpoints in phase 2 trials; however, it is not clear how to integrate the information provided by these two endpoints,” said corresponding author Tom Greene, PhD, of the University of Utah. “This work presents a 2-step methodology for addressing this problem. In the first step, a Bayesian model is used to characterize the relationships among the treatment effects on UACR, GFR slope, and the clinical endpoint across previous randomized trials. In the second step, this model is used to provide a unified estimate of the probability of clinical benefit based on the estimated effects of the treatment on UACR change and GFR slope in a new phase 2 trial.”

    Study: “Change in albuminuria and GFR slope as joint surrogate endpoints for kidney failure – Implications for phase 2 trials”

    ASN Kidney Week 2022, the largest nephrology meeting of its kind, will provide a forum for nephrologists and other kidney health professionals to discuss the latest findings in research and engage in educational sessions related to advances in the care of patients with kidney diseases and related disorders.

    Since 1966, ASN has been leading the fight to prevent, treat, and cure kidney diseases throughout the world by educating health professionals and scientists, advancing research and innovation, communicating new knowledge, and advocating for the highest quality care for patients. ASN has more than 20,000 members representing 132 countries. For more information, visit www.asn-online.org and follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

     

    # # #

     

               

     

    [ad_2]

    American Society of Nephrology (ASN)

    Source link

  • Shorter Course of Radiation Therapy Yields Comparable Results for Patients with Non-Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma

    Shorter Course of Radiation Therapy Yields Comparable Results for Patients with Non-Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — HOUSTON – Patients with non-metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who need pre-operative radiation therapy can safely receive hypofractionated treatment over three weeks instead of five, with comparable tumor control and no increased risk of major complications in wound healing, according to researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

    Results from the study, led by Ashleigh Guadagnolo, M.D., professor of Radiation Oncology, were published today in The Lancet Oncology. Guadagnolo also presented results at the 2022 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting

    On the single-arm, non-randomized trial, patients received hypofractionated radiation therapy, consisting of higher daily radiation therapy doses per treatment over fewer days relative to conventional therapy. Thirty-one percent of patients developed major wound complications within 120 days of surgery, while local tumor control was 93% at two-year follow-up — both comparable to historically reported rates with the longer treatment course.

    “Our data indicate the three-week regimen offers patients a likely safe and effective alternative to the current standard of care with comparable outcomes in disease control and no increased risks of major wound complications,” Guadagnolo said. “We are excited by the current results of this study, which demonstrate the value of a hypofractionated approach to radiation therapy, which is more convenient for patients.”

    A major side effect of pre-operative radiation therapy in patients with non-metastatic STS is an increased risk of wound-healing complications after surgery. Patients have a heightened risk of needing a second operation for wound repair, extensive wound management and readmission to the hospital.  

    On the current study, no patients experienced a serious adverse event or a grade 3 acute skin toxicity while on the study. The 31% rate of major wound complications is comparable to the historically observed 35% rate in patients treated with the standard five-week regimen.

    “Research shows that patients receiving their treatment at cancer centers with sarcoma specialists have better survival and functional outcomes. Being able to shorten our patients’ treatment time from five to three weeks may improve care accessibility because patients would be able to reduce their time away from home if they do not live near a sarcoma specialty center,” Guadagnolo said.

    The trial enrolled a total of 120 patients over the age of 18 with non-metastatic STS who had not previously undergone radiation therapy. All patients had STS in the extremity or superficial trunk; 65% of participants had lower extremity tumors; 17% had upper extremity tumors and 18% had tumors in the trunk.

    All patients were treated with a three-week course of radiation consisting of 15 daily fractions of 2.85 Gray (Gy), totaling 42.75 Gy. The current standard dose is 50 Gy in 25 daily fractions, or a five-week course. Radiation therapy was followed by surgery four to eight weeks later. Researchers assessed major wound complications within 120 days of surgery among patients treated on the trial.

    Long-term side effects, oncologic and functional outcomes using the hypofractionated regimen still are being assessed.

    The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute (P30 CA016672). A full list of collaborating authors and their disclosures can be found with the full paper here.

    – 30 –

    [ad_2]

    University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center

    Source link

  • Breast Cancer Drug Benefits Broader Group of Patients, Trial Shows

    Breast Cancer Drug Benefits Broader Group of Patients, Trial Shows

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — DALLAS – Oct. 28, 2022 – A drug approved to treat breast cancer patients with mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes may also benefit people who have other genetic mutations.

    Researchers at UT Southwestern reported in the journal Nature Cancer that talazoparib successfully shrank the tumors of breast cancer patients with mutations in the PALB2 gene. Patients with this mutation would not have previously qualified for treatment with talazoparib, a type of cancer drug known as a PARP inhibitor.

    “These patients would otherwise have very limited treatment options,” said Joshua Gruber, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine at UT Southwestern and a member of the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. “This study expands the patient population that can benefit from PARP inhibitors.”

    Like other PARP inhibitors, talazoparib works by blocking a protein that usually helps cells repair damaged DNA. Without the ability to repair their DNA, cancer cells accumulate damage and eventually die. In cancers that have other defects in this process – including those with BRCA1/2 mutations – the drug is particularly effective, dealing a fatal second blow to the DNA repair machinery.

    In a landmark 2018 study, researchers focused on advanced breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations – which account for 5% to 10% of all breast cancer cases – and found that talazoparib increased their survival time. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for that group, and follow-up studies have found that talazoparib also works for prostate and pancreatic cancer patients with BRCA mutations.

    In the new phase 2 trial, Dr. Gruber and colleagues tested the effectiveness of talazoparib in advanced cancer patients with less common gene mutations associated with DNA repair. Previous data has suggested that more than 17% of all cancers have such mutations.

    Twenty patients were enrolled in the trial at Stanford University, where Dr. Gruber previously served. Thirteen had breast cancer, three had pancreatic cancer, and four had other tumor types. The patients had mutations in eight DNA repair genes. On average, they took a daily talazoparib pill for 23.8 weeks.

    Among all patients, the average survival time was 5.6 months, and 20% had at least partial shrinkage of tumors. Because this was a phase 2 trial, there was not a control group to compare these data to, but the results were especially striking for patients with the PALB2 mutations: They survived 6.9 months on average, and all six patients (five with breast cancer, one with pancreatic cancer) had tumor shrinkage.

    The findings underscore the increasing importance of genetic testing to guide treatment for cancer patients, Dr. Gruber said. The team is planning a follow-up trial at UT Southwestern to further understand which patients gain the most benefit from talazoparib.

    About UT Southwestern Medical Center

    UT Southwestern, one of the nation’s premier academic medical centers, integrates pioneering biomedical research with exceptional clinical care and education. The institution’s faculty has received six Nobel Prizes, and includes 24 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 18 members of the National Academy of Medicine, and 14 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigators. The full-time faculty of more than 2,900 is responsible for groundbreaking medical advances and is committed to translating science-driven research quickly to new clinical treatments. UT Southwestern physicians provide care in more than 80 specialties to more than 100,000 hospitalized patients, more than 360,000 emergency room cases, and oversee nearly 4 million outpatient visits a year.

    [ad_2]

    UT Southwestern Medical Center

    Source link

  • By the next RSV season, the US may have its first vaccine | CNN

    By the next RSV season, the US may have its first vaccine | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s shaping up to be a severe season for respiratory syncytial virus infections – one of the worst some doctors say they can remember. But even as babies struggling to breathe fill hospital beds across the United States, there may be a light ahead: After decades of disappointment, four new RSV vaccines may be nearing review by the US Food and Drug Administration, and more than a dozen others are in testing.

    There’s also hope around a promising long-acting injection designed to be given right after birth to protect infants from the virus for as long as six months. In a recent clinical trial, the antibody shot was 75% effective at heading off RSV infections that required medical attention.

    Experts say the therapies look so promising, they could end bad RSV seasons as we know them.

    And the relief could come soon: Dr. Ashish Jha, who leads the White House Covid-19 Response Task Force, told CNN that he’s “hopeful” there will be an RSV vaccine by next fall.

    Charlotte Brown jumped at the chance to enroll her own son, a squawky, active 10-month-old named James, in one of the vaccine trials this summer.

    “As soon as he qualified, we were like ‘absolutely, we are in,’ ” Brown said.

    Babies have to be at least 6 months old to enter the trial, which is testing a vaccine developed at the National Institutes of Health – the result of decades of scientific research.

    Brown is a pediatrician who cares for hospitalized children at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, and she sees the ravages of RSV firsthand. A recent patient was in the back of her mind when she was signing up James for the study.

    “I took care of a baby who was only a few months older than him and had had nine days of fever and was just absolutely pitiful and puny,” she said. Brown said his family felt helpless. “And I was like, ‘this is why we’re doing it. This single patient is why we’re doing this.’ “

    Even before this year’s surge, RSV was the leading cause of infant hospitalizations in the US. The virus infects the lower lungs, where it causes a hacking cough and may lead to severe complications like pneumonia and inflammation of the tiny airways in the lungs called bronchiolitis.

    Worldwide, RSV causes about 33 million infections in children under the age of 5 and hospitalizes 3.6 million annually. Nearly a quarter-million young children die each year from complications of their infections.

    RSV also preys on seniors, leading to an estimated 159,000 hospitalizations and about 10,000 deaths a year in adults 65 and over, a burden roughly on par with influenza.

    Despite this heavy toll, doctors haven’t had any new tools to head off RSV for more than two decades. The last therapy approved was in 1998. The monoclonal antibody, Synagis, is given monthly during RSV season to protect preemies and other high-risk babies.

    The hunt for an effective way to protect against RSV stalled for decades after two children died in a disastrous vaccine trial in the 1960s.

    That study tested a vaccine made with an RSV virus that had been chemically treated to render it inert and mixed with an ingredient called alum, to wake up the immune system and help it respond.

    It was tested at clinical trial sites in the US between 1966 and 1968.

    At first, everything looked good. The vaccine was tested in animals, who tolerated it well, and then given to children, who also appeared to respond well.

    “Unfortunately, that fall, when RSV season started, many of the children that were vaccinated required hospitalization and got more severe RSV disease than what would have normally occurred,” said Steven Varga, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa, who has been studying RSV for more than 20 years and is developing a nanoparticle vaccine against the virus.

    A study published on the trial found that 80% of the vaccinated children who caught RSV later required hospitalization, compared with only 5% of the children who got a placebo. Two of the babies who had participated in the trial died.

    The outcomes of the trial were a seismic shock to vaccine science. Efforts to develop new vaccines and treatments against RSV halted as researchers tried to untangle what went so wrong.

    “The original vaccine studies were so devastatingly bad. They didn’t understand immunology well in those days, so everybody said ‘oh no, this ain’t gonna work.’ And it really was like it stopped things cold for 30, 40 years,” said Dr. Aaron Glatt, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York.

    Regulators re-evaluated the guardrails around clinical trials, putting new safety measures into place.

    “It is in fact, in many ways, why we have some of the things that we have in place today to monitor vaccine safety,” Varga said.

    Researchers at the clinical trial sites didn’t communicate with each other, Varga said, and so the US Food and Drug Administration put the publicly accessible Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System into place. Now, when an adverse event is reported at one clinical trial site, other sites are notified.

    Another problem turned out to be how the vaccine was made.

    Proteins are three-dimensional structures. They are made of chains of building blocks called amino acids that fold into complex shapes, and their shapes determine how they work.

    In the failed RSV vaccine trial, the chemical the researchers used to deactivate the virus denatured its proteins – essentially flattening them.

    “Now you have a long sheet of acids but no more beautiful shapes,” said Ulla Buchholz, chief of the RNA Viruses Section at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

    “Everything that the immune system needs to form neutralizing antibodies that can block and block attachment and entry of this virus to the cell had been destroyed in that vaccine,” said Buchholz, who designed the RSV vaccine for toddlers that’s being tested at Vanderbilt and other US sites.

    In the 1960s trial, the kids still made antibodies to the flattened viral proteins, but they were distorted. When the actual virus came along, these antibodies didn’t work as intended. Not only did they fail to recognize or block the virus, they triggered a powerful misdirected immune response that made the children much sicker, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement of disease.

    The investigators hadn’t spotted the enhancement in animal studies, Varga says, because the vaccinated animals weren’t later challenged with the live virus.

    “So of course, we require now extensive animal testing of new vaccines before they’re ever put into humans, again, for that very reason of making sure that there aren’t early signs that a vaccine will be problematic,” Varga said.

    About 10 years ago, a team of researchers at the NIH – some of the same investigators who developed the first Covid-19 vaccines – reported what would turn out to be a pivotal advance.

    They had isolated the structure of the virus’s F-protein, the site that lets it dock onto human cells. Normally, the F-protein flips back and forth, changing shapes after it attaches to a cell. The NIH researchers figured out to how freeze the F-protein into the shape it takes before it fuses with a cell.

    This protein, when locked into place, allows the immune system to recognize the virus in the form it’s in when it first enters the body – and develop strong antibodies against it.

    “The companies coming forward now, for the most part, are taking advantage of that discovery,” said Dr. Phil Dormitzer, a senior vice president of vaccine development at GlaxoSmithKline. “And now we have this new generation of vaccine candidates that perform far better than the old generation.”

    The first vaccines up for FDA review will be given to adults: seniors and pregnant woman. Vaccination in pregnancy is meant to ultimately protect newborns – a group particularly vulnerable to the virus – via antibodies that cross the placenta.

    Vaccines for children are a bit farther behind in development but moving through the pipeline, too.

    Four companies have RSV vaccines for adults in the final phases of human trials: Pfizer and GSK are testing vaccines for pregnant women as well as seniors. Janssen and Bavarian Nordic are developing shots for seniors.

    Pfizer and GSK use protein subunit vaccines, a more traditional kind of vaccine technology. Two other companies build on innovations made during the pandemic: Janssen – the vaccine division of Johnson & Johnson – relies on an adenoviral vector, the same kind of system that’s used in its Covid-19 vaccine, and Moderna has a vaccine for RSV in Phase 2 trials that uses mRNA technology.

    So far, early results shared by some companies are promising. Janssen, Pfizer and GSK each appear effective at preventing infections in adults for the first RSV season after the vaccine.

    In an August news release, Annaliesa Anderson, Pfizer’s chief scientific officer of Vaccine Research and Development, said she was “delighted” with the results. The company plans to submit its data to the FDA for approval this fall.

    GSK has also wrapped up its Phase 3 trial for seniors. It recently presented the results at a medical conference, but full data hasn’t been peer reviewed or published in a medical journal. Early results show that this vaccine is 83% effective at preventing disease in the lower lungs of adults 60 and older. It appears to be even more protective – 94% – for severe RSV disease in those over 70 and those with underlying medical conditions.

    “We are very pleased with these results,” Dormitzer told CNN. He said the company was moving “with all due haste” to get its results to the FDA for review.

    “We’re confident enough that we’ve started manufacturing the actual commercial launch materials. So we have the bulk vaccine actually in the refrigerator, ready to supply when we are licensed,” he said.

    Even as the company applies for licensure, GSK’s trial will continue for two more RSV seasons. Half the group getting the vaccine will be followed with no additional shots, while the other group will get annual boosters. The aim is to see which approach is most protective to guide future vaccination strategies.

    Janssen’s vaccine for older adults appears to be about 70% to 80% effective in clinical trials so far, the company announced in December.

    In a study on Pfizer’s vaccine for pregnant women published in the New England Journal of Medicine this year, the company reported that the mothers enrolled in the study made antibodies to the vaccine and that these antibodies crossed the placenta and were detected in umbilical cord blood just after birth.

    The vaccines for pregnant women are meant to get newborns through their first RSV season. But not all newborns will benefit from those. Most maternal antibodies are passed to baby in the third trimester, so preemies may not be protected, even if mom gets the vaccine.

    For vulnerable infants and those whose mothers decline to be vaccinated, Dr. Helen Chu, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington, says the long-acting antibody shot for newborns, called nirsevimab, should cover them for the first six months of life. She expects it to be a “game-changer.”

    That shot, which has been developed by AstraZeneca, was recently recommended for approval in the European Union. It has not yet been approved in the United States.

    The field is so close to a new approval that public health officials say they’ve been asked to study up on the data.

    Chu, who is also a member of an RSV study group of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel that advises the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on its vaccine recommendations, says her group has started to evaluate the new vaccines – a sign that an FDA review is just around the corner.

    No companies have yet announced that process is underway. FDA reviews can take several months, and then there are typically discussions and votes by FDA and CDC advisory groups before vaccines are made available.

    “We’ve been working on this for several months now to start reviewing the data,” Chu said. “So I think this is imminent.”

    Watching this year’s RSV season unfold, Brown, the pediatrician who enrolled her son in the vaccine trial for toddlers, says progress can’t come fast enough.

    “The hospital is surging. We’re not drowning the way some states are. I mean, Connecticut, South Carolina, North Carolina, they’re really drowning. But our numbers are huge, and our services are so busy,” she says.

    Brown says her son is mostly healthy. He doesn’t have any of the risks for severe RSV she sees with some of her patients, so she was happy to have a way to help others.

    And while it’s far too early to say whether the vaccine James is helping to test will prove to be effective, the trial was unblinded last week, and Brown learned that her son was in the group that got the active vaccine, not the placebo

    He has done well through this heavy season of illness, she says. The NIH-sponsored study they participated in is scheduled to be completed next year.

    The vaccine, which is made with a live but very weak version of virus, is given through a couple of squirts up the nose, so there are no needles. The hardest part for squirmy James, she said, was being held still.

    “If we can do anything to move science forward and help another child, like, sorry, James. You had to have your blood drawn, but it absolutely was worth it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cancer Therapy Shows Potential to Treat Severe COVID-19 in Pre-Clinical Trials

    Cancer Therapy Shows Potential to Treat Severe COVID-19 in Pre-Clinical Trials

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — An article published in Science Advances suggests that a type of cancer treatment known as immune checkpoint blockade may be beneficial in certain cases of severe COVID-19. The creators of this therapy, which can successfully activate the immune system to fight cancer, won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

    The findings reported by the authors were based on experiments involving cells from patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs) after being infected by SARS-CoV-2, and mice infected by MHV-A59 (murine hepatitis virus A59), another betacoronavirus.

    “PD-1 blockade is one of the known immune checkpoint therapies and one of the therapies we analyzed in the study. It tells T lymphocytes [a type of white blood cell] to stop responding to infection after a time so that the response is not excessive. In cases of cancer, sepsis and severe COVID-19, however, PD-1 makes T cells stop functioning even before the disease has been resolved and must therefore be blocked,” said Pedro Moraes-Vieira, one of the leaders of the study. Moraes-Vieira is a professor at the State University of Campinas’s Institute of Biology (IB-UNICAMP) in São Paulo, Brazil, and supported by FAPESP.

    Another co-author is Gustavo Gastão Davanzo, a PhD candidate at IB-UNICAMP with a scholarship from FAPESP.

    “These are very expensive treatments, but we believe it could be a viable option because there aren’t as many critical patients as there were at the start of the pandemic, provided further research confirms that it’s safe for COVID-19 patients,” Moraes-Vieira said.

    Murine coronavirus

    The hypothesis tested in the study arose when Uruguayan researchers (co-authors of the article) observed that mice that did not express the protein TMEM176D responded more acutely to infection by MHV-A59. This protein regulates inflammasomes, protein complexes deployed by the innate immune system to trigger inflammation as a weapon against tumors, viruses and bacteria. 

    Inflammasome activation is more intense without TMEM176D. More inflammatory cytokines are released, including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), which is known to play a role in severe COVID-19 (more at: agencia.fapesp.br/34732/). 

    “Excessive release of IL-1β leads to T lymphocyte dysfunction, which we call T cell exhaustion,” Moraes-Vieira said. “These cells are so strongly activated that they can no longer respond adequately. This is common in chronic viral diseases like severe COVID-19, as we found in a study conducted early in the pandemic.”

    An article on the study in question, published in 2020 in Cell Metabolism, is one of the most cited articles published in this journal in the last three years and motivated the Uruguayan team to propose a partnership (more at: agencia.fapesp.br/33296/). 

    In the trials involving mice, treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor restored T cell functionality. In addition, the researchers had access to blood from healthy donors and COVID-19 patients hospitalized at two institutions in Montevideo, Uruguay’s capital.

    Experiments involving healthy cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 were conducted at UNICAMP’s Laboratory of Emerging Virus Studies (LEVE) headed by Professor José Luiz Proença Módena, a co-author of the article, with support from FAPESP.

    In trials involving human blood samples, only cells that came from patients in intensive care benefited from the administration of atezolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor used in the study. This was because of inflammasome overactivation leading to exhaustion and dysfunction of adaptive immunity in these patients.

    The findings should be considered with caution, the researchers warn. Studies involving cancer patients who were treated in this manner before contracting COVID-19 showed no benefits or pointed to negative results.

    In one study, administration of the therapy before viral infection did not lead to an improvement in COVID-19. In another study, involving 423 patients, there were more cases of hospitalization and severe disease among those who had been given the inhibitor. On the other hand, a clinical trial of PD-1 inhibitors in sepsis patients showed the therapy to be safe. More research will therefore be needed to glean a deeper understanding of the effects of the treatment in the context of COVID-19.

    About São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)

    The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) is a public institution with the mission of supporting scientific research in all fields of knowledge by awarding scholarships, fellowships and grants to investigators linked with higher education and research institutions in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. FAPESP is aware that the very best research can only be done by working with the best researchers internationally. Therefore, it has established partnerships with funding agencies, higher education, private companies, and research organizations in other countries known for the quality of their research and has been encouraging scientists funded by its grants to further develop their international collaboration. You can learn more about FAPESP at www.fapesp.br/en and visit FAPESP news agency at www.agencia.fapesp.br/en to keep updated with the latest scientific breakthroughs FAPESP helps achieve through its many programs, awards and research centers. You may also subscribe to FAPESP news agency at http://agencia.fapesp.br/subscribe

    [ad_2]

    Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo

    Source link

  • Lower Prostate Cancer Screening Rates Associated with Subsequent Increase in Advanced Cancers

    Lower Prostate Cancer Screening Rates Associated with Subsequent Increase in Advanced Cancers

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — SAN ANTONIO, October 24, 2022 — In the face of conflicting evidence over the risks and benefits of routine prostate cancer screenings, a large, longitudinal analysis found Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers with lower prostate screening rates had higher rates of metastatic prostate cancer cases in subsequent years than centers with higher screening rates. Findings of the study will be presented today at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting and are published in JAMA Oncology.

    “This study provides evidence that facilities that are more intensively screening men may be reducing the risk of metastatic prostate cancer later,” said Alex K. Bryant, MD, lead author of the study and a radiation oncology resident physician at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center in Ann Arbor, Mich.

    While the study wasn’t a randomized, clinical trial – the gold standard in guiding clinical practice – findings are based on real-world evidence that can help guide screening decisions for patients weighing individual risks and benefits. “If someone had a strong family history of prostate cancer or other risk factors and wanted to reduce their risk of metastatic prostate cancer, these findings might support the decision to screen,” said Dr. Bryant.

    To-date, the two largest studies of prostate cancer screening – both randomized controlled trials – offered conflicting evidence on the risks and benefits of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, with one study suggesting that PSA screening reduces risk of metastatic prostate cancer and prostate cancer death, and another showing no benefit. Since 2008, the conflicting data and corresponding changes in clinical practice guidelines led to a drop in PSA screening rates across the country, followed by a rise in metastatic prostate cancer incidence. However, there is currently no evidence linking the two trends.

    “Conflicting research results understandably have led to reasonable variations in screening patterns,” said Dr. Bryant. “Physicians have very different feelings on the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. Some physicians feel the benefits of screening far outweigh the risks of false positives.” Others, however, do not.”

    “Given the ambiguous clinical trial data about the efficacy of PSA screening,” he continued, “we were hoping to see if we could find an association that suggested screening might be affecting rates of metastatic prostate cancer in the real world.”

    The team analyzed data from 128 facilities in the VA health system, the largest integrated healthcare system in the U.S. In 2005, at the start of the study, there were 4.7 million men in the cohort. By the end of the study in 2019, the cohort had grown to 5.4 million men.

    Researchers analyzed yearly facility- and system-level PSA screening rates; system- and facility-level long-term non-screening rates; and age-adjusted incident rates of metastatic cancer from 2005 to 2019. Cases of metastatic cancer were identified using diagnostic codes and a validated natural language processing algorithm that culled through physician-recorded notes and radiographic reports.

    PSA screening rates declined system-wide from 47% in 2005 to 37% in 2019, and this decline was seen across all ages and races. During this same period, long-term non-screening rates – the percentage of patients who missed screenings for three years in a row – increased across the VA healthcare system.

    Overall, metastatic prostate cancer incidence rose from 4.6 cases per 100,000 men in 2008 to 7.9 per 100,000 in 2019. The rise was driven by increases in the 55-69 and over-70 age groups.

    Facilities with lower yearly screening rates had higher subsequent rates of metastatic prostate cancer. For each 10% decrease in screening, there was a corresponding 10% increase in metastatic prostate cancer incidence five years later (incidence rate ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.15, p<0.001).

    In addition to the trend in yearly rates, there also was an association between long-term non-screening rates and subsequent metastatic cancer incidence. For each 10% increase in long-term non-screening rates, there was an increase of 11% in the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer (95% CI 1.03 to 1.19, p=0.010).

    It’s important to gain a deeper understanding of the risks and benefits of screening, because once prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, “the general thought is that it is at an incurable stage,” Dr. Bryant said. “It is still treatable, but once it spreads it’s a deadly disease. Our results support a benefit in prostate cancer screening in reducing metastatic prostate cancer risk.”

    He said the team will continue to analyze VA records to gauge whether screening rates are associated with prostate cancer mortality. Further analyses will also include racial and ethnic differences in PSA screening rates and potential disparities in how screening affects long-term outcomes among high-risk groups. Of particular interest is how screening rates and outcomes for Black patients may differ, since Black men face double the risk of dying from prostate cancer compared to men of other races.

    “This study is the first step in a series of studies using VA data to get more refined information about populations who are at increased risk for prostate cancer,” he said.

    ###

    Attribution to the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting is requested in all coverage. View the meeting press kit at www.astro.org/annualmeetingpress.

    See this study presented:

    • Association of prostate-specific antigen screening rates and subsequent metastatic prostate cancer incidence in a national healthcare system (Abstract 298)
    • News Briefing: Monday, October 24, 9:00 a.m. Central time. Details here.
    • Scientific Presentation: Tuesday, October 25, 4:00 p.m. Central time, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center. Details here; email [email protected] for access.
    • Journal Citation: Bryant AK, Lee KM, Alba PR, et al. Association of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Rates with Subsequent Metastatic Prostate Cancer Incidence at US Veterans Health Administration Facilities [published online ahead of print, 2022 Oct 24]. JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/ 2022.4319

    ABOUT ASTRO

    The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) is the largest radiation oncology society in the world, with nearly 10,000 members who are physicians, nurses, biologists, physicists, radiation therapists, dosimetrists and other health care professionals who specialize in treating patients with radiation therapies. For information on radiation therapy, visit RTAnswers.org. To learn more about ASTRO, visit our website and media center and follow us on social media.

     

    [ad_2]

    American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)

    Source link

  • Radiation Therapy for High-Risk, Asymptomatic Bone Metastases May Prevent Pain and Prolong Life

    Radiation Therapy for High-Risk, Asymptomatic Bone Metastases May Prevent Pain and Prolong Life

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — SAN ANTONIO, October 23, 2022 — Treating high-risk, asymptomatic bone metastases with radiation may reduce painful complications and hospitalizations and possibly extend overall survival in people whose cancer has spread to multiple sites, a phase II clinical trial suggests. Results of the multicenter, randomized trial (NCT03523351) will be presented today at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting.

    The clinical trial findings suggest radiation oncologists may play a valuable role in treating widespread bone metastases even in the absence of symptoms. Palliative radiation has historically focused on reducing existing pain and other symptoms when a patient’s cancer is no longer considered curable. Investigators hoped to show that painful complications could be prevented by treating asymptomatic bone metastases with radiation and were surprised to find the benefits may extend beyond comfort.

    “It’s thought-provoking that radiation to prevent pain could potentially prolong life,” said Erin F. Gillespie, MD, lead author of the study and a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “It suggests that treating to cure the cancer is not the only thing that can help people live longer.”

    The study arose from the observation that many patients hospitalized for painful bone metastases have evidence of these lesions on imaging scans several months earlier, Dr. Gillespie said. Although external beam radiation therapy is standard-of-care for painful lesions, it has not been used for asymptomatic ones outside of the oligometastatic setting; generally, patients remain on systemic therapy until lesions become symptomatic. Dr. Gillespie and her colleagues wanted to determine “if and when we might intervene before these symptoms occur to prevent hospitalizations and debility from cancer.”

    For the study, researchers identified 78 adults with a metastatic solid tumor malignancy and more than five metastatic lesions, including at least one asymptomatic high-risk bone lesion. Whether a lesion was high-risk was determined by its size (if it was 2 centimeters or more in diameter); its location in the junctional spine; whether it involved the hip or sacroiliac joint; or if it was in one of the long bones of the body, such as those found in arms and legs. Between all enrolled patients, there were a cumulative 122 bone metastases.

    Among study participants, the most common types of primary cancer were lung (27%), breast (24%) and prostate (22%). Participants were randomly assigned to receive standard treatment, which could include systemic treatment (such as chemotherapy or targeted agents) or observation, with or without radiation therapy to treat all of their high-risk bone metastases. Radiation doses varied but were typically low (i.e., not ablative). All patients were followed for at least 12 months or until they succumbed to their disease.

    The primary endpoint was to determine whether treating asymptomatic lesions could prevent skeletal-related events (SREs) – a common and often painful and debilitating complication of bone metastases. SREs include pain, fractures and compression of the spinal cord that requires surgery or radiation. They can contribute to a higher risk of death and higher health care costs.

    Researchers found that treating the asymptomatic lesions with radiation reduced the number SREs and SRE-related hospitalizations and extended overall survival, compared to people who received no radiation. At the end of one year, for patients on the radiation arm, SREs occurred in 1 of 62 lesions (1.6%), compared to 14 of 49 lesions (29%) for those receiving standard care (p<0.001). Significantly fewer patients in the radiation arm were hospitalized for SREs (0 vs. 4, p=0.045).

    After a median 2.4 years of follow-up, overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received radiation therapy, compared to those who did not (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.91, p=0.02). Median overall survival was 1.1 years for the 11 patients who experienced an SRE, compared to 1.5 years for the 67 patients who had no SREs.

    After the first three months, patients in the radiation arm reported less pain than those in the standard care arm (p<0.05), a trend that continued but was no longer statistically significant for the remainder of the study. There were no significant differences in quality of life between the two arms at any point in the study.

    Though it was not in the initial study design, Dr. Gillespie said the team performed an unplanned analysis of which lesions were most likely to cause SREs. While they expected to find those in the long bones might cause more fractures and pain, they found it was metastases in the spine that were most likely to cause subsequent pain, cord compression or fracture. However, the numbers are small and will require further evaluation to confirm.

    Treating those lesions with “even low doses of radiation seemed adequate to prevent the lesion from progressing and causing problems,” Dr. Gillespie said.

    Dr. Gillespie emphasized that because of the study’s small size, its findings, while hypothesis-generating, were not definitive and a larger study is needed to replicate and expand on these analyses. “Our trial results add to a growing field of study examining the potential of early supportive care, but they still need to be confirmed in a larger phase III trial,” she explained.

    She also said future research should seek to answer questions such as: “Does this apply to someone early in the course of their metastatic disease who may not have any symptomatic lesions? At what point would they benefit from intervention with radiation? There are many patients with multiple sites of metastases, but how do we identify those lesions that are most likely to become problematic?”

    “And, once we confirm this is the right thing to do,” she said, “how do we ensure patients who might benefit get access to this treatment?”

    ###

    Attribution to the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting is requested in all coverage. View the meeting press kit at www.astro.org/annualmeetingpress.

    See this study presented:

    • Prophylactic radiation therapy versus standard-of-care for patients with high-risk, asymptomatic bone metastases: A multicenter, randomized phase II trial (Abstract LBA 04)
    • News Briefing: Tuesday, October 25, 9:00 a.m. Central time. Details here.
    • Scientific Presentation: Clinical Trials Session, Sunday, October 23, 10:40 a.m. Central time, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center. Details here; email [email protected] for access.

     

    ABOUT ASTRO

    The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) is the largest radiation oncology society in the world, with nearly 10,000 members who are physicians, nurses, biologists, physicists, radiation therapists, dosimetrists and other health care professionals who specialize in treating patients with radiation therapies. For information on radiation therapy, visit RTAnswers.org. To learn more about ASTRO, visit our website and media center and follow us on social media.

     

    [ad_2]

    American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)

    Source link

  • Medical Physicist Consults with Patients Can Help Reduce Anxiety and Increase Satisfaction with Radiation Care

    Medical Physicist Consults with Patients Can Help Reduce Anxiety and Increase Satisfaction with Radiation Care

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — SAN ANTONIO, October 23, 2022 — Meeting with a medical physicist who can explain how radiation therapy is planned and delivered reduces patient anxiety and increases patient satisfaction throughout the treatment process, according to a new study published today in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics. Findings of the randomized, prospective phase III clinical trial also will be presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting.

    “This study is a wake-up call for medical physicists that there are new ways we can add value to patient care,” said Todd F. Atwood, PhD, lead author of the study and an associate professor and Senior Associate Division Director of Transformational Clinical Physics at the University of California, San Diego. “It illustrates how care teams can partner more effectively with patients as they make their treatment decisions and navigate the radiation therapy process.”

    Medical physicists work with radiation oncologists to ensure complex treatment plans are properly tailored to each patient. They also develop and direct quality control programs to make sure treatments are delivered safely, including performing safety tests on the equipment used in a patient’s treatment.

    The new findings suggest that medical physicists also can supplement patient education and potentially improve patient outcomes by reducing patients’ treatment-related stress. “Patients increasingly want to be more involved with their care,” said Dr. Atwood. “They are looking for more information. Typically, they start by searching online, but what they’re finding is either non-specific or just too complex. They have unanswered questions, which often lead to confusion, stress and anxiety.”

    Prior studies have shown patient-related stress can negatively impact outcomes after radiation therapy. Dr. Atwood and his colleagues hope that by reducing stress and anxiety related to their treatment, this approach may also contribute to better patient outcomes.

    In this study, researchers randomized 66 patients seeking external beam radiation therapy into two treatment arms: one that would receive Physics Direct Patient Care (PDPC) prior to – and throughout – radiation treatment, and one that did not receive PDPC radiation therapy. Patients had different types of primary cancer, most commonly breast, gynecologic or prostate cancer, and most were receiving radiation therapy for the first time.

    In addition to traditional care, during which patients only discuss their treatment with their radiation oncologist, the PDPC group received two consultations prior to treatment with a medical physicist who explained the technical aspects of their care – how treatment is planned and delivered, how the radiation therapy technology works and “everything that goes into keeping them safe during treatment,” said Dr. Atwood. The medical physicist remained a resource for patients if additional questions arose at any point throughout the treatment process.

    Before interacting with patients, the five medical physicists participating in the study completed a patient communication training program that included radiation oncology specific lectures, role playing exercises, simulated patient interactions and analysis, and supervised physician-patient consults that included an analysis of those interactions.

    Changes in treatment-related anxiety, overall satisfaction with treatment and satisfaction with their understanding of the technical aspects of care were measured over the course of treatment using patient-reported questionnaires.

    Patients who received medical physicist consults had significant improvements in anxiety and both satisfaction metrics, compared to those who received treatment without the additional consults. Anxiety did not differ between the groups at baseline or following the simulation appointment, but it was lower, on average, for patients who got the medical physicist consults after the first treatment (30.2 vs. 37.6, on a 60-point inventory, p=0.027). By the end of treatment, however, the difference in average anxiety scores was no longer significant.

    To look more deeply at differences in anxiety between the groups, researchers looked specifically at the number of patients who reported high anxiety levels throughout treatment. While there were no significant differences in the proportion of high-anxiety patients at baseline, after the simulation appointment or after the first treatment, a substantial difference emerged by the end of treatment (12.5% vs. 38.9% reporting high anxiety, p=0.047).

    While the consults were beneficial for patients generally, Dr. Atwood said they may be particularly useful to patients who are more prone to anxiety. Among those receiving the additional consults, over the course of treatment, the percentage of patients reporting high anxiety levels dropped by more than half, from 31.3% to 12.5%.

    The greatest difference between the groups was seen in how satisfied patients were with their understanding of the technical aspects of their care. While there was no difference between the groups at baseline, the group that received an additional consult at the simulation appointment immediately expressed greater satisfaction with their technical understanding of care (6.2 vs. 5.1 on a 7-point scale, p=0.005). Technical satisfaction scores climbed for both groups throughout treatment, but they remained significantly higher for patients receiving additional consults, reaching 6.6 out of seven for that group, compared to 5.5 for the standard care group (p=0.002).

    Overall satisfaction was also significantly higher after the first treatment for patients who received physics consults (6.7 vs. 6.0 on a 7-point scale, p=0.014). While satisfaction rose for both groups following the first treatment, it remained significantly higher for the consult group until the end of treatment (6.9 vs. 6.2, p=0.001).

    Dr. Atwood said he was excited to see how long the benefits of supplemental consultation endured. “It has a lasting impact,” he said. “We’ve thought medical physics consults had great potential for years, but now we have a clearer understanding of how they positively impact the patient experience.”

    While other members of the care team could also be called upon to provide patients with a deeper understanding of their care, Dr. Atwood said he believes medical physicists were uniquely suited to the role because they were so familiar with the science driving the technology being used.

    “People don’t realize how personalized this therapy actually is. Medical physicists work behind the scenes to make sure this personalized treatment is both safe and effective. Our study indicates that there also can be a patient-facing role that will allow medical physicists to add more value to the patient experience” he said.

    ###

    Attribution to the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting is requested in all coverage.

    See this study presented:

    • Examining the impact of direct patient care for medical physicists: A randomized prospective phase III trial (Abstract 7)
    • News Briefing: Monday, October 24, 9:00 a.m. Central time. Details here.
    • Scientific Presentation: Clinical Trials Session, Sunday, October 23, 10:20 a.m. Central time, Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center. Details here; email [email protected] for access.
    • Journal Citation: Atwood TF, Brown DW, Murphy JD, et al. Examining the Effect of Direct Patient Care for Medical Physicists: A Randomized Prospective Phase III Trial [published online ahead of print, 2022 Oct 24]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.05.014

     

    ABOUT ASTRO

    The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) is the largest radiation oncology society in the world, with nearly 10,000 members who are physicians, nurses, biologists, physicists, radiation therapists, dosimetrists and other health care professionals who specialize in treating patients with radiation therapies. For information on radiation therapy, visit RTAnswers.org. To learn more about ASTRO, visit our website and media center and follow us on social media.

     

    [ad_2]

    American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO)

    Source link

  • New Analysis Led by Ucla Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Finds Timing Androgen-Deprivation Therapy with Radiation Therapy Improves Outcomes in Localized Prostate Cancer

    New Analysis Led by Ucla Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Finds Timing Androgen-Deprivation Therapy with Radiation Therapy Improves Outcomes in Localized Prostate Cancer

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — UCLA Research Brief

    BOTTOM LINE:

    Men with prostate cancer who are receiving radiation often benefit from adding to the treatment androgen deprivation therapy, a form of medication that reduces testosterone. Historically, men have been placed on androgen deprivation therapy prior to beginning radiation. In a large analysis of over 7,000 men treated internationally across 12 randomized trials, Dr. Kishan and colleagues have shown that it is almost universally optimal for men to begin androgen deprivation therapy when starting radiation, so that most of the period of having a low testosterone is “backloaded” after radiation is complete.

    BACKGROUND

    Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), also called hormone-suppression therapy, has consistently been shown to improve survival rates when added to radiation therapy (RT) for lower-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. However, the optimal sequencing of ADT for these patients remains controversial. Two previous studies suggested that ADT beginning with RT and continuing afterward may be superior to the before-and-during RT sequencing option, but both randomized trials had limitations that made it difficult to infer broad conclusions, according to the authors. 

    Based on those trials, this study’s researchers theorized that concurrent/adjuvant ADT sequencing would offer improved metastasis-free survival compared with neoadjuvant/ concurrent ADT sequencing in patients receiving short-term (four to six months) therapy in a RT field size-dependent manner.

    This meta-analysis was designed to investigate how the sequencing of ADT combined with RT administered via prostate-only RT or whole-pelvis RT might impact outcomes for prostate cancer patients.

    FINDINGS

    The analysis examined more than 7,400 patient records, including 6,325 patients who had received ADT before and during (neoadjuvant/concurrent) their radiation therapy and 1,084 patients who received ADT during and after (concurrent/adjuvant) undergoing RT. The median follow-up period was 10.2 years.

    Researchers observed a significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size for all study endpoints except overall survival. For patients receiving prostate-only RT, ADT occurring during and after radiation was associated with improved metastasis-free survival compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT.

    However, with patients receiving whole-pelvis RT, no significant difference was observed with ADT sequencing, except greater distant metastasis occurrence among those who had concurrent/adjuvant ADT.  However, that finding should be interpreted with caution due to details on how the individual trials were structured.

    The study appears in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.         

    CONCLUSION

    The authors concluded that ADT sequencing demonstrated a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a strong correlation to RT field size. They believe that concurrent and adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with prostate-only RT.

    METHODS

    The researchers conducted a new analysis of individual patient data from 12 randomized trials in which patients received short-term ADT either before and during their radiation therapy or during and after for localized prostate cancer. Data was obtained through the Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium, a first-of-its-kind repository for worldwide clinical trials involving patients with prostate cancer. The consortium was co-founded in 2020 by Drs. Amar Kishan of the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and Daniel Spratt with University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland.

    Their analysis included performing inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with propensity scores derived from factors such as age, initial PSA score, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival and overall survival were assessed by Cox regression models adjusted for IPTW and analyzed independently for men receiving prostate-only RT versus whole-pelvis RT. Adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

    EXPERT COMMENTS

    “To our knowledge, this study represents the first time a significant association has been demonstrated between concurrent and adjuvant ADT sequencing and overall survival rates among prostate cancer patients,” said Kishan, corresponding author for the study. “For patients receiving prostate-only RT, concurrent/adjuvant sequencing is associated with optimal outcomes.”

    Kishan, who is vice-chair of Clinical and Translational Research and chief of genitourinary oncology for Radiation Oncology at UCLA, noted that the results should be “considered practice-changing with regards to how ADT is sequenced with radiation for patients getting short courses of ADT with prostate radiation.”

    He says future trials currently in the pipeline may yield more answers about the benefit of neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT sequencing with whole-pelvis RT in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

    AUTHORS

    First author Ting Martin Ma is with the UCLA Department of Radiation Oncology, as is corresponding author Kishan, who also represents the MARCAP consortium. Yilun Sun, an equal contributor to the study, is with Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. MARCAP co-founder Spratt also was an equal study contributor. Other authors are listed in the publication.  

    FUNDING / POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

    Kishan reports funding support from grant P50CA09213 from the Prostate Cancer National Institutes of Health Specialized Programs of Research Excellence and grant W81XWH-22-1-0044 from the Department of Defense, as well as grant RSD1836 from the Radiological Society of North America. Additional funding came from the STOP Cancer organization, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation and American Society of Radiation Oncology, as well as donations from the DeSilva, McCarrick and Bershad families.

    No other authors had conflicts to declare.

    DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00970

    ###

    [ad_2]

    University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Health Sciences

    Source link

  • Will the Bivalent Booster Cause Worse Side Effects?

    Will the Bivalent Booster Cause Worse Side Effects?

    [ad_1]

    For as long as my marriage lasts, my household will be divided by reactions to vaccines.

    I am, fortunately, speaking of physical reactions rather than ideological ones; my partner and I are both shot enthusiasts, a fact we verified on our first date. But if my immune system is a bashful wallflower, rarely triggering more than a sore arm in the hours after I get a vaccine, then my spouse’s is a party animal. Every immunization I’ve watched him receive—among them, four doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine—has absolutely clobbered him with fevers, chills, fatigue, and headaches for about a full day. When he got the flu shot and the bivalent COVID jab together a few weeks ago, he ended up taking his first day off work in more than a decade. As usual, the same injections caused me so few symptoms that I wondered if I was truly dead inside.

    “Why don’t you feel anything?” my spouse howled at me from the bedroom, where his sweat was soaking through the sheets. “Sorry,” I yelled back from the kitchen, where I was prepping four days’ worth of meals between work calls after returning from an eight-mile run.

    If this is how every autumn will go from now on, so be it: A few hours of discomfort is still worth the rev-up in defenses that vaccines offer against serious disease and death. But it’s not hard to see that gnarly side effects will only add to the many other factors that work against COVID-vaccine uptake, including lack of awareness, sloppy messaging, dwindling access, and spotty community outreach. Back in the spring, when I spoke with several people who hadn’t gotten boosters despite being eligible for many, many months, several of them cited the post-shot discomfort as a reason. Now I’m getting texts and calls from family members and friends—all up to date on their previous COVID vaccines—admitting they’ve been dillydallying on the bivalent to avoid those symptoms too. “I don’t know if we’re going to continue to get strong buy-in from the public if they have this sort of reaction every year,” says Cindy Leifer, an immunologist at Cornell University.

    The good news, at least, is that experts told me they don’t expect this bivalent recipe—or future autumn COVID shots, for that matter—to be worse, side-effect-wise, than the ones we’ve received before. It’ll take a while for data to confirm that, especially considering that more than a month into this fall’s rollout, fewer than 15 million Americans have received the updated shot. But Kathleen Neuzil, a vaccinologist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine who has studied the performance of COVID vaccines in clinical trials, pointed out to me that the mRNA shots’ ingredients have been swapped out before without altering the rate of side effects. As the alphabet soup of variants began to sweep the world in early 2021, she told me, vaccine makers started to tinker with alternate formulations, sometimes combining multiple versions of the spike protein into a single shot—“and they’re all comparable.” (If anything, early data suggest that bivalent shots containing an Omicron variant spike may be easier to take.) The same goes for flu vaccines, which are also retooled each year: When measured across the population, the frequency and intensity of side effects remain more or less the same.

    On average, then, mRNA-vaxxed people can probably expect to have an annual experience that’s pretty similar to the one they had with their first COVID booster. As studies have shown, that one was actually better for most people than dose No. 2, the most unpleasant of the injections so far. (The math, of course, becomes tougher for people getting another vaccine, such as the flu shot, at the same time.) There are probably two main reasons why side effects have lessened overall, experts told me. First, the spacing: Most people received the second dose in their Pfizer or Moderna primary series just three or four weeks after the first. That’s an efficient way to get a lot of people “fully vaccinated” in a short period of time, but it means that many of the immune system’s defensive cells and molecules will still be on high alert. The second shot could end up fanning a blaze of inflammation that was never quite put out. In line with that, researchers have found that spacing out the primary-series doses to eight weeks, 12 weeks, or even longer can prune some side effects.

    Dose matters a lot too: Vaccines are, in a way, stimulants meant to goad the immune system into reacting; bigger servings should induce bigger jolts. When vaccine makers were tinkering with their recipes in early trials, higher doses—including ones that were deemed too large for further testing—produced more side effects. Each injection in Moderna’s primary series contains more than three times the mRNA packaged into Pfizer’s, and Moderna has, on average, caused more intense side effects. But Moderna’s booster and bivalent doses contain a smaller scoop of the stimulating material: People 12 and older, for instance, get 50 micrograms instead of the 100 micrograms in each primary dose; kids 6 to 11 years old get 25 micrograms instead of 50. (All of Pfizer’s doses stay the same size across primaries and boosters, as long as people stay in the same age group.) People who switch between brands, then, may also notice a difference in symptoms.

    It’s a tricky balance, though. Sometimes, the immune system adjusts the magnitude of its protection to match the danger posed by a pathogen (or shot), a bit like titrating a crisis response to the severity of a threat—so it’s important that vaccine makers don’t undershoot. For better or worse, the mRNA-based COVID vaccines do seem to cause a rougher response than most other vaccines, including annual flu shots. One of the offending ingredients might be the mRNA itself, which codes for SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein. But Michela Locci, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told me that the mRNA’s packaging—a greasy fat bubble called a lipid nanoparticle—may be the more likely culprit. For some people, in any case, the side effects of COVID shots might be on par with those of the two-dose Shingrix vaccine, one of the most infamously reactogenic immunizations in our roster. Leifer, who has received both, told me the second dose of each “floored” her to about the same extent.

    The fact that I get fewer side effects than my spouse does not imply that I’m any less protected. A ton of factors—genetics, hormone levels, age, diet, sleep, stress, pain tolerance, and more—could potentially influence how someone experiences a shot. Women tend to have more reactive bodies, as do younger people. But there are exceptions to those trends: I’m one of them. The whole topic is understudied, Locci told me. Her own recent experience with the bivalent threw her for a loop. After her first, second, and third dose of Moderna each ratcheted up in side-effect severity, she cleared her calendar for the couple of days following her bivalent, “afraid I was going to be in bed with a fever again,” she said: “But it was a light headache for a morning, and then it was over.” She has no idea what next year will bring.

    Either way, side effects such as fevers and chills tend to be short-lived. “Very few side effects are severe,” Neuzil told me, “and COVID continues to be a severe disease.” Still, Grace Lee, a pediatrician at Stanford and the chair of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, hopes that scientists will keep developing new COVID vaccines that might come with fewer post-shot issues—including the very rare ones, such as myocarditis—without sacrificing immune protection. Lee doesn’t tend to react much to vaccines, but her daughter “always misses school the next day,” she told me. “I plan her shots for a Friday afternoon so she can lay out all Saturday.” Early on, when hardly anyone had immunity to the virus, signing everyone up for somewhat reactogenic shots was a no-brainer—especially given the hope that two doses would yield many, many years of protection. Now that we know it’s a repeated need, Neuzil said, “the equation changes a bit.”

    People aren’t totally helpless against side effects. Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona, had an “awful, terrible” experience with his second and third doses, which slammed him with 102- and 103-degree fevers, respectively. He weathered the side effects without intervention, worried that a painkiller would curb not just the agony, but also his protective immune response. This time, though, armed with new knowledge from his own lab that anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving drugs don’t blunt antibody levels, “the first sign I feel even the slightest bit shitty,” he told me, “I’m dosing up.”

    I’ll probably do the same for my spouse the next time he’s due for a vaccine of any kind … likely while I chill on the sidelines. Bhattacharya’s spouse, too, is kind of an immune introvert, a fact that he bemoans. “Her only side effect was she felt thirsty,” he said. “It’s just not fair.”

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Landmark Clinical Study Finds Aspirin as Effective as Commonly Used Blood Thinner to Prevent Life-Threatening Blood Clots and Death After Fracture Surgery

    Landmark Clinical Study Finds Aspirin as Effective as Commonly Used Blood Thinner to Prevent Life-Threatening Blood Clots and Death After Fracture Surgery

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Patients who have surgery to repair bone fractures typically receive a type of injectable blood thinner, low-molecular-weight heparin, to prevent life-threatening blood clots, but a new clinical trial found that over-the-counter aspirin is just as effective. The findings, presented today at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meeting in Tampa, FL, could cause surgeons to change their practice and administer aspirin instead to these patients.

    The multi-center randomized clinical trial of more than 12,000 patients at 21 trauma centers in the U.S. and Canada, is the largest-ever trial in orthopedic trauma patients. The trial was co-led by the Department of Orthopaedics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) and the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    “We expect our findings from this large-scale trial to have an important impact on clinical practice, and potentially even change the standard of care,” said the study’s principal investigator Robert V. O’Toole, MD, the Hansjörg Wyss Medical Foundation Endowed Professor in Orthopaedic Trauma at UMSOM and head of the school’s Division of Orthopaedic Traumatology. “Orthopaedic trauma patients are commonly prescribed the blood thinner low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent blood clots for weeks following surgery. Not only does the medication need to be injected, it can also be quite expensive compared to aspirin.”

    Blood clots cause as many as 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Patients who experience fractures that require surgery – an estimated 1 million people in the U.S. annually – are at increased risk of developing blood clots in the veins, including a fatal pulmonary embolism, which is a clot in the lung. Current guidelines recommend prescribing low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin), although research in total joint replacement surgery suggested a potential benefit of aspirin as a less-expensive, widely available option.

    Dr. O’Toole, who is also Chief of Orthopaedics at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), presented the results of the landmark clinical trial at the OTA annual meeting. The $12 million study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), (PCS-1511-32745), an independent, nonprofit organization that finances research to help patients and clinicians make better-informed healthcare decisions.

    The study enrolled 12,211 patients with leg or arm fractures that necessitated surgery or pelvic fractures regardless of the specific treatment. Half were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of injectable low-molecular-weight heparin twice daily. The other half received 81 mg of aspirin twice daily. The follow-up period after surgery was 90 days.

    The main finding of the study was that aspirin was “noninferior,” or no worse, than low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing death from any cause – 47 patients in the aspirin group died compared with 45 patients in the heparin group. Secondary outcomes noted no differences in non-fatal pulmonary embolism. The incidence of bleeding complications and all other safety outcomes was similar in both groups.  Of all the outcomes studied, the one potential difference noted was fewer blood clots in the legs in the low-molecular-weight heparin group. This relatively small difference was driven by clots lower in the leg, which are of unclear clinical importance.

    “With data from more than 12,000 patients, this study provides clear evidence that aspirin is a viable option for preventing blood clots in the lung and death in patients who require surgery for orthopaedic trauma,” said Andrew Pollak, MD, the James Lawrence Kernan Professor and Chair of the Department of Orthopedics at UMSOM and Senior Vice President and Chief Clinical Officer for the 11-hospital University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS).

    The trial was called PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma, or PREVENT CLOT. Patients enrolled in the trial were treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at UMMC and 20 other trauma centers in 15 other states and two in Canada. Recruitment started in April 2017 and continued through 2021. Deborah Stein, MD, MPH, Professor of Surgery at UMSOM and Director of Adult Critical Care Services at UMMC, and Renan Castillo, PhD, an Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, are co-principal investigators.

    “This exciting trial, the largest ever conducted in orthopedic trauma patients, provides important guidance to surgeons in helping to prevent potentially fatal blood clots after fracture surgery by using a medication that is both inexpensive and easy to administer,” said Mark T. Gladwin, MD, Vice President for Medical Affairs, University of Maryland, Baltimore, and the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

     

    About the University of Maryland School of Medicine

    Now in its third century, the University of Maryland School of Medicine was chartered in 1807 as the first public medical school in the United States. It continues today as one of the fastest growing, top-tier biomedical research enterprises in the world — with 46 academic departments, centers, institutes, and programs, and a faculty of more than 3,000 physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals, including members of the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and a distinguished two-time winner of the Albert E. Lasker Award in Medical Research. With an operating budget of more than $1.3 billion, the School of Medicine works closely in partnership with the University of Maryland Medical Center and Medical System to provide research-intensive, academic, and clinically based care for nearly 2 million patients each year. The School of Medicine has nearly $600 million in extramural funding, with most of its academic departments highly ranked among all medical schools in the nation in research funding. As one of the seven professional schools that make up the University of Maryland, Baltimore campus, the School of Medicine has a total population of nearly 9,000 faculty and staff, including 2,500 students, trainees, residents, and fellows. The combined School of Medicine and Medical System (“University of Maryland Medicine”) has an annual budget of over $6 billion and an economic impact of nearly $20 billion on the state and local community. The School of Medicine, which ranks as the 8th highest among public medical schools in research productivity (according to the Association of American Medical Colleges profile), is an innovator in translational medicine, with 606 active patents and 52 start-up companies. In the latest U.S. News & World Report ranking of the Best Medical Schools, published in 2021, the UM School of Medicine is ranked #9 among the 92 public medical schools in the U.S., and in the top 15 percent (#27) of all 192 public and private U.S. medical schools. The School of Medicine works locally, nationally, and globally, with research and treatment facilities in 36 countries around the world. Visit medschool.umaryland.edu

     

    [ad_2]

    University of Maryland School of Medicine

    Source link

  • Phage Trial to Treat CF Patients With Multi-Drug Resistant Bacterial Infections

    Phage Trial to Treat CF Patients With Multi-Drug Resistant Bacterial Infections

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited disorder that causes severe damage to the lungs and other organs in the body. Nearly 40,000 children and adults in the United States live with CF, an often difficult existence exacerbated by an opportunistic bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is a major cause of chronic, life-threatening lung infections.

    P. aeruginosa infections are not easily treated. The pathogen can be resistant to most current antibiotics. However, an early-stage clinical trial led by scientists at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, with collaborators across the country, has launched to assess the safety and efficacy of treating P. aeruginosa lung infections in CF patients with a different biological weapon: bacteriophages.

    Bacteriophages are viruses that have evolved to target and destroy specific bacterial species or strains. Phages are more abundant than all other life forms on Earth combined and are found wherever bacteria exist. Discovered in the early 20th century, they have long been investigated for their therapeutic potential, but increasingly so with the rise and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    In 2016, scientists and physicians at UC San Diego School of Medicine and UC San Diego Health used an experimental intravenous phage therapy to successfully treat and cure colleague Tom Patterson, PhD, who was near death from a multidrug-resistant bacterial infection. Patterson’s was the first documented case in the U.S. to employ intravenous phages to eradicate a systemic bacterial infection. Subsequent successful cases helped lead to creation of the Center for Innovative Phage Applications and Therapeutics (IPATH) at UC San Diego, the first such center in North America.

    In 2020, IPATH researchers published data from 10 cases of intravenous bacteriophage therapy to treat multidrug-resistant bacterial infections, all at UC San Diego. In 7 of 10 cases, there was a successful outcome.

    The new phase 1b/2 clinical trial advances this work. The trial is co-led by Robert Schooley, MD, professor of medicine and an infectious disease expert at UC San Diego School of Medicine who is co-director of IPATH and helped lead the clinical team that treated and cured Patterson in 2016.

    It will consist of three elements, all intended to assess the safety and microbiological activity of a single dose of intravenous phage therapy in males and non-pregnant females 18 years and older, all residing in the United States.

    The dose is a cocktail of four phages that target P. aeruginosa, a bacterial species commonly found in the environment (soil and water) that can cause infections in the blood, lungs and other parts of the body after surgery.

    For persons with CF, P. aeruginosa is a familiar and sometimes fatal foe. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation estimates that roughly half of all people with CF are infected by Pseudomonas. Previous studies have indicated that chronic P. aeruginosa lung infections negatively impact life expectancy of CF patients, who currently live, on average, to approximately 44 years.

    In the first stage of the trial, two “sentinel subjects” will receive one of three dosing strengths of the IV bacteriophage therapy. If, after 96 hours and no adverse effects, the second stage (2a) will enroll 32 participants into one of four arms: the three doses and a placebo.

    After multiple follow-up visits over 30 days and an analysis of which dosing strength exhibited the most favorable safety and microbiologic activity, i.e. most effective at reducing P. aeruginosa, stage 2b will recruit up to 72 participants to either receive that IV dose or a placebo.

    Enrollment will occur at 16 cystic fibrosis clinical research sites in the United States, including UC San Diego. It is randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled. The trial is being conducted through the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group and funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, with additional support for the UC San Diego trial site from the Mallory Smith Legacy Fund.

    Mallory Smith was born with cystic fibrosis and died in 2017 at the age of 25 from a multidrug-resistant bacterial infection following a double lung transplant.

    “Mallory’s death was a preventable tragedy,” said her mother, Diane Shader Smith. “We are supporting the IPATH trial through Mallory’s Legacy Fund because Mark and I deeply believe in the promise of phage therapy to save lives by combatting multidrug-resistant bacteria.”

    In an article published in 2020 in Nature Microbiology, Schooley and Steffanie Strathdee, PhD, associate dean of global health sciences and Harold Simon Professor in the Department of Medicine and IPATH co-director, describe phages as “living antibiotics.”

    As such, said Schooley, researchers need to learn how to best use them to benefit patients through the same systematic clinical trials employed to evaluate traditional antibiotics.

    The primary objectives of the new trial are first to determine the safety of a single IV phage dose in clinically stable patients with CF who are also infected with P. aeruginosa, said Schooley.

    “Second, it’s to describe the microbiological activity of a single IV dose and third, to assess the benefit-to-risk profile for CF patients with P. aeruginosa infections. This is one study, with a distinct patient cohort and carefully prescribed goals. It’s a step, but an important one that can, if ultimately proven successful, help address the growing, global problem of antimicrobial resistance and measurably improve patients’ lives.”

    Estimated study completion date is early 2025.

    For more information on the clinical trial and participant eligibility criteria, visit clinicaltrials.gov or visit IPATH and click on the Contact Us button.

    # # #

    [ad_2]

    University of California San Diego

    Source link

  • Black Women, Breast Cancer and Clinical Trials

    Black Women, Breast Cancer and Clinical Trials

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — New Brunswick, N.J., Date October 1, 2022 – For Black women, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and as of 2019 has surpassed lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer death in this population, according to the American Cancer Society. Black women continue to experience disparities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, leading to increased mortality of up to 40 percent higher than white women. Researchers are working to improve outcomes for Black women with breast cancer – including through increased participation in clinical trials, which helps find better ways to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer.

    Coral Omene, MD, PhD, medical oncologist at the Stacy Goldstein Breast Cancer Center and member of the Cancer Health Equity Center of Excellence at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, the state’s leading cancer center and only National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center together with RWJBarnabas Health; and an assistant professor of medicine at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, shares more on the topic.

    Diversity matters in breast cancer research. Clinical trials are research studies involving human volunteers to evaluate medications, vaccines, or medical devices for safety and effectiveness and play an essential role in improving patient cancer care and outcomes. Because different populations can respond differently to therapies, clinical trials for breast cancer that include those specific populations are important. Ensuring people from diverse backgrounds participate in clinical trials is key to advancing health equity. 

    Black women are significantly underrepresented in clinical trials. The reasons for this are multi-factorial, including social, economic, structural factors, and communication, and access issues. In particular, a lack of awareness and understanding of clinical trials, compounded by distrust of the medical system all pose barriers to Black women participating.

    We’re working to connect Black women with clinical trials. Rutgers Cancer Institute has recently been awarded a $50,000 grant from the V Foundation for Cancer Research in partnership with ESPN to increase clinical trial awareness and enrollment of Black women with breast cancer. The efforts in this funded proposal to increase clinical trial participation among Black breast cancer patients will include tailored patient education; advocacy and outreach; patient navigation; and physician engagement and outreach. Read the full news release here.

    What can Black women do?

    Black women should feel empowered to take every opportunity available to them to detect breast cancer early through annual mammograms and encourage their family members and friends to do so as well. Black women diagnosed with breast cancer should ask questions, including discussion of clinical trial options and seek second opinions if necessary, so that they are comfortable with their treatment plans. If there are any issues that may pose a barrier to receive treatment or participate in a clinical trial, they should inform the team and be reassured that the medical team is dedicated to helping them navigate or resolve those barriers, so that they can receive the best treatment option. Importantly, they must be engaged in all the avenues available to help decrease breast cancer recurrence.

    Learn more at rwjbh.org/mammo.

    [ad_2]

    Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey

    Source link

  • The Other Abortion Pill

    The Other Abortion Pill

    [ad_1]

    In the months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, demand for medication abortion has soared. The method already accounted for more than half of all abortions in the United States before the Court’s decision; now reproductive-rights activists and sites such as Plan C, which shares information about medication abortion by mail, are fielding an explosion in interest in abortion pills. As authorized by the FDA, medication abortion consists of two drugs. The first one, mifepristone, blocks the hormone progesterone, which is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. The second, misoprostol, brings on contractions of the uterus that expel its contents. The combination is, according to studies conducted in the U.S., somewhere between 95 percent and 99 percent effective in ending a pregnancy and is extremely safe.

    The second drug, misoprostol, can also safely end a pregnancy on its own. That method has long been considered a significantly less effective alternative to the FDA-approved protocol. But a growing body of research has begun to challenge the conventional thinking. In situations where people use pills to end a pregnancy at home, studies have found far higher rates of success for misoprostol-only abortions than were found in clinical settings. One recent study in Nigeria and Argentina showed misoprostol-only abortion to be 99 percent effective.

    Even before new restrictions began to ripple across the U.S., mifepristone—often referred to as “the abortion pill”—was tightly controlled by the FDA, which requires that the drug be dispensed only by doctors certified to prescribe it and only to patients who’ve signed an agency-approved agreement. As efforts to ban that drug intensify, the relative availability of misoprostol, which can be obtained at pharmacies in every state and prescribed by any doctor, could make misoprostol alone a more common option for women seeking abortions, legally or clandestinely.

    Already, the Austria-based nonprofit Aid Access, which helps women in the U.S. order pills through the mail, helped thousands of women procure misoprostol-only regimens in the first months of the coronavirus pandemic, when shipments of mifepristone were disrupted. At least one U.S. abortion provider, Carafem, has been offering its patients a misoprostol-only option for close to two years, and other reproductive-health groups are now considering offering the same regimen. This approach follows a path that has been well established in places around the world, where mifepristone has been scarce or unavailable, but in the U.S., it represents a real shift in abortion provision.

    If in the past mifepristone has garnered the bulk of attention from politicians and the public in the U.S., that focus may owe in part to an oft-told story about the origins of “the abortion pill” and its lone inventor, the renowned French researcher Dr. Étienne-Émile Baulieu. The reality is that of the two drugs, misoprostol has always mattered more.


    For his work on mifepristone, Baulieu won one of the most prestigious prizes in medicine, whose recipients tend to be discussed as candidates for a Nobel Prize, and received France’s Legion of Honor. A lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine called him “a different kind of scientist.” And though the chemists George Teutsch and Alain Belanger actually synthesized the compound, Baulieu became, to American audiences, “the father of the abortion pill.”

    Yet mifepristone is not, by itself, a highly effective abortifacient. Taken alone, the drug ends a pregnancy only about two-thirds of the time, which is why it has always been administered in combination with a prostaglandin—a drug that mimics the function of hormones that promote menstrual cramping and inflammation.

    For years, doctors in Europe had been administering mifepristone with a prostaglandin called sulprostone. The combination was nearly 100 percent effective, but required multiple in-person visits to a clinic or hospital because sulprostone could only be given by injection. “Everyone had been looking for a prostaglandin that didn’t have to be either injected or kept frozen,” says Beverly Winikoff, the founder of Gynuity Health Projects, whose research on medication abortion helped win FDA approval in the United States.

    In Brazil, women had already found one. No individual, or individuals, have ever been widely credited for that discovery, the way Baulieu is credited for mifepristone. But scholars agree that the practice began in the country’s impoverished northeast soon after the drug went on the market in 1986.

    Manufactured by G.D. Searle & Company, misoprostol was developed to treat stomach ulcers. To women in Brazil, where abortion was and remains severely restricted, the warning on the label, to avoid taking the drug while pregnant, advertised its potential as an abortifacient. And when they found the drug safer and more effective than other clandestine methods, misoprostol’s popularity exploded. (To state the obvious, no one should interpret drug warnings for pregnant people as covert advertisements for effective abortion alternatives.)

    Soon, doctors in Brazil reported seeing fewer women with severe abortion-related complications, and Brazilian researchers began documenting the drug’s off-label use. The first such study appeared in a 1991 letter to the editor of The Lancet: Helena Coelho and her colleagues at the University of Ceara had found that knowledge of misoprostol’s capacity to induce abortion had “spread rapidly” among both women and pharmacy personnel. But it had also reached government officials, who limited sales to authorized pharmacies and, in one state, banned misoprostol entirely.

    That same year, Baulieu, the French researcher, announced that he had devised a simpler way to use mifepristone—by combining it with misoprostol, which, unlike sulprostone, could be taken by mouth. Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, Baulieu did reference misoprostol’s use in Brazil, but only as an example of what not to do. Citing anecdotal reports of cranial malformations in infants exposed to misoprostol in utero, he and colleagues claimed that administering misoprostol alone would risk “embryonic abnormalities,” adding that G.D. Searle “strongly disapproved” of the practice.

    The reports of cranial anomalies were never confirmed. But Searle did take pains to prevent the use of misoprostol for abortion, at one point publicly warning doctors in the U.S. against administering the drug to pregnant women. Over time, researchers established other important uses for misoprostol, such as treating miscarriage and preventing postpartum hemorrhage. Yet during the lifetime of its patent, the company refused to research or register the drug for any reproductive-health indication.

    Meanwhile, Brazilian newspapers had seized on the dangers that Baulieu had cited, fueling fears that failed abortions would create “a generation of monsters.” That in turn provided Brazilian authorities with a public-health rationale for regulating misoprostol as a controlled substance, the “possession or supply” of which carries penalties even more punitive than those for drug trafficking. But through informal networks, feminist activists continued helping women access both misoprostol and information about how to safely use it at home. More than three decades later, experts now credit Brazil as the birthplace of self-managed medication abortion.


    In the past few years, researchers have more formally documented what these informal networks established. In clinical trials, medication abortion with misoprostol alone was effective in completing first-trimester abortion roughly 80 percent of the time. As a rule, “We think about clinical-trials data as the gold standard,” says Caitlin Gerdts, a vice president at Ibis Reproductive Health and a senior author on the study in Nigeria and Argentina. Yet when researchers have examined misoprostol’s use in nonclinical settings, they have found far higher rates of success, with 93 to 100 percent of participants reporting complete abortions using only misoprostol. Given the many studies showing high effectiveness in self-managed settings, Gerdts says, “I think it’s time to reconsider the idea of the clinical trials data as being paramount.”

    One reason for the greater effectiveness of misoprostol alone in studies of self-managed abortion may have to do with how the studies were designed. “The problem with clinical trials is that often when we ask somebody to follow up in a week or two weeks, the body hasn’t had enough time to expel all of the products of conception,” says Dr. Angel Foster, a health-science professor at the University of Ottawa, whose work on the Thailand-Myanmar border was the first to rigorously investigate the effectiveness of misoprostol alone for abortion outside a formal health system. “If there’s a smudge on an ultrasound, it’s not that there’s a continuing pregnancy—it’s just debris. But rather than let the uterus absorb it or expel it, we do an evacuation procedure and we count it as a failure.” In studies of self-managed abortion, she says, the follow-up period tends to be longer—three or four weeks—and surgical intervention may not always be an option.

    “I do think because of the way it’s been treated in clinical trials, misoprostol has been defined as much less effective than we now believe it to be,” Foster says. “We talk about mifepristone as ‘the abortion pill,’ but I think it’s more appropriate to think of it as a pretreatment or an adjunct therapy. Because it’s really the misoprostol that’s doing the lion’s share of the work.”

    Elizabeth Raymond, a senior medical associate at Gynuity and the lead author of a systematic review of clinical trials on the use of misoprostol alone for early abortion, acknowledges that the clinical studies may have been too quick to intervene. But she says the shorter follow-up period was not without reason. Using ultrasound and a blood test to measure the amount of hCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, doctors can diagnose a complete abortion “quite quickly, certainly within one or two weeks,” she says, “and the researchers wanted to do the assessments as soon as reasonable. They saw no sense in delaying.” Raymond suspects that misoprostol alone isn’t quite as effective as reported in the study in Nigeria and Argentina, in part because that study relied on its subjects to self-report whether the abortion was complete. “I think it’s an intriguing study, and it’s true that misoprostol alone is more effective than we thought,” she says, “but I think the general feeling is, if you can get both drugs, you should do that. The combination is more effective, and it may cause less cramping and bleeding.”

    Those side effects aren’t a safety concern, says Dr. Julie Amaon, the medical director of Just the Pill, which delivers abortion medication to people in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and Minnesota. “But it’s something to keep in mind,” she says, adding that anyone self-managing an abortion at home should adhere to the WHO-recommended protocol and follow up with a doctor, whether in person, by phone, or by text, to ensure that the process is complete. In the U.S., the FDA has approved only the two-drug regimen; although the WHO’s recommendations also suggest a preference for medication abortion with both drugs, that agency does recommend misoprostol-only abortion “in settings where mifepristone is not available.”

    Right now, lawmakers across the U.S. are working to put both drugs out of reach. Fourteen states now fully or partially ban both mifepristone and misoprostol. Of the two drugs, though, misoprostol is still more easily obtained, either by prescription in pharmacies or via nonprofit groups in the U.S. and overseas. The Biden administration has said that it intends to maintain access to medication abortion, but so far has not acted to ease the stricter regulations on mifepristone. As long as those restrictions remain in place, ending a pregnancy with misoprostol alone could become a more common choice for people with few options.

    According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health-research group that supports abortion rights, though the rate is difficult to measure, in the past self-managed abortions probably haven’t occurred in the U.S. on a large scale. But as conditions in red states come to resemble those in Brazil, the practice could become more and more common. In this way, says Mariana Prandini Assis, a Brazilian social scientist who has written extensively on abortion, the fall of Roe may well lead to the normalization in America of self-managed abortion with pills—a choice once thought of as a last resort or an act of desperation. For that reason, she says, the Brazilian women who pioneered the use of misoprostol for abortion should be considered the “other inventors of ‘the abortion pill.’”

    [ad_2]

    Patrick Adams

    Source link