ReportWire

Tag: Gene Therapy

  • Gene Therapy Slows Huntington’s by 75% in ‘Groundbreaking’ Clinical Trial

    [ad_1]

    Doctors in the UK are claiming to have performed a monumental medical breakthrough. Using a form of gene therapy, they successfully treated—for the first time—the neurodegenerative disorder Huntington’s disease.

    On Wednesday, the company uniQure announced the results of its phase I/II trial testing the therapy, code-named AMT-130. The trial, conducted with the help of researchers from University College London, found that AMT-130 slowed the progression of people’s symptoms by 75%. It also appeared to reduce the death of brain cells, a signature feature of the disease. It’s still early days, but the results could soon herald the arrival of a remarkable treatment for the currently life-shortening condition.

    “I believe these groundbreaking data are the most convincing in the field to date and underscore potential disease-modifying effects in Huntington’s disease, where an urgent need persists,” said Sarah Tabrizi, director of the UCL Huntington’s Disease Center and the study’s lead scientific advisor, in a statement from UCL.

    A genetic curse

    The disease is triggered by a mutation in the huntingtin gene, which causes the body to produce a defective version of the huntingtin protein. This mutant protein then gradually destroys brain cells, particularly those found in the areas that govern movement and cognition. The genetic mutation that causes Huntington’s is dominant, meaning people only need to have one copy of it from a parent for the disease to occur; as such, a person has a 50% chance of inheriting it if one of their parents carries the mutation.

    People typically live into their 30s and 40s before symptoms appear, such as trouble moving. But the disease progressively worsens from there, and people will eventually develop dementia and other serious health problems. Most people with Huntington’s only live 15 to 20 years once the illness manifests. And though there are treatments that can help people manage their symptoms, there is no therapy that will stave off its inevitable destruction of the brain—until now, quite possibly.

    Short-circuiting Huntington’s

    AMT-130 is intended to short-circuit the process by which Huntington’s slowly kills off the brain.

    Using a neutered virus to deliver DNA to a person’s brain cells, the therapy instructs these cells to produce a small bit of genetic material called microRNA. This microRNA should then hamper the cells’ ability to produce huntingtin protein (both the normal and mutant versions), in turn hopefully reducing the damage caused by the disease. And since brain cells aren’t constantly recycled like other parts of the body, the gene therapy ideally only needs to be a one-time treatment.

    The primary part of the trial involved 29 patients with early Huntington’s who were treated with AMT-130 (some patients in the control group would later receive treatment as well). At 36 months, the treatment met its main goal, appearing to slow people’s symptoms by 75%, as judged by a common scale used to assess the illness. Biomarker tests also suggested the treatment prevented further expected brain cell death. What’s more, the results were most impressive in people given the highest dose, indicating a true therapeutic response (the dose-response effect).

    Though none of the patients are being identified, some are still walking despite being expected to require a wheelchair by this point, the BBC reported Wednesday, while one person has returned to work after initially taking a medical retirement. While it’s still too early to know for sure, it’s possible the level of improvement seen with AMT-130 could provide years, even decades, of extended life and good health to patients.

    The therapy also appeared to be safe and tolerable, with most adverse events linked to the general anesthesia and surgery needed to deliver the therapy to the brain.

    The future of AMT-130

    Importantly, the company’s data has yet to be reviewed and evaluated by outside researchers, an important part of the scientific process. So these results remain preliminary for the time being.

    But the company is certainly banking on its data to stand up to scrutiny. It plans to meet with the Food and Drug Administration later this year, and assuming all goes well, will formally submit an application for the therapy’s approval early next year.

    Even if this therapy is approved, however, there will be important questions about how accessible and affordable it will be for the people who need it. Gene therapies are generally very expensive, and AMT-130 is unlikely to be an exception. But for the first time ever, patients with this incurable condition may have real hope.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Cara

    Source link

  • Expect health insurance prices to rise next year, brokers and experts say

    [ad_1]

    Pricey prescriptions and nagging medical costs are swamping some insurers and employers now. Patients may start paying for it next year.

    Health insurance will grow more expensive in many corners of the market in 2026, and coverage may shrink. That could leave patients paying more for doctor visits and dealing with prescription coverage changes.

    Price increases could be especially stark in individual coverage marketplaces, where insurers also are predicting the federal government will end some support that helps people buy coverage.

    “We’re in a period of uncertainty in every health insurance market right now, which is something we haven’t seen in a very long time,” said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at the nonprofit KFF, which studies health care.

    In conference calls to discuss recent earnings reports, insurers ticked off a list of rising costs: More people are receiving care. Visits to expensive emergency rooms are rising, as are claims for mental health treatments.

    Insurers also say more healthy customers are dropping coverage in the individual market. That leaves a higher concentration of sicker patients who generate claims.

    Enrollment in the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces swelled the past few years. But a crackdown on fraud and a tightening of eligibility verifications that were loosened during the COVID-19 pandemic makes it harder for some to stay covered, Jefferies analyst David Windley noted.

    People who use little care “are disappearing,” he said.

    Prescription drugs pose another challenge, especially popular and expensive diabetes and obesity treatments sometimes called GLP-1 drugs. Those include Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zepbound.

    “Pharmacy just gives me a headache, no pun intended,” said Vinnie Daboul, Boston-based managing director of the employee benefits consultant RT Consulting.

    New gene therapies that can come with a one-time cost of more than $2 million also are having an impact, insurance brokers say. Those drugs, which target rare diseases, and some newer cancer treatments are part of the reason Sun Life Financial covered 47 claims last year that cost over $3 million.

    The financial services company covers high-cost claims for employers that pay their own medical bills. Sun Life probably had no claims that expensive a decade ago and maybe “a handful at best” five years ago, said Jen Collier, president of health and risk solutions.

    Some of these drugs are rarely used, but they cause overall costs to rise. That raises insurance premiums.

    “It’s adding to medical (cost growth) in a way that we haven’t seen in the past,” Collier said.

    Price hikes will be most apparent on the Affordable Care Act’s individual coverage marketplaces. Insurers there are raising premiums around 20% in 2026, according to KFF, which has been analyzing state regulatory filings.

    But the actual hike consumers see may be much bigger. Enhanced tax credits that help people buy coverage could expire at the end of the year, unless Congress renews them.

    If those go away, customer coverage costs could soar 75% or more, according to KFF.

    Business owner Shirley Modlin worries about marketplace price hikes. She can’t afford to provide coverage for the roughly 20 employees at 3D Design and Manufacturing in Powhatan, Virginia, so she reimburses them $350 a month for coverage they buy.

    Modlin knows her reimbursement only covers a slice of what her workers pay. She worries another price hike might push some to look for work at a bigger company that offers benefits.

    “My employee may not want to go to work for a large corporation, but when they consider how they have to pay their bills, sometimes they have to make sacrifices,” she said.

    Costs also have been growing in the bigger market for employer-sponsored coverage, the benefits consultant Mercer says. Employees may not feel that as much because companies generally pay most of the premium.

    But they may notice coverage changes.

    About half the large employers Mercer surveyed earlier this year said they are likely or very likely to shift more costs to their employees. That may mean higher deductibles or that people have to pay more before they reach the out-of-pocket maximum on their coverage.

    For prescriptions, patients may see caps on those expensive obesity treatments or limits on who can take them.

    Some plans also may start using separate deductibles for their pharmaceutical and medical benefits or having patients pay more for their prescriptions, Daboul said.

    Coverage changes could vary around the country, noted Emily Bremer, president of a St. Louis-based independent insurance agency, The Bremer Group.

    Employers aren’t eager to cut benefits, she said, so people may not see dramatic prescription coverage changes next year. But that may not last.

    “If something doesn’t give with pharmacy costs, it’s going to be coming sooner than we’d like to think,” Bremer said.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gene therapy may cure rare diseases. But drugmakers have few incentives, leaving families desperate

    Gene therapy may cure rare diseases. But drugmakers have few incentives, leaving families desperate

    [ad_1]

    Robin Alderman faces an agonizing reality: Gene therapy might cure her son Camden’s rare, inherited immune deficiency. But it’s not available to him.

    In 2022, London-based Orchard Therapeutics stopped investing in an experimental treatment for the condition, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. And there are no gene therapy studies he can join.

    “We feel like we are the forgotten,” said Alderman, who’s advocated for her 21-year-old son since he was a baby.

    Collectively, about 350 million people worldwide suffer from rare diseases, most of which are genetic. But each of the 7,000 individual disorders affects perhaps a few in a million people or less. There’s little commercial incentive to develop or bring to market these one-time therapies to fix faulty genes or replace them with healthy ones. This leaves families like the Aldermans scrambling for help and some trying to raise money themselves for cures that may never come.

    “These kids have been unfortunate twice: A, because they got a genetic disease, and B, because the disease is so rare that nobody cares,” said Dr. Giulio Cossu, a professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Manchester in England. “Companies want to make a profit.”

    Scientists say this dynamic threatens to thwart progress in the nascent gene therapy field, erasing the potential of a new type of medicine just as a steady stream of research points toward promising treatments for various disorders. Researchers are seeking solutions, often turning to charitable organizations, patient groups and governments.

    A major Italian charity announced in February that it’s taking over the Wiskott-Aldrich treatment Orchard had been pursuing. And an arm of the charitable Foundation Fighting Blindness helped launch a company, Opus Genetics, to advance gene therapy work by University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. Jean Bennett and a colleague.

    In many ways, that effort was inspired by patients’ families.

    “Some of them have bake sales. One family mortgaged their house to give some money for a study for their rare disease,” Bennett said. “I just feel responsible to help them.”

    The Aldermans have faced years of pain and frustration.

    Camden Alderman was diagnosed as a baby with Wiskott-Aldrich, caused by a mutated gene on the X chromosome. It primarily affects boys – up to 10 out of every million — and can cause frequent infections, eczema and excessive bleeding.

    When he was a toddler, doctors removed his spleen because of uncontrolled bleeding. As a young boy, he wound up in the hospital many times and was told he couldn’t play baseball.

    One treatment is a bone marrow transplant. But he is Black and has Korean heritage, making it difficult to find a donor — people are most likely to match with someone of similar ancestral or ethnic backgrounds. Robin Alderman recalls one doctor saying: “Basically, your son’s only chance at a cure is going to be gene therapy.”

    He also told her researchers weren’t then accepting U.S. residents into a clinical trial, which “just kind of broke my heart,” she said.

    Today, Camden Alderman is a rising senior at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. He takes penicillin daily and gives himself weekly immunoglobulin infusions under his skin, which help fight infection. Still, he’s landed in the hospital a few times in recent years and has developed a kidney problem.

    While he doesn’t view gene therapy as a cure-all, he said, “it would just help me kind of lead an easier life.”

    That’s proved true for patients who underwent the experimental therapy, such as Dr. Priya Stephen’s 14-year-old son, who participated in a clinical trial in Italy that accepted Americans at the time.

    While Stephen is grateful, she said, she can’t help feeling guilty that her family got an opportunity others don’t: “It’s ethically just not acceptable to have a treatment that we know works, that we know is safe, that people all of a sudden can’t access.”

    For a while, it seemed gene therapy for Wiskott-Aldrich was on track for wider availability. Genethon, a French nonprofit research organization, sponsored promising clinical trials but didn’t have funding to continue development, CEO Frédéric Revah said.

    Drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline transferred another therapy to Orchard, which announced in 2019 that it had secured a designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration meant to speed up development and review. But Orchard discontinued investment in this and two other rare-disease treatments a couple of years ago, with CEO Dr. Bobby Gaspar saying the company sympathized with affected families and would look for other ways to advance the therapies.

    “There’s a huge number of diseases out there that could benefit from gene therapy but for which there is no profitability model because the investment for research is high, the cost of production is high and the number of patients is very low,” Revah said.

    Most genetic conditions are rare — each affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. at any given time. Research hasn’t made it past early stages for many of them.

    Lacey Henderson’s daughter, 5-year-old Estella, has alternating hemiplegia of childhood, a neurological condition that affects 300 people in the U.S. Estella is cognitively delayed, has limited use of her hands and becomes temporarily paralyzed in part or all of her body, Henderson said. Medications can curb symptoms, but there’s no cure.

    Her Iowa family fundraises through a GoFundMe and a website to develop a gene therapy. They’ve brought in around $200,000.

    “We have three different projects with various researchers,” Henderson said. “But the problem is everything is underfunded.”

    Financial disincentives plague the process, from drug discovery to development, scientists say.

    The amount of work to get from a lab to human testing and through the drug-approval process is “incredibly expensive,” said Dr. Donald Kohn, professor of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    In the last couple of years, he said, gene-therapy investment has largely dried up.

    “If you have to spend $20 million or $30 million to get approval and you have five or 10 patients a year, it’s hard to get a return on investment,” Kohn said. “So we have successful, safe therapies, but it’s more the financial, economic elements that are limiting them from becoming approved drugs.”

    Ultimately, most biotechnology companies become public and must focus on shareholder profit, said Francois Vigneault, CEO of the Seattle biotech Shape Therapeutics.

    “The board is the thing that gets in the way; they’re trying to maximize gain,” said Vigneault, whose company is privately held. “That’s just greed. That’s just incentive misaligned between corporate company structure and what we should do that’s good for the world.”

    Even when treatments make it to market, they might not stay there. The same year Orchard stopped investing in the Wiskott-Aldrich treatment, it also stopped distributing a drug called Strimvelis, approved in Europe to treat the rare disease ADA-SCID, or “bubble boy syndrome.”

    Claire Booth, professor of gene therapy and pediatric immunology at University College London, is among those working for change. She co-founded Access to Gene Therapies for Rare Disease, which brings together people across Europe representing academic groups, patient advocates, regulators, funders and drugmakers. They hope to create an independent nonprofit that can support market authorization and access to therapies that aren’t commercially sustainable.

    A related effort in the U.S., The Bespoke Gene Therapy Consortium, was organized by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and includes the FDA, various NIH institutes, and several drug companies and nonprofits. The group’s goals include supporting a handful of clinical trials and exploring ways to streamline regulatory processes.

    Some researchers are trying to address the problem scientifically. Dr. Anna Greka said the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard has launched an effort to look at commonalities behind various conditions — or nodes, which can be likened to branches meeting at a tree trunk. Fixing the nodes with gene therapies or other treatments, rather than particular “misspellings” in DNA responsible for one disorder, could address multiple diseases simultaneously.

    “What this does is it increases the number of patients who can benefit from the therapy,” said Greka, a Broad member. “It also makes it infinitely easier or more attractive to anyone, like a biopharmaceutical company, to take the project forward and try to bring it toward the clinic, because they’re going to have a bigger market.”

    Meanwhile, affected families are partnering with each other and scientists to help move the needle. Genethon was created by an association of patients and their relatives to develop treatments for several rare diseases. And a leader of the foundation involved in Opus Genetics has a child with a rare genetic retinal disease.

    There’s also new hope for families dealing with Wiskott-Aldrich and bubble boy disease. Last year, the Telethon Foundation in Italy took on responsibility of producing and distributing Strimvelis. This year, the charity announced it was selected for a pilot program of the European Medicines Agency that could help guide its Wiskott-Aldrich gene therapy through the regulatory process there.

    Still, scientists say these efforts don’t negate the larger financial quandary surrounding therapies for rare diseases, and it may be a while before such genetic treatments are available to patients worldwide.

    “This is a massive challenge, and I’m not entirely sure we’re going to be able to overcome it,” Booth said. “But we have to give it a go because we’ve spent decades and millions making these transformative treatments. And if we don’t try, then it feels like the end of an era.”

    ____

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: This California millionaire is peddling eternal life. Why do so many people believe him?

    Opinion: This California millionaire is peddling eternal life. Why do so many people believe him?

    [ad_1]

    For a moment, I fell under the spell of Bryan Johnson.

    Bathed in early-morning sunlight, the 46-year-old L.A.-based tech centimillionaire and longevity celebrity didn’t look much younger than his age, although he claims to have the wrinkles of a 10-year-old and organs that are several years younger than his lifespan.

    We were standing at the Temescal Canyon trailhead in Pacific Palisades on Jan. 13, ahead of a Johnson-sponsored “Don’t Die” hike, one of many organized across the world that day and the only one hosted by him. Of the 500-plus people who had RSVP’d for the L.A. event, about 200 showed up. Some had slept in their cars to make it.

    “The world is so full of things that take us away from what we truly want,” he told the crowd.

    Opinion Columnist

    Jean Guerrero

    Jean Guerrero is the author, most recently, of “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump and the White Nationalist Agenda.”

    Johnson led us in a breathing exercise, swaying his pale and sinewy body to the electronic dance music song “Sundream” by Rüfüs Du Sol. Eyes closed, arms draped over neighbors, his fans inhaled and exhaled slowly. Restaurant servers and retail workers embraced corporate executives and real estate brokers. In their regular lives, many of these Gen Zers, millennials and baby boomers were worlds apart. Here, they were connected by a desire to live a long time — maybe forever.

    Blueprint, Johnson’s wellness program, has gained a cult-like fan base in L.A. and beyond. Follow the regimen, he says, and decrease your biological age, although scientists and others criticize his approach. He’s just one subject, they say, and he tries many anti-aging methods at once, making it hard to determine cause and effect.

    Johnson is undeterred.

    “For the first time in the history of Homo sapiens, it’s possible to say with a straight face that death may no longer be inevitable,” he told me on the hike. It’s a statement he has made many times.

    I had learned about Johnson at a party in L.A. months earlier, after noticing my first pesky eye wrinkles at age 35. Though I aspire to age fearlessly, I was feeling anxious about my waning youth in our image-obsessed city.

    One of the party guests, a dermatologist, regaled me with bold and seductive claims about the pace of anti-aging research. He said a wealthy man in L.A. was spending millions on self-experimentation to uncover the secrets of eternal youth in our lifetimes.

    When I Googled him, I was skeptical. A former Mormon from Utah who created a credit-card processing company that sold for $800 million, Johnson now brags about the frequency of his erections and posts photos of himself in which he looks as ghostly as the Roman statues at the Getty. He eats mostly seeds, vegetables and more than 100 daily supplements. He exercises rigorously and pays for red-light therapy, among other things.

    He calls himself a “genetically enhanced human,” having undergone $25,000-a-dose gene therapy in Honduras that’s not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It’s available only on the island of Roatan, where Hondurans say they fear displacement by U.S. billionaires who’ve bulldozed their land to create a regulation-free playground for the rich. The therapy uses follistatin, a morphogenetic hormone that is believed to boost muscle mass and fight inflammation. In one study, it extended the lifespan of mice.

    But in person, Johnson looks human. Physically fit but mortal. Middle-aged.

    In California, Johnson is not unique. Psychonauts and seekers here have long embarked on quixotic quests to transcend our common reality, employing everything from natural medicine and meditation to man-made chemicals and high-tech “transhumanism.” I’m wary of such trends, which can be escapist. I experimented with them as a teen; they made me self-destructive and dissociated.

    But on the hike, Johnson’s fans seemed health-conscious and present. His videos across social media, where he has more than 1.6 million followers, encouraged them to prioritize self-care, they told me. They weren’t so sure about Johnson’s immortality claims, but they believed in his wellness aims.

    I met a 54-year-old cancer survivor who said she reversed her Type 2 diabetes to pre-diabetes using Johnson’s advice.

    Another hiker, David McGill-Soriano, a 26-year-old Long Beach resident and gang prevention counselor, had been hit by a car. He found Johnson on YouTube while bedridden with a fractured tibia and other injuries. Johnson’s faith in human perfectibility, he told me, inspired him to work to regain his strength.

    “I’m so thankful for the Blueprint,” he said.

    While some see Johnson’s Blueprint as a way to defy grind culture, others see it as a means to hustle harder.

    “I’m always looking for ways to be a good robot and perform better,” said Diego Padilla, a 48-year-old aerospace executive who was carrying his Yorkshire terrier up the trail. He trusts Johnson because he’d made himself a guinea pig.

    “I do not like animal testing whatsoever,” Padilla told me, cuddling his dog.

    Johnson, who says he’s tried shock therapy on his penis and infusions of his teenage son’s blood plasma to reverse aging, measures numerous biomarkers in his body with a team of doctors and posts the data on his website.

    “I think he is trying to democratize what he’s doing,” Padilla said. The Blueprint website links to devices such as a $150 erection tracker and a $599 epigenetic tracker, in case anyone wants to gather their own data.

    When I found Johnson on the trail, I asked him how a single mom working three jobs could benefit from his program. He told me he was creating a healthy food service that would be cost-competitive with fast food.

    “We’ve basically addressed the accessibility problem,” he said.

    So far, he’s marketing $30 bottles of olive oil he may rebrand as Snake Oil, $39 cocoa powder, $25 macadamia bars and other products.

    Some experts warn against the protocols Johnson promotes. Valter Longo, director of the USC Longevity Institute and professor of biological science, says some of Johnson’s treatment combinations, such as the 100-plus supplements, could be harmful.

    “You can cause short-term benefits, but eventually that will probably turn into long-term problems,” he told me.

    Before pivoting to wellness, Johnson invested in companies that endeavored to make the world programmable into zeros and ones. He spoke of humans as reducible to code, arguing that the future will be less about human or civil rights than about “evolution rights.” And he advocated for the merging of humans and machines.

    “The relationship between human intelligence and artificial intelligence (HI + AI) will necessarily be one of symbiosis,” he wrote in 2016.

    Johnson’s faith in AI is central to what he’s selling at Blueprint. On the website, he describes Blueprint not as a lifestyle brand but as “an algorithm that takes better care of me than I can myself.”

    As we hiked, I told him I was wary of his argument that we should defer to AI for our decisions. I wanted to know why he would encourage people to renounce their free will at a time of rising authoritarianism and the erosion of our autonomy via Big Tech.

    “Don’t you see a risk there?” I asked.

    He replied that it was normal to be skeptical, as his idea was “on par with the biggest ideas that Homo sapiens have ever dealt with,” such as the fact that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe. “This idea that we may not be the best center of decision-making?” I asked. “Exactly right,” he said.

    Johnson argues that humans are self-destructive and that we need AI to save us from ourselves.

    “What I’m suggesting is every human and every system needs to be in check,” he told me, adding that technology will also save the Earth. “We have the same problem with the care of the Earth as we do with our body.”

    As we reached the end of the trail, with its view of the ocean, Johnson announced a dance party. As Rüfüs Du Sol’s “On My Knees” played on a speaker, he bobbed up and down. Other hikers joined in.

    Eventually, the group returned to the trailhead, where Johnson’s team had prepared “nutty pudding” and olive oil shots for everyone. Johnson stood on a picnic table and declared that he was plotting to negotiate discounts for his fans to get the unproved gene therapy in Honduras and other treatments. “We could become a bulk buying club for longevity therapies,” he said, to whoops and cheers.

    “We are going from Homo sapiens to Homo evolutis,” Johnson said. “We are a different species.”

    It was a new form of manifest destiny, 100% California and oblivious to its potential wreckage.

    @jeanguerre



    [ad_2]

    Jean Guerrero

    Source link

  • The Future of GA Treatment

    The Future of GA Treatment

    [ad_1]

    There’s new hope for people living with geographic atrophy (GA), an advanced form of the eye disease dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD). Scientists hope they’re close to new therapies for the condition that’s proven hard to treat in the past.

    In dry AMD, small yellow lesions called drusen form under your eye’s retina. If they grow larger, drusen can block nutrients from reaching the retina and cause cell death. Your eyesight becomes blurred, and if AMD advances to GA, you may have trouble seeing from the center part of your vision.

    There are two forms of AMD, wet and dry. Dry AMD affects around 90% of all people with AMD and usually gets worse more slowly. Although treatments for wet AMD have evolved quickly in the past few years, innovations in the dry form of the condition have come at a slower pace. 

    Michael Cooper, OD, an optometrist and director of medical education at Eyes on Eyecare, calls GA “a currently irreversible, visually devastating disease for millions of people.” 

    “We want to help people with GA take back some control and empower them by identifying GA earlier on, so they can live their life the way they want,” he says. And while vision loss from GA is permanent, future treatments may stop or slow the disease from getting worse over time. 

    Right now, the only treatments that might reduce the progression of dry AMD are vitamins and supplements. And once the illness advances to GA, there are no therapies – vision loss in these areas is permanent. Recently though, researchers have made exciting breakthroughs in pursuing treatments for GA, including medicines and surgery. 

    What Is the Role of the Complement System in GA?

    Many of the emerging treatments for GA work to control a part of your immune system called the complement system. These two systems team up to protect you from things that can make you sick such as viruses and bacteria. Your complement system enhances your immune system by switching on proteins that help keep you healthy.

    About 50 tiny proteins in your blood’s plasma make up your complement system. Normally, these proteins are idle until something triggers them, like when you’re injured or fighting off bacteria. This sets off a protective chain reaction called a cascade, where one protein switches on, followed by another and another.   

    Sometimes, proteins in your complement system work too hard, and your body triggers them too often. When this happens, it raises your chances of disease, including AMD, which can lead to GA.

    What Are Some Promising Treatments for GA?

    The most promising treatments for GA target the complement system. Cooper says researchers haven’t had a strong grasp of the science behind GA, but recently, the complement system “has become the marquee area of geographic atrophy research.”

    Researchers have homed in on two types of protein in your blood, the C3 and C5 proteins. Usually, these proteins get rid of germs that make you ill, but they can cause inflammation and also attack healthy cells.

    Researchers think C3 and C5 play a critical role in whether you’ll get AMD and eventually GA. They’ve been studying treatments that work to keep the complement system in check and slow the growth of GA lesions. While early clinical trials weren’t successful, recent studies have shown more potential.

    Complement Inhibitors

    One possible treatment is an eye injection called a complement inhibitor. It works by slowing C3 and the growth of GA lesions in people with dry AMD. A study of the therapy, named pegcetacoplan (Syfovre), found it can help slow lesion growth in those who have monthly shots and those who get shots every other month. 

    Based on the results of three studies, The FDA has fast-tracked the drug. The fast-track process speeds up the development and review of important new treatments so they can get to people sooner. The FDA considers whether the drug will fill an “unmet medical need,” meaning there’s currently no treatment for a specific medical condition, like geographic atrophy.

    Another complement inhibitor, called avacincaptad pegol (Zimura), slows GA from getting worse by targeting the C5 protein. One study found that people who took the drug, given as an eye injection, slowed GA by around 27% over 12 months. 

    In late 2022, the FDA named the treatment a breakthrough therapy. Like fast track, this process also speeds the development and review of certain drugs. A breakthrough therapy aims to treat a serious condition, and early evidence may show that the drug has an advantage over an available treatment. 

    Besides shots, researchers are also studying complement inhibitors in tablet form. These clinical trials are not as far along as the ones for treatments you take as a shot.

    Gene Therapy Surgery

    One possible downside of eye injections is that you may need them once a month or every 2 months for life. But researchers are looking at another option for GA that you would need just one time. 

    It’s a gene therapy designed to help the eye make a protein called complement factor I (CFI). CFI keeps complement in check, and boosting it with a one-time shot delivered beneath the retina can balance out an overactive complement system. 

    Cooper says gene therapy is the next wave of treatments for GA. “As time progresses, we get more sophisticated with our ability to formulate these medications, and I think we’ll see more of this type of delivery.” 

    Early study data found most people who had the treatment showed higher CFI levels. Some saw these results more than a year post-treatment. Researchers continue to study gene therapy for GA in ongoing clinical trials. 

    Modified Vitamin A

    Vitamin A is essential for vision but can turn toxic and form what scientists call “dimers.” Researchers have long thought that dimers play a role in whether you’ll get dry AMD. Now, they’re studying a chemically modified form of vitamin A that could ward off and treat dry AMD. 

    The drug, a capsule called ALK-001, replaces your body’s natural vitamin A with a version that slows the dimer-making process. Scientists are currently investigating how well the drug works to slow GA.   

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is $3.5 Million a Fair Price for a Lifesaving Gene Therapy?

    Is $3.5 Million a Fair Price for a Lifesaving Gene Therapy?

    [ad_1]

    Feb. 15, 2023 — Gene therapies have the power to cure serious, even fatal, diseases. Yet what captures public attention is often not the transformative effects but the enormous price tags. 

    At $3.5 million, Hemgenix, the new gene therapy for hemophilia B, has recently been named the most expensive drug on the planet, unseating another gene therapy, Skysona.

    “I didn’t believe the prices we’re seeing now would ever happen,” says Colin Young, PhD, director of drug development pipeline research at Tufts Medical Center. “I’m continually amazed every time a new price comes out.”

    Hemgenix is record-setting, but hardly an anomaly. Skysona, a treatment for a rare neurological disorder, launched at $3 million in September 2022. Zynteglo, a gene therapy for a genetic blood disorder, debuted just one month earlier at $2.8 million. In 2019, Zolgensma was priced at $2.1 million as a treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, a fatal genetic disease affecting infants and young children. Several other treatments land in the hundreds of thousands. 

    Yet the remarkable results lead some to call gene therapy a relative bargain. These drugs have the potential — in some cases, the proven ability — to cure illness with a single dose. This liberates patients from the physical, emotional, and financial burden of living with a serious disease, often one requiring highly expensive treatments. 

    “It’s a big paradigm shift,” says Sarah Emond, chief operating officer of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a nonprofit that independently evaluates the cost of medical treatments. “Up until now, most drugs have been something that you take for chronic conditions forever.” 

    That’s because gene therapy does not treat symptoms. It targets the cause, the genetic defect behind a disease, swapping out faulty code or even inserting a gene that’s missing. Sometimes, this happens in a petri dish, and the healthy cells are transferred to the patient. Other times a vector, usually a virus, delivers the genetic material to the patient’s cells. 

    Treatment is currently confined to monogenic diseases — those caused by a single gene mutation — and the conditions are typically rare, with patient populations in the hundreds or low thousands. But treatments for more common conditions, like sickle cell disease, are on the very near horizon. 

    “This wasn’t even in my wildest imagination 20 years ago,” says Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, medical director of the Cell and Gene Therapy Laboratory at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. 

    In 2017, Kymriah — a cell-based gene therapy Grupp helped develop for a type of pediatric leukemia — was the first to be approved by the FDA. The clinical trial showed astonishing promise, with 90% of patients going into remission. 

    “There were almost 20 years of trials when nothing seemed to be working,” Grupp recalls. “And then, boom, it went from doing nothing to doing everything.” 

    One of the clinical trial patients, Emily Whitehead — now a well-known name in gene therapy — had been close to hospice. Twenty-three days after her infusion, her leukemia was gone. 

    “Some combination of disbelief and ecstasy” is how Grupp describes his reaction at the time. “We had no idea this was possible. We did mouse experiments in the lab, but that’s not guaranteed to translate into anything.” 

    Over a decade later, Emily, now 17, is still healthy. Gene therapy cured her cancer. 

    The Financial Picture

    For every successful treatment like Emily’s, dozens more fail. 

    “[Drug companies] are really lucky if 1% of their ideas actually make it to the clinic,” says Young. “Then they’re pretty lucky if 1% of those actually make it to a product. There’s a very, very high attrition rate.” 

    The few treatments that make the cut can cost up to $1 billion dollars to develop, yet they may ultimately benefit fewer than 100 patients a year.

    “Most of the companies eventually go bankrupt or get bought, even the ones that are successful,” Young says. “These things cost a hell of a lot to develop.” 

    Bluebird Bio, the company that makes Skysona and Zynteglo, is “very close to running out of money,” he says. This could threaten the launch of its sickle cell therapy regardless of the drug’s promise.

    Research and development is only one part of the financial picture. Manufacturing costs are also steep. 

    Take the viral vectors, the most common delivery system for gene therapies. Inside production facilities you’ll find towering steel vats resembling the kind you might see on a brewery tour. “They go up to the ceiling — they’re enormous,” says Nicole Paulk, PhD, a University of California San Francisco researcher who studies technologies that could make gene therapy cheaper. 

    These vats are the bioreactors where viral vectors are produced. Despite their size, each one might yield only enough vector for a few patients, “‘like single digit,” says Paulk. Its a super labor-intensive process.” 

    During purification, much of the virus — up to 80%  — is lost; a battery of FDA safety tests further depletes each batch.

    This is just one step in a highly complex manufacturing process — the single biggest driver of gene therapy’s cost, according to Paulk. “Every step is just very expensive. These prices sound astronomical to people. But they are justified at the moment.” 

    Production is still mostly done by humans, with drug companies relying on the same methods developed in academic labs. This inefficiency spikes costs — and creates batch-to-batch variability. Even something as small as the way a technician holds a tube could affect the end product. Automation will improve quality control and bring production costs down, enabling more drugs to enter the market. 

    Some labs are also developing “off-the-shelf” cells for certain products, like the CAR T therapies for leukemia and blood cancer. This could yield multiple treatments per batch versus the current “bespoke” method, a weeks-long process where “you have to make a fully qualified lot of drug for every single patient,” says Grupp. 

    ‘What’s the Value of a Life?’

    Even if efficiency and competition improve, not everyone is confident that will translate to lower price tags. “We haven’t seen that for any other drug,” says Young, who points out that as more CAR T products enter the market, “they come out at the same price.”

    That’s because pricing isn’t solely linked to manufacturing costs. “These companies believe the price should match the clinical benefit,” says Emond. 

    When gene therapies prove to be life-transforming — even lifesaving — that leads to a very high dollar amount. “You’re sort of deciding, ‘What’s the value of a life?’” says Young. 

    When calculating target prices, ICER incorporates a range of factors, including the economic burden the health care system can sustain without a spike in premiums. Perhaps its most critical consideration, however, is clinical benefit.

    The magnitude of change — how much better a patient feels on the drug — comes directly from the patients in the clinical trial,” says Emond. This data is converted into “quality-adjusted life years,” or QALYs, which aims to capture both quality and quantity of life before and after treatment. The analysis includes the cost savings of treatments no longer needed.

    The latest ICER report suggests Hemgenix should be priced at around $2.9 million — some $600,000 less than its market price. A big reason for the still seven-figure price tag is the IV infusions of clotting factor that Hemgenix could eliminate. If the gene therapy is sufficiently durable,” that is, if it works as intended,— “then it doesn’t take too many years to write off the cost of the alternative,” says Young, since earlier therapies can cost upwards of $750,000 a year. 

    Yet ICER refuses to take this number as a given, calling those other therapies “extremely overpriced.”  

    If drugs were priced strictly according to efficacy, those that confer life-changing benefits, like gene therapies, could cost seven figures without straining the system, says Emond. “We shouldn’t overpaying for drugs that bring marginal clinical benefit,” she insists. 

    The U.S. Health Care System

    Understanding the problem of pricing requires a wider view of our country’s fragmented health care system, a capitalistic model where drug prices are the highest in the world and insurers are mostly price takers. 

    Red tape notwithstanding, insurance generally covers gene therapy, leaving most people responsible for only the deductible. Still, because “there really isnt any [payer] approaching monopoly power,” says Young, the market renders insurers essentially impotent when it comes to negotiation. 

    Drug manufacturers try to figure out what the market will bear and just set that price. And its typically going to be accepted,” Young says. “You basically can’t persuade the payers in European countries to pay that much,” since there’s often a government agency deciding which drugs will be reimbursed at what price. In 2021, Bluebird Bio pulled Zynteglo from Europe after withdrawing it from Germany, where health officials rejected its target price of $1.8 million.

    But the U.S. landscape may be changing: The new Inflation Reduction Act permits Medicare, for the first time, to negotiate the prices of certain high-cost drugs that lack competition. This will go into effect in 2026, though the eligible drugs haven’t yet been announced. 

    Right now, the most urgent question is one of access. “Realistically, were stuck with the sort of prices were looking at,” says Young. “We just have to find payment mechanisms,” especially as gene therapies for more prevalent conditions advance in the development pipeline. 

    “Imagine if these therapies work for more common cancers — lung cancer, breast cancer,” Grupp says. “That would be a whole new day in therapy. But how are we going to pay for this?” 

    With an influx of eligible patients, the health care system could be seriously strained. 

    Take sickle cell disease, the most common genetic disease in the U.S., affecting one out of every 500 Black Americans. This year, the FDA is expected to approve two gene therapies for the disease. Generally, “this population has lower rates of commercial insurance than other populations that have gotten [gene therapies] until now,” says Grupp. “We’re going to have to deal with the impact of these prices on Medicaid.” 

    Moving Forward

    One possible solution is outcomes-based pricing. This refunds some or all of the treatment’s cost if results don’t last.

    If youre going to price these very expensive therapies for their curative potential, then if they stop working later, we have to get some of that value back,” says Grupp. An outcome-based agreement might, for example, refund a patient with hemophilia who must return to prophylaxis after receiving Hemgenix.

    This type of guarantee is already being implemented for other gene therapies. 

    If patients with leukemia aren’t in remission 30 days after receiving Kymriah, the hospital treating them isn’t billed. The maker of Luxturna, a gene therapy for a rare form of blindness, offers rebates based on light-sensitivity tests taken shortly after treatment and 2 1/2 years later. Bluebird Bio, the maker of Zynteglo, promises a refund of up to 80% if patients require red blood cell transfusions within 2 years.

    Innovative payment plans could be another answer. Bluebird Bio offers an installment option, reducing the upfront cost of gene therapy for insurers. AveXis, maker of Zolgensma, also has a pay-over-time structure, with payments spread out for as long as 5 years. Some insurers are allowing patients to pay their deductible over time rather than all at once, to reduce the impact on patients. 

    The high-risk pool model, where small insurers combine their resources and share the cost of gene therapies, could also improve patient access. 

    “If you’re a self-insured company and somebody needs a $3 million therapy, it basically kills your health plan,” says Young. Programs like Cigna’s Embarc, which allows companies to pay a flat fee per employee to guarantee coverage of gene therapy, could help solve this problem. 

    It’s this type of creative thinking that may be the key to propelling the industry forward. 

    “I totally get the gut reaction, like a million dollars is insane. That number seems fanciful to people,” says Emond. But gene therapies themselves are fanciful, offering the kinds of results researchers couldn’t fathom even 2 decades ago. 

    We could be on the precipice of transforming the way we think about and treat disease. … We have to reward swing-for-the-fences innovation with high prices,” Emond says, then tempers her position with a blunt reminder. “Remember that price is a conscious choice.” Drugmakers choose what they charge — and how they choose could determine the future of gene therapy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Today in History: December 19, Bill Clinton impeached

    Today in History: December 19, Bill Clinton impeached

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Monday, Dec. 19, the 353rd day of 2022. There are 12 days left in the year.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Dec. 19, 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the Republican-controlled House for perjury and obstruction of justice. (Clinton was subsequently acquitted by the Senate.)

    On this date:

    In 1777, during the American Revolutionary War, Gen. George Washington led his army of about 11,000 men to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, to camp for the winter.

    In 1907, 239 workers died in a coal mine explosion in Jacobs Creek, Pennsylvania.

    In 1946, war broke out in Indochina as troops under Ho Chi Minh launched widespread attacks against the French.

    In 1950, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was named commander of the military forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

    In 1960, fire broke out on the hangar deck of the nearly completed aircraft carrier USS Constellation at the New York Naval Shipyard; 50 civilian workers were killed.

    In 1972, Apollo 17 splashed down in the Pacific, winding up the Apollo program of manned lunar landings.

    In 2001, the fires that had burned beneath the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York City for the previous three months were declared extinguished except for a few scattered hot spots.

    In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared Iraq in “material breach” of a U.N. disarmament resolution.

    In 2003, design plans were unveiled for the signature skyscraper — a 1,776-foot glass tower — at the site of the World Trade Center in New York City.

    In 2008, citing imminent danger to the national economy, President George W. Bush ordered an emergency bailout of the U.S. auto industry.

    In 2011, North Korea announced the death two days earlier of leader Kim Jong Il; North Koreans marched by the thousands to mourn their “Dear Leader” while state media proclaimed his youngest son, Kim Jong Un, a “Great Successor.”

    In 2016, a truck rammed into a crowded Christmas market in central Berlin, killing 12 people in an attack claimed by Islamic State. (The suspected attacker was killed in a police shootout four days later.) A Turkish policeman fatally shot Russian ambassador Andrei Karlov at a photo exhibit in Ankara. (The assailant was later killed in a police shootout.)

    Ten years ago: Four State Department officials resigned under pressure, less than a day after a damning report blamed management failures for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, where militants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Park Geun-hye (goon-hay), daughter of late South Korean President Park Chung-hee, was elected the country’s first female president.

    Five years ago: A bus carrying cruise ship passengers on an excursion to Mayan ruins in southeastern Mexico flipped over on a narrow highway, killing 11 travelers and their guide and injuring about 20 others; eight Americans were among those killed. U.S. health officials approved the nation’s first gene therapy for an inherited disease, a treatment that improves the sight of patients with a rare form of blindness. David Wright, a Massachusetts man who was convicted of leading a plot inspired by the Islamic State to behead conservative blogger Pamela Geller, was sentenced in Boston to 28 years in prison.

    One year ago: Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said he could not support his party’s signature $2 trillion social and environment bill, dealing a seemingly fatal blow to President Joe Biden’s leading domestic initiative. (Congress would approve a smaller but still substantive compromise measure in August 2022.) The NHL and its players association temporarily clamped down on teams crossing the Canadian border and shut down operations of two more teams in hopes of salvaging the season as COVID-19 outbreaks spread across the league. Gabriel Boric, a leftist millennial who rose to prominence during anti-government protests, was elected Chile’s next president. Despite rising concerns over the omicron variant, “Spider-Man: No Way Home” achieved the third best opening of all time; studio estimates showed that the Sony and Marvel blockbuster grossed $253 million in ticket sales in North America.

    Today’s Birthdays: Actor Elaine Joyce is 79. Actor Tim Reid is 78. Musician John McEuen is 77. Singer Janie Fricke is 75. Jazz musician Lenny White is 73. Actor Mike Lookinland is 62. Actor Scott Cohen is 61. Actor Jennifer Beals is 59. Actor Robert MacNaughton is 56. Magician Criss Angel is 55. Rock musician Klaus Eichstadt (Ugly Kid Joe) is 55. Actor Ken Marino is 54. Actor Elvis Nolasco is 54. Actor Kristy Swanson is 53. Model Tyson Beckford is 52. Actor Amy Locane is 51. Pro Football Hall of Famer Warren Sapp is 50. Actor Rosa Blasi is 50. Actor Alyssa Milano is 50. Actor Tara Summers is 43. Actor Jake Gyllenhaal (JIH’-lihn-hahl) is 42. Actor Marla Sokoloff is 42. Rapper Lady Sovereign is 37. Journalist Ronan Farrow is 35. Actor Nik Dodani is 29.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gene and Cell Therapies Used in Treatment

    Gene and Cell Therapies Used in Treatment

    [ad_1]

    By Aleksandra Rachitskaya, MD, as told to Hallie Levine

    It can be devastating to be diagnosed with an inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD). These rare, inherited eye diseases cause progressive vision loss, and sometimes even blindness. Here at the Cleveland Clinic, we’ve seen more patients than ever before with IRDs. Our numbers have risen from 327 patients in 2015, to almost 800 in 2019. The reason? We’ve become much better at both diagnosis and treatment.

    Over the last 2 decades, we’ve learned that there are around 300 genes associated with IRDs. Thanks to advances in genetic testing technology, we’re able to diagnose the gene mutations in over 70% of all cases.

    That’s great news, because once we know what genetic mutation is driving your disease, we can often refer you to an appropriate clinical trial that may help improve or maintain your vision. Even if we can’t now, thanks to gene therapy, there’s a very real chance that in the next decade or two, there may be a revolutionary new treatment to save your sight.

    Here’s why we’re so excited about gene therapy, what’s available now, and how to go about finding a clinical trial near you.

     

    Why Gene Therapy for IRDs Is So Promising

    In gene therapy, an abnormal gene is replaced with a normal one. While there are many ways to do it, the most common way is to use a vector — a virus without the disease-causing parts — to deliver a healthy gene into the cells. This is done through surgery to the eye by a physician. The hope is that the cells with the new, functional copy of a gene will now work properly.

    As it turns out, the eye itself is actually an ideal candidate for gene therapy. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that the retina itself is relatively easy to reach compared to other parts of your body, like your heart, or lungs. The second is that the eye is “immune privileged.” This means its immune response isn’t as active as in other parts of the body. That’s important, because when a virus vector with a normal gene is injected into the eye, you don’t want the eye’s immune response to go into overdrive.

    What Treatments Are Currently Available for IRDs?

    There’s only one FDA-approved gene therapy for inherited retinal disorders: Luxturna, which was approved in 2017. It is specifically for people with IRD who have mutations in the RPE65 gene. This may be seen in two diseases: retinitis pigmentosa and Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA). The treatment delivers a functional copy of the RPE65 gene into the retinal cells of the eye. These cells then produce the normal protein that converts light to an electrical signal in the retina. This helps to slow down the progression of a patient’s disease and vision loss.

    Patients with these forms of IRD first find they have trouble seeing at night. They then begin to lose their peripheral, or side, vision, then finally, their central vision. During Luxturna’s clinical trials, researchers had patients go through a mobility maze both before and after treatment. Almost all of them saw significant improvements in their ability to get through the maze, even in a darker environment, which is usually more difficult. There have been some amazing stories of children whose vision has been restored by this procedure.

    There are many other clinical trials going on at medical centers across the country. Here at the Cleveland Clinic, we are enrolling patients with a type of retinitis pigmentosa known as X-linked retinitis pigmentosa. Since this is an X-linked disorder, it mainly affects males, as they have a single copy of the X chromosome that carries the mutation. (In women, the effect of the mutation is masked by the second healthy copy of the X chromosome. But they can still be carriers of the disease and sometimes do have visual changes.) We will use gene therapy to target one eye of eligible patients to try to prevent the disease from progressing to more severe stages.

    There are also other gene therapy clinical trials going on for other IRDs, such as choroideremia and achromatopsia. It shows promise to halt progression of vision loss, and sometimes even improve vision too.

    Why Gene Therapy Gives Hope to People With IRDs

    Gene therapy has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of inherited retinal disorders. Just a decade ago, patients would see eye doctors and be offered nothing else but low-vision therapy. Now, we can test them for specific genetic mutations that cause disease, and ideally connect them with a gene therapy trial to replace that malfunctioning gene.

    It’s important to understand that if you have an IRD and it’s already very far advanced, introducing a healthy normal gene will not do much. You want to catch and treat the disease before it progresses too far. That’s why genetic testing itself is so important. Once it’s done, we can search across the country to see if there’s a clinical trial available. You can also stay up to date yourself regarding active and recruiting clinical trials in the United States or even globally via https://clinicaltrials.gov.

    I think it’s important to stay on top of your eye health even if you yourself don’t have a diagnosed IRD but have a family history of one. If recommended by your physician or genetic counselor, it’s important to get genetic testing to make sure you aren’t a carrier, and to encourage other family members to get tested as well. That way, an IRD can be picked up as early as possible.

    Looking even further down the pipeline, there’s a lot of excitement surrounding cell therapy. This is where diseased retinal cells are replaced with stem cells that can develop into healthy ones. Studies on this are still in very early stages, and the science isn’t as robust as for gene therapy. But this type of treatment may hold promise, not just for people with IRDs, but for those with other common diseases of the retina, like age-related macular degeneration.

    Overall, the future has never looked brighter for people with IRDs. We can’t promise them 20/20 vision, but we can hopefully introduce them to a clinical trial that may improve their sight.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Death in CRISPR gene therapy study sparks search for answers

    Death in CRISPR gene therapy study sparks search for answers

    [ad_1]

    The lone volunteer in a unique study involving a gene-editing technique has died, and those behind the trial are now trying to figure out what killed him.

    Terry Horgan, a 27-year-old who had Duchenne muscular dystrophy, died last month, according to Cure Rare Disease, a Connecticut-based nonprofit founded by his brother, Rich, to try and save him from the fatal condition.

    Although little is known about how he died, his death occurred during one of the first studies to test a gene editing treatment built for one person. It’s raising questions about the overall prospect of such therapies, which have buoyed hopes among many families facing rare and devastating diseases.

    “This whole notion that we can do designer genetic therapies is, I would say, uncertain,” said Arthur Caplan, a medical ethicist at New York University who is not involved in the study. “We are out on the far edge of experimentation.”

    The early-stage safety study was sponsored by the nonprofit, led by Dr. Brenda Wong at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The hope was to use a gene-editing tool called CRISPR to treat Horgan’s particular form of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The rare, genetic muscle-wasting disease is caused by a mutation in the gene needed to produce a protein called dystrophin. Most people with Duchenne die from lung or heart issues caused by it.

    At this point, it’s unclear whether Horgan received the treatment and whether CRISPR, other aspects of the study or the disease itself contributed to his death. Deaths are not unheard of in clinical trials, which test experimental treatments and sometimes involve very sick people.

    But trials involving CRISPR are relatively new. And Fyodor Urnov, a CRISPR expert at the Innovative Genomics Institute at University of California, Berkeley, said any death during a gene therapy trial is an opportunity for the field to have a reckoning.

    “Step one is to grieve for the passing of a brave human soul who agreed to be basically a participant in an experiment on a human being,” Urnov said. “But then, to the extent that we can, we must learn as much as we can to carve out a path forward.”

    FEW ANSWERS YET

    A statement from Cure Rare Disease said multiple teams across the country are looking into the details of the trial and its outcome, and the company intends to share findings with the scientific community.

    “It will probably be 3-4 months to come up with a full conclusion,” said spokesman Scott Bauman. “At this stage of the game, saying anything is pure speculation.”

    The company, which is also working on 18 other therapeutics, said in its statement that the teams’ work is essential not only to shed light on the study’s outcome but also “on the challenges of gene therapy broadly.” Meanwhile, it said, “we will continue to work with our researchers, collaborators, and partners to develop therapies for the neuromuscular diseases in our pipeline.”

    Bauman said the company has filed a report on death the with the FDA as required. The FDA declined to release or confirm the report.

    Sarah Willey, spokeswoman for Chan Medical School, said scientists there provided data to the company for the report. She later emailed to say no one there would comment further; out of respect for the family’s wishes, all information would come from Cure Rare Disease. Monkol Lek, a Yale genetics expert who has been collaborating on the effort, did not respond to a request for comment. Yale spokeswoman Bess Connolly asked a reporter for context on the story but didn’t respond to a follow-up email or phone call.

    A crucial question is whether CRISPR played a part in Horgan’s death.

    The chemical tool can be used to “edit” genes by making cuts or substitutions in DNA. The tool has transformed genetic research and sparked the development of dozens of experimental therapies. The inventors of the tool won a Nobel Prize in 2020.

    In this case, scientists used a modified form of CRISPR to increase the activity of a gene. The CRISPR therapeutic is inserted directly into the body and delivered to cells with a virus.

    But CRISPR is not perfect.

    “We know that CRISPR can miss its target. We know that CRISPR can be partially effective. And we also know that there may be issues with … viral vectors” that deliver the therapy into the body, Caplan said. “Red flags are flying here. We’ve got to make sure that they get addressed very, very quickly.”

    Safety issues have arisen in gene therapy studies before. Late last year, Pfizer reported the death of a patient in its early-stage trial for a different Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy. And in a major earlier setback for the gene therapy field, 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died in 1999 during a study that involved placing healthy genes into his liver to combat a rare metabolic disease. Scientists later learned that his immune system overreacted to the virus used to deliver the therapy. Many recent studies, including the Cure Rare Disease trial, use a different virus that’s considered safer.

    Another difference? The recent trial involved just one person — a type of trial Caplan is skeptical about.

    Horgan’s recent death, he said, “may make us think whether we really do like studies that are just on one person, and do we want to say: ‘No, ethically, you’ve got to at least have a trial where you line up 5, 10, 20 people (and) you learn from the data.’ ”

    A ‘MEDICAL PIONEER’

    On the company’s web site, Horgan was described as a “medical pioneer” who “will be remembered as a hero.”

    In 2020, the Montour Falls, New York resident blogged that he was diagnosed with Duchenne at age 3. As a kid, he said, he loved computers — once building his own — and would play catch in the driveway with his family when he could still walk. Later in his life, he used a motorized wheelchair. He studied information science at Cornell University and went on to work at the school in the information science department.

    “As I grew up and began to understand what it meant to have DMD, my fears about this disease began to grow as it began to manifest,” Horgan wrote. “There weren’t many, or any, trials available to me through the years” — until this one brought the prospect of a customized drug.

    Horgan was enrolled in the study on Aug. 31. The plan was to suppress his immune system to prep his body for a one-time, gene-editing therapy delivered by IV at UMass medical school, followed by monitoring in the hospital. The company explained that the therapy is designed to increase the level of an alternate form of the dystrophin protein using CRISPR, with the goal of stabilizing or potentially reversing the progression of symptoms.

    Urnov, scientific director for technology and translation at the Berkeley genomics institute, said no other trial targeted this disease using this kind of virus to deliver this particular payload with its modified form of CRISPR.

    Some other gene therapy trials – such as those targeting the blood disorders sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia – involve removing stem cells from someone’s blood, using CRISPR in the lab, then putting the altered cells back into the person. The first time CRISPR was used to edit genes within the body was to address a blindness-causing mutation.

    Given the “exceptional distinctness” of the Cure Rare Disease approach, Urnov said he doesn’t think Horgan’s death will have a major impact on things like using gene therapy to fix blood diseases. But he said pinpointing the exact cause will help inform scientists throughout the field.

    “History teaches us that in the case of such fatalities – which have been rare – that a deep dive into what happened was critical for the field to move forward.”

    ———

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • United BioChannels Acquires ORFLO Technologies to Expand Market Share and Enhance Customer Engagement

    United BioChannels Acquires ORFLO Technologies to Expand Market Share and Enhance Customer Engagement

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — SAN DIEGOOct. 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — United BioChannels (UBC), a commercial strategy consultancy, announced its acquisition of ORFLO Technologies, LLC, from Gemini Bioproducts. The acquisition represents an opportunity for both ORFLO and UBC to collaboratively increase the commercial presence of ORFLO and build market share using UBC’s Modular Method of developing commercial strategy and tactical execution. ORFLO, a leading manufacturer of cell counting and characterization technologies, will be led by Varshal Davé, UBC’s Managing Partner, who will assume the role of Chief Executive Officer. The acquisition is funded through a collaboration between UBC and BroadOak Capital Partners.

    United BioChannels (UBC) Acquires ORFLO Technologies to Expand Market Share and Enhance Customer Engagement

    “We are very excited to bring ORFLO Technologies into the United BioChannels family,” said UBC’s President Jeff Whitmore. “ORFLO has historically lacked a strong commercial focus, so our expertise presents an opportunity for a synergistic relationship. We believe that our processes will lead to increased visibility and revenue for ORFLO.”

    “We have been tracking the progress of ORFLO Technologies for quite some time,” added Bill Snider, Partner at BroadOak Capital Partners, “and we see some great potential that the UBC team can unlock. ORFLO has a strong market presence and we think UBC’s leadership can only help the company grow.”

    Cell and gene therapy, amongst other bioprocessing applications, require robust instrumentation as integral components of their workflow. Cell counters in particular serve critical quality control functions in multiple stages of these complex processes. Ketchum, Idaho, based ORFLO Technologies has excelled in these processes, having been implemented as standard instruments in regulated workflows for many leading bioprocessing companies. With a strong market presence having over 3,000 instruments installed worldwide, ORFLO has an established customer base that the company can build upon under UBC’s leadership.

    About United BioChannels

    United BioChannels is a global network of life sciences sales and executive professionals in strategic locations and science hubs. We are an experienced team with a diverse background in launching new technologies and with decades of commercial experience. We use a validated approach to get solutions to the right people. Through extensive due diligence to understand our clients’ unique situations, we can pinpoint the correct market segments to maximize success. We test market hypotheses and build messaging and sales tools, creating “win-win” relationships.

    [ad_2]

    United BioChannels

    Source link