Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Restoring sight lost to glaucoma using virtual reality

In the name of science, Andrew Huberman has gone diving 40 feet underwater with great white sharks. He’s gone mountain climbing without ropes or harnesses, traversing some sections where one slip would have sent him plummeting 650 feet.
Now, the Stanford neuroscientist is embarking on a different kind of daring quest, testing an intriguing but unproven hypothesis: that virtual reality could be used to preserve or even restore vision for patients with glaucoma.
Academics and companies all over the world are betting on virtual reality to help patients with conditions like anxiety, depression, PTSD, and ADHD. Huberman believes in the potential of the technology for vision issues, too, but he speaks about it less like an evangelist than someone who’s discovered a useful tool. He’s also harnessing it in pioneering ways.
In the case of his glaucoma clinical trial, Huberman is asking patients to gaze at flashing white dots in the hopes that they can trigger the firing of neurons that connect the eye to the brain and coax them to regenerate.
He’s also using virtual reality to study the physiology of anxiety and fear. He has recruited volunteers to watch virtual reality footage of scenarios they may never encounter in real life: Being attacked by a dog. Climbing more than 250 feet up a tree. And swimming with sharks.
Huberman, 42, traveled to many of the shoots, putting himself in personal danger to collect the footage of the sharks. An intense and earnest man, he said he’s not interested in the extreme for its own sake, but rather “for how it can inform the typical person — and mostly how it can be used to relieve suffering.”
“When the curtain goes down for me, I don’t want to look back on my career and say: ‘Oh, we did all this nice work in mice,’” Huberman told STAT in a recent interview in his lab at Stanford. “I decided about six years ago that, unless I made a deliberate attempt to create a tool to cure blindness, a deliberate attempt to alleviate pathologic anxiety, it wasn’t going to happen the way it could happen.”
“I hope I don’t die trying, but if I do, I do,” Huberman said. “A bad thing about being dead is that the research might halt.”
Andrew Huberman 03
Optics equipment used to take high-resolution images of the retinas of glaucoma patients in Huberman’s clinical trial.LAURA MORTON FOR STAT
In his quest to relieve suffering, Huberman picked a formidable target in glaucoma, a disease in which the neurons that relay information from the eye to the brain suffer damage, resulting in a loss of vision. Many patients take prescription eye drops to slow or prevent their vision loss, but there’s no proven way to reverse damage already done.
Huberman’s new clinical trial grew out of an experiment in visually impaired mice. In that study — detailed in a 2016 paper published in Nature Neuroscience — he and his team used gene therapy (to activate a signaling pathway involved in stimulating growth) and visual stimulation (in the form of moving black and white bars that the mice were forced to look at) to try to coax the neurons connecting a mouse’s eye to its brain to regenerate. Fewer than 5 percent of the neurons, called retinal ganglion cells, grew back. But that was enough to help the mice see better, measured by whether they ran away from perceived threats.
The visual improvement was greatest when Huberman and his team used both gene therapy and visual stimulation. Their clinical trial is not testing the former component of the mouse experiment, but rather a more sophisticated version of the moving stripes.
The trial has so far enrolled two glaucoma patients, a 17-year-old woman and a 76-year-old man. A third patient is expected to join soon, with still more being screened. The goal is to eventually enroll 200 glaucoma patients who have lost some vision but are not completely blind. (Huberman has no hope that the experimental treatment will work in people who can’t see at all.)
When patients sign up, Huberman’s team measures their vision and maps the damage to their retinal ganglion cells. “If you have a hole in your neural retina that gives you a blank spot just X number of degrees, or this position off, the center of your visual field, we want to know that,” Huberman said. That information allows the programmers on his team to customize the visual reality experience for each patient, placing flashing white spots in specific locations in their field of vision.
To keep things interesting, the virtual reality experience involves more than white dots. When patients put on special headsets, they’re transported into an art gallery with empty frames on the walls. They can move their eyes or their head to explore the gallery, but the point of it all is the visual stimulation: those flashing white dots, which dance across the screen for periods of one to three minutes at different sizes and speeds.
 
When patients complete the task, they get rewarded with a great work of art that appears in one of the empty frames. Among them: Vincent van Gogh’s iconic landscape “The Starry Night” and Rene Magritte’s surrealist portrait of “The Son of Man,” clad in a suit with a green apple obscuring his face.
Delivering this visual stimulation using virtual reality solves a stubborn problem in the field. Researchers have long tried to regenerate patients’ neurons by having them stare at some kind of stimuli on computers or TV screens. But it hasn’t worked. One theory why: Patients’ eyes tend to wander, and when that happens there’s no way to precisely target the visual stimulation to the damaged regions of patients’ eyes. With virtual reality, “you control their entire world and you know exactly where their eyes are,” Huberman said.
Patients get sent home with a virtual reality headset and are instructed to use it five days a week for 30 minutes at a time, while sitting down. Huberman and his team haven’t decided how long they’ll ask the patients to keep doing the visual exercise, but for now they’re bringing them in every six weeks to track changes in their vision.
“When the curtain goes down for me, I don’t want to look back on my career and say: ‘Oh, we did all this nice work in mice.’ ”
ANDREW HUBERMAN, STANFORD
 
Three independent vision specialists consulted by STAT said that while Huberman’s approach is innovative, there are plenty of reasons why it might not work.
Dr. Anne Coleman, a glaucoma specialist at UCLA School of Medicine said that the experimental treatment doesn’t pose a safety risk, but she hopes that patients considering the trial will keep in mind that it’s still early and unproven so that it does not bring them “false hope.”
For now, the trial lacks a control group of patients who would not get the visual stimulation, an element generally considered the gold standard in medical research. (Huberman said he’s considering adding a control group later on but wants to see more data first.) The trial is also open both to patients who take medication to relieve high pressure in their eyes and those who do not, which could potentially confound the results. (Huberman said he expects nearly everyone in the trial in the trial to be on eye drops, since they’re the standard treatment.)
The trial also comes with another important caveat: What works in mice rarely works in people. While the mouse study is interesting, “translating that in humans who have to physically go out and interact with the world, I think, is a whole other level,” said Lotfi Merabet, a clinician-scientist at Massachusetts Eye and Ear who specializes in vision rehabilitation.
Huberman speaks candidly about potential weaknesses in his hypothesis: While the neurons could regenerate all the way up to the brain in tiny mice, the much greater distance in humans could prove too far to traverse. And the neurons involved in vision may not have the same capacity to regenerate in adult patients as they do during development.

There’s also the matter of money.
The Glaucoma Research Foundation is providing initial seed funding for Huberman’s trial, but that won’t be enough. Huberman is scrambling to raise money from other foundations, private donors, and government grants.
Thomas Brunner, president and CEO of the Glaucoma Research Foundation, said he’s pleased to see the experimental treatment moving from mice to humans at a quicker pace than usual for patients who are desperate to stop the ravages of glaucoma.
“The idea of testing early and then refining is much more appealing to me than people who are a little more afraid to take a risk,” Brunner said. Huberman, he said, is “a risk-taker, which is something I admire.”
Andrew Huberman 04
Huberman (right) and videographer Morne Hardenberg gather virtual reality footage of great white sharks off the coast of Guadalupe Island in 2017.COURTESY MICHAEL MULLER
Huberman has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California, Davis, and an associate professorship at Stanford, where he moved his lab in 2016 after five years at the University of California, San Diego.
He also has a taste for the extreme.
In his free time and on his own dime, Huberman has soaked in an ice bath for 10 minutes. He’s training right now for an ocean swim tens of miles long. He’s also training for an ocean dive — without scuba gear — in which he plans to hold his breath. (The depth has yet to be determined, but he said a good goal would be 70 feet underwater.)
“I realize I’m a little unusual in the kinds of eclectic things that I do for fun,” Huberman conceded.
Huberman grew up doing martial arts, so he’s comfortable in scenarios where there’s a physical threat, he said. And, no, he does not think you should try any of this at home or elsewhere without training and supervision from professionals.
He’s driven by a sense of adventure, sure, but he also does it because he’s interested in understanding fear — and wants to find teachable interventions to help people overcome it. For example, he tried out a nasal breathing technique when he went climbing without protective equipment in the Pyrenees mountain range in Spain; he navigated through sections where, as he put it, “basically one slip and you’re dead.”
Huberman said he has always been curious about why some people find a situation tolerable or pleasurable — while others find it terrifying.
He’s not so interested in people who are naturally comfortable in extreme or stressful scenarios. His real interest, he said, is in someone like himself — “the person who’s not comfortable doing it but learns how to be. That’s information you can transfer.”
 
Huberman’s fascination with the extreme has informed his virtual reality research.
Plenty of researchers use the technology in clinical experiments. But what sets Huberman apart is the lengths he’s gone to gather his virtual reality footage.
For his study on anxiety using virtual reality to evoke fear, he initially thought about pulling from existing libraries of scary stock footage. But they weren’t right for his purposes: The clips were too short; he needed something at least 10 minutes long. And they usually opened right away with a frightening experience, instead of opening with a calming scene from everyday life — necessary for his team to collect baseline measurements.
So Huberman decided to collect his own virtual reality footage, using special 360-degree cameras.
 
 
To evoke the claustrophobia of being trapped in an elevator, he and his team captured footage in what he fondly refers to as the “dungeon-like” elevator in his lab building at Stanford. They recruited other occupants of the building to serve as extras, and the building’s maintenance team helped them halt the elevator abruptly.
To elicit a fear of heights, they asked a professional tree-trimmer to wear a camera on his body while climbing more than 250 feet up a tree in the region east of the San Francisco Bay.
And to simulate the frightening experience of being attacked by a dog, they went to nearby Redwood City, Calif., to solicit the help of a professional dog trainer and his 120-pound pitbull. With the camera running, the trainer gave the dog a cue to attack his arm and then cried out as if in pain. (In fact, the trainer was wearing a special dog-bite-resistant sleeve to protect himself from injury.)
Gathering all this footage has proved to be remarkably cheap, Huberman said. The lab’s many collaborators have helped them at little to no cost or allowed them to piggyback onto other trips, all in the name of research. (Other costs of the fear study, such as the virtual reality headsets, are being paid for using internal funds, Huberman said.)
The study, which is not a formal clinical trial, so far has recruited 85 volunteers, with the goal of eventually signing up 250 people, some of whom have diagnosed anxiety. The most effective recruitment method has not been the placement of traditional fliers tacked to a telephone pole, but rather the lab’s Instagram page.
Andrew Huberman 05
One of Huberman’s flyers recruiting volunteers for a study using virtual reality to evoke fear.LAURA MORTON FOR STAT
When most volunteers watch the footage — all while having their heart rate, sweating, breathing, pupil size, and body posture measured — they will most likely have no idea of all that went into capturing it.
In the case of the shark footage, Huberman teamed up with an A-list photographer named Michael Muller, who has a passion for photographing sharks in the wild. Their team has twice boarded a research vessel for a 22-hour voyage out into the Pacific Ocean to spend a few days out on the crystal-clear water off the coast of Guadalupe Island.
Visiting tourists or researchers often go underwater in protective metal cages to observe the hundreds of great white sharks that congregate in the area. But Huberman said he managed to get permits from the Mexican government so that he and his team could exit the cage and swim with the sharks for his research project.
The experience was “incredibly calming,” said Huberman, who underwent training on how to stay safe.
Huberman speaks fondly about the sharks. But he also calls them “really diabolic little guys,” too, before quickly correcting himself: At about 3,000 pounds and 15 feet long, they’re “not so little guys.”
Huberman said that, if he returns to Guadalupe Island, he wants to run a field study measuring his collaborators’ respiration, pupil size, and heart rate while they swim among the sharks.
And although he hasn’t yet figured out how to do it, he said he wants to collect perhaps his most extreme virtual reality footage yet: a simulation of the experience of being eaten by a shark.
https://bit.ly/2tNAlQN

Nevada blocked from carrying out nation’s first execution using fentanyl



Nevada’s plan to execute a convicted murderer with a never-before-used combination of drugs is on hold for at least 60 days.
The state was planning to use three drugs — midazolam (a sedative), fentanyl (the high-potency opioid) and cisatracurium (a paralytic) — to execute Scott Dozier on Wednesday night.
Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez ruled in favor of the company that makes midazolam, which sued the state, saying Nevada had illegitimately acquired the product for the execution. It wants the state to return its stock of the drug to the company. Gonzalez granted a temporary restraining order.
“If the state is permitted to use the midazolam manufactured by plaintiff, plaintiff has shown a reasonable probability it will suffer irreparable damages,” Gonzalez said in her Las Vegas court.
The drug maker, Alvogen, and the state are scheduled to return to court September 10 for another hearing in the case.
The execution would have been the first time that fentanyl, one of the central drugs in the US opioid epidemic, has been used in a capital punishment case in the United States, said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. It would likely have been a first for cisatracurium to be used as well, he said.
Dozier, 47, is not making legal challenges to halt his execution. “Life in prison isn’t a life,” he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “This isn’t living, man. It’s just surviving.”
“If people say they’re going to kill me, get to it,” he told the newspaper.
This undated Nevada Department of Corrections photo shows death row inmate Scott Raymond Dozier.
His attorney, Thomas Ericsson, told CNN that his client wants to be executed.
Although Dozier is not trying to stop his execution, there is opposition to the drug cocktail the state plans to use in carrying out the death sentence.
“Nevada should not use prisoners as guinea pigs in experimental executions, even if they ask to die,” tweeted the ACLU of Nevada.
Dozier was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Jeremiah Miller, who was killed and dismembered in 2002. The victim’s torso was found in a suitcase dumped in a trash bin in Las Vegas, according to the Nevada Department of Corrections. Dozier was also convicted of second-degree murder in the death of another victim found buried in the Arizona desert.
The Wednesday execution would be Nevada’s first in 12 years, after Daryl Mack was executed in 2006, and the first to take place in a new execution facility at Ely State Prison. Lethal injection is the only method of capital punishment that Nevada uses.

Ligand Unit, Janssen in R&D Deal


Subsidiaries of Ligand Pharmaceutical Inc. (LGND) and Johnson & Johnson have entered into a research-and-development agreement focused on a “transgenic chicken platform” aimed at generating and discovering antibodies for humans, according to a securities filing.
Ligand’s company Crystal Bioscience Inc., and Janssen Research & Development LLC, which is part of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Cos. of Johnson & Johnson, agreed to work together on Ligand’s development of the platform, the filing said.
Under the deal, Ligand will be able to earn milestone payments contingent on various deliverables and will be able to sell the platform to others in the market.

New digital chemical screening tool could help eliminate animal testing


Toxicologists today unveiled a digital chemical safety screening tool that could greatly reduce the need for six common animal tests. Those tests account for nearly 60% of the estimated 3 million to 4 million animals used annually in risk testing worldwide.
The computerized tool—built on a massive database of molecular structures and existing safety data—appears to match, and sometimes improve on, the results of animal tests for properties such as skin sensitization and eye irritation, the researchers report in today’s issue of Toxicological Sciences. But it also has limitations; for instance, the method can’t reliably evaluate a chemical’s risk of causing cancer. And it’s not clear how open regulatory agencies will be to adopting a nonanimal approach.
Still, “We’re really excited about the potential of this model,” says toxicologist Nicole Kleinstreuer, deputy director of a center that evaluates alternatives to animal testing at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Durham, North Carolina. Kleinstreuer, who was not involved in the work, adds that using “big data … to build predictive models is an extremely promising avenue for reducing and replacing animal testing.”
Most developed nations require new chemicals that enter commerce to undergo at least some safety testing. But the long-standing practice of exposing rabbits, rats, and other animals to chemicals to evaluate risks is facing growing public objections and cost concerns, helping spur a hunt for alternatives. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been backing research into new ways of evaluating chemicals through programs such as its Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast) effort. And in 2016, Congress passed an updated chemical safety law—the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—that orders federal regulators to take steps to reduce the number of animals that companies use to test compounds for safety.
One approach is to use what is already known about the safety of existing compounds to predict the risks posed by new chemicals with similar molecular structures. Two years ago, a team led by Thomas Hartung of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, took a step toward that goal by assembling test data on 9800 chemicals regulated by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki. They then showed that chemicals with similar structures can have similar health effects, such as being an irritant
In today’s paper, Hartung’s team goes bigger. First, the researchers expanded their database to 10 million chemical structures by adding information from the public database PubChem and the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Next, they compared the structures and toxicological properties of every possible pair of compounds in their database—a total of 50 trillion comparisons—creating a vast similarity map that groups compounds by structure and effect. Finally, they tested the model: They asked it to predict a randomly chosen chemical’s toxicological profile by linking it to similar “neighbors” on the map and compared the results to six actual animal tests of the compound.
On average, the computational tool reproduced the animal test results 87% of the time. That’s better than animal tests themselves can do, Hartung says: In reviewing the literature, his group found that repeated animal tests replicated past results just 81% of the time, on average. “This is an important finding,” Hartung says, because regulators often expect alternative methods to animal testing to be reproducible at the 95% threshold—a standard even the animal tests aren’t meeting.
“Our data shows that we can replace six common tests—which account for 57% of the world’s animal toxicology testing—with computer-based prediction and get more reliable results,” Hartung says. And it could help eliminate duplication of effort, he adds. The team found, for instance, that 69 chemicals were each tested at least 45 separate times using the so-called Draize rabbit test—a method that involves placing a chemical in the rabbit’s eye and has drawn extensive public opposition.
The screening method has weaknesses. Although it can predict simple effects such as irritation, more complex endpoints such as cancer are out of its reach, says Mike Rasenberg, who heads ECHA’s Computational Assessment & Dissemination unit. “This won’t be the end of animal testing,” he predicts, “but it’s a useful concept for looking at simple toxicity.”
The question now is how regulators will view the method. Rasenberg thinks European regulators will accept it for simple endpoints because it meets validating criteria for so-called quantitative structure-activity relationship models.
In the United States, the NIEHS center is working on validating the method. And once that validation is complete, EPA “will be able to review the evaluation results to determine how and if they can be used to inform chemicals evaluated under TSCA,” officials said in a statement. “If evaluation is favorable, these types of models could be used in conjunction with other tools such as ToxCast to inform screening-level hazard determinations or rank/prioritize large numbers of substances.”
Hartung says he hopes the screening method will also be of interest to countries that are gearing up for implementing new chemical laws, such as Turkey and South Korea.
In the meantime, the researchers have teamed up with Underwriters Laboratories headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, to make the tool available to companies that might want to screen products before submitting them for regulatory review.

Genevant inks development deal with BioNTech


  • Ahead of Roivant Sciences’ pipeline day on Tuesday afternoon, the company announced some of the latest news for one of its “Vants” — the term it uses for its many subsidiaries.
  • Genevant, which is meant to be a RNA therapeutic-focused company, has inked a co-development deal with BioNTech to use the German company’s mRNA platform to develop five rare disease products.
  • The two companies will co-develop and co-commercialize the products through a 50/50 split, sharing all future costs and profits, with an aim of entering the clinic in 2020.

Genevant, launched in April as a joint venture between Roivant and Arbutus Biopharma, has the goal of bringing five to 10 compounds using mRNA, RNA interference or gene editing to the clinic by 2020. The deal with BioNTech will potentially help it reach that goal.
As part of their pact, the companies have entered into a licensing agreement that uses Genevant’s lipid nanoparticle delivery technology with five of BioNTech’s oncology programs. Genevant is eligible to receive commercial milestones on those products. The platform was developed by Arbutus, another Roivant company, and used in the development of Alnylam Pharmaceutical’s patisiran.
The companies did not elaborate on what diseases they plan to target under the collaboration.
Genevant is just one of twelve subsidiaries under the Roivant umbrella. The business model was designed so that each subsidiary would have a different focus — like RNA therapeutics, dermatology, neurology, hepatitis B, urology or cardiometabolic diseases — and could succeed or fail without affecting the larger company. It also allows Roivant to provide funding and take certain subsidiaries public, while keeping some private. Additionally, the model could allow the parent company to more easily sell off certain assets.
Best-known among the Vants is surely Axovant, the neurology-focused drugmaker that failed at bringing its Alzheimer’s compound forward after an historically large initial public offering. After that failure, Roivant’s unique business model has come under fire. The parent company hosted a pipeline day on Tuesday afternoon to showcase its assets. Stay tuned.

Medtronic, UnitedHealthcare say value-based pact cut diabetes costs


  • Medtronic and UnitedHealthcare said first-year results from a value-based care pact for patients with diabetes showed a 27% reduction in the rate of preventable hospital admissions for Medtronic insulin pump users, compared with patients injecting insulin multiple times per day.
  • The analysis included 6,000 plan members using either standalone insulin pumps or pumps integrated with continuous glucose monitors. The first-year data covered July 2016 through June 2017 in the multiyear initiative between the biggest U.S. health insurer and largest medical device maker.
  • UnitedHealthcare and Medtronic said their diabetes partnership lowered costs in the first year but did not disclose the amount of savings. UnitedHealthcare said its total payments to physicians and hospitals tied to value-based arrangements have grown in the last three years to $65 billion. The insurer expects that figure to reach $75 billion by the end of 2020.

Health insurers such as UnitedHealthcare are developing value-based programs that reimburse providers or manufacturers based on patient care outcomes rather than volume of services.
The programs are particularly attractive for high cost diseases. The cost of diabetes rose 26% over a five-year period from 2012 to 2017, according to the American Diabetes Association.
CMS backs value-based care and has already converted 30% of its fee-for-service Medicare payments to the model.
Medtronic CEO Omar Ishrak was an early champion of value-based arrangements and has forged a number of partnerships with organizations pursuing similar efforts. The medical device maker last year entered into an outcomes-based agreement with Aetna similar to its partnership with UnitedHealthcare that ties part of the company’s reimbursement to meeting clinical goals for patients who transition to Medtronic insulin pump therapy.
“These positive results provide further evidence of the benefits of both automated insulin delivery and of value-based healthcare models,” said Hooman Hakami, president of the diabetes group at Medtronic in a statement.
JDRF, the diabetes research foundation, launched a campaign called #Coverage2Control after the Medtronic-UnitedHealthcare agreement was announced to advocate for patient choice in insulin pumps, among other goals.
Peter Pronovost, the chief medical officer of UnitedHealthcare called the results encouraging for the first year.
“We will monitor patients using Medtronic pump therapies to ensure we continue to see improved quality of care, fewer hospitalizations, and lower costs,” he said in a statement.

Stealth STD could become the next superbug


A little-known, sometimes symptomless sexually transmitted disease is set to be the next superbug within a decade — if people don’t wise up about their sex lives, experts are warning.
Mycoplasma genitalium, or MG, is a sexually transmitted bacteria that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease and, ultimately, infertility in women if not treated properly.
Symptoms of MG can be similar to gonorrhea and chlamydia — but often, there are no signs of an infection at all. That means some people may not even be aware they’ve been infected until bigger problems arise.
If left untreated, MG, which was first discovered in the early 1980s and spreads through unprotected sex, can also develop a resistance to antibiotics.
“This is not curing the infection and is causing antimicrobial resistance in MG patients,” Dr. Paddy Horner told the Telegraph. “If practices do not change and the tests are not used, MG has the potential to become a superbug within a decade, resistant to standard antibiotics.”
In women, MG can cause a burning sensation when urinating and pain or bleeding during and after sex. Men might experience watery discharge from their penis.
It’s unclear exactly how many in the US have been infected with MG. In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed it as an “emerging issue.”
In the UK, health experts launched new guidelines for the treatment and diagnosis of MG, saying around 1 to 2 percent of men and women have contracted the STD, according to the Telegraph. Some clinics, however, have put that number as high as 38 percent.
The new guidelines recommend a specific test for MG and that it be treated with a seven-day dose of antibiotic doxycycline, followed by a course of azithromycin.
“These new guidelines have been developed because we can’t afford to continue with the approach we have followed for the past 15 years as this will undoubtedly lead to a public health emergency with the emergence of MG as a superbug,” said Horner, who helped author the new guidelines.
Dr. Olwen Williams, president of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV, warned of much greater consequences.
“Potentially up to 3,000 women a year over the next 10 years could become infertile because of MG leading to pelvic inflammatory disease,” she said.