Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Gum disease–causing bacteria could spur Alzheimer’s


Poor oral health is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. What’s not clear is whether gum disease causes the disorder or is merely a result—many patients with dementia can’t take care of their teeth, for example. Now, a privately sponsored study has confirmed that the bacteria that cause gum disease are present in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, not just in their mouths. The study also finds that in mice, the bacteria trigger brain changes typical of the disease.
The provocative findings are the latest in a wave of research suggesting microbial infections may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease. But even some scientists who champion that once-fringy notion aren’t convinced that Porphyromonas gingivalis, the species fingered in the new study, is behind the disorder. “I’m fully on board with the idea that this microbe could be a contributing factor. I’m much less convinced that [it] causes Alzheimer’s disease,” says neurobiologist Robert Moir of the Harvard University–affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, whose work suggests the β-amyloid protein that forms plaques in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is a protective response to microbial invaders.
The new study, published today in Science Advances, was sponsored by the biotech startup Cortexyme Inc. of South San Francisco, California. Co-founder Stephen Dominy is a psychiatrist who in the 1990s became intrigued by the idea that Alzheimer’s could have an infectious cause. At the time, he was treating people with HIV at the University of California, San Francisco. Some had HIV-related dementia that resolved after they got antiviral drugs. Dominy began a side project looking for P. gingivalis in brain tissue from deceased patients with Alzheimer’s, and—after his work found hints—started the company with entrepreneur Casey Lynch, who had studied Alzheimer’s as a graduate student.
Working with labs in Europe, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia, the Cortexyme team confirmed earlier reports that P. gingivalis can be found in the brains of deceased people with Alzheimer’s, and they detected the microbe’s DNA in living patients’ spinal fluid. In more than 90% of the more than 50 Alzheimer’s brain samples, they also spotted toxic enzymes produced by the bacteria called gingipains. Brains with more gingipains had higher quantities of the Alzheimer’s-linked proteins tau and ubiquitin. Even the brains of roughly 50 deceased, apparently dementia-free elderly people selected as controls often had lower levels of both gingipains and the proteins indicating Alzheimer’s pathology. That early appearance is important, Lynch says, because “you would expect it to be there before the onset” of symptoms.
To explore whether the bacteria were causing disease, the team swabbed the gums of healthy mice with P. gingivalis every other day for 6 weeks to establish an infection. They later detected the bacteria in the animals’ brains, along with dying neurons and higher than normal levels of β-amyloid protein. In a lab dish, the gingipains—whose job is to chop up proteins—damaged tau, a regularly occurring brain protein that forms tangles in people with Alzheimer’s. In the brain, this protein damage may spur the formation of tangles, they say.
Giving the mice a drug that binds gingipains cleared P. gingivalis from the brain better than a common antibiotic, and it reduced the β-amyloid production and resulting neurodegeneration. Targeting gingipains likely works by cutting off nutrients and other molecules that the enzyme supplies to the bacteria, Dominy says. In initial tests with human volunteers, a similar drug seemed safe and showed signs of improving cognition in nine participants with Alzheimer’s, the company says. A larger study is slated to start this year.
Although the paper refers to “evidence for causation,” Dominy does a step further and says the experiments suggest “P. gingivalis is causing Alzheimer’s.” He and Lynch note that a study published in PLOS ONE in October 2018 by a team at the University of Illinois in Chicago also found that an oral infection with P. gingivalis can cause amyloid buildup and neurodegeneration in the brains of mice.
The Cortexyme study is “the largest to date” to find P. gingivalis in Alzheimer’s brains, and it “is clearly very comprehensively approached,” says neurologist James Noble of Columbia University, who has studied the link between periodontal disease and Alzheimer’s. “These are strange ideas, but they seem to be getting some traction.”
Other pathogens have been found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, including spirochete bacteria, which can cause Lyme disease, and some herpesviruses. Moir and Rudolph Tanzi at MGH have shown that β-amyloid in the brain appears to protect mice from bacterial and viral infections by trapping the invaders. Too much of this protective response to pathogens could trigger the buildup of the disease’s signature amyloid plaques, they suggest.
Moir thinks P. gingivalis is likely one of a variety of pathogens that contribute to the β-amyloid buildup and neuroinflammation. But he’s skeptical that the bacteria or its toxin directly cause Alzheimer’s. That’s partly because other recent studies that have explored the link with periodontal disease have not always found it in people with Alzheimer’s.
Howard Fillit, a neuroscientist and chief science officer at the nonprofit Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation in New York City, is more impressed. “They did a lot of different experiments to build the case that gingipains are a drug target in Alzheimer’s disease,” he says. “I think it’s worth pursuing, and I’m glad they’re in a clinical trial.”
If the findings hold up, do they mean that everyone with a P. gingipains infection—nearly 50% of the U.S. adult population—will develop Alzheimer’s? Not necessarily. But if healthy people want to stay on the safe side and potentially reduce their risk, Noble says, “the main conclusion we still have is: brush and floss.”

Moment of truth for Sarepta and Myonexus


The third pillar of Sarepta’s plan to dominate the treatment of muscular dystrophy will soon face its first clinical test. Sometime this quarter the first clinical study of MYO-101, a gene therapy against limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2E licensed from Myonexus Therapeutics last May, will yield results.
The placebo-controlled study aims to enrol nine subjects, but the upcoming interim look concerns the first three dosed since October. There had been hopes that the interim data would be revealed at Sarepta’s JP Morgan conference presentation, and the fact they were not caused a minor market wobble. Still, there is all to play for, and chances of success look reasonably high.
The first three subjects will have been given MYO-101 at a 5×1013vg/kg dose, and if this is successful the next six-patient cohort can start dosing at 2×1014vg/kg, with three subjects in the active group and three in control; the trial has a crossover design.
Genetically distinct
Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) is a group of inherited muscular dystrophies that is distinct in origin from the Duchenne variety. There are numerous different types of LGMD, and the fact that each has a specific genetic cause makes them particularly amenable for treatment with gene therapies.
LGMD type 2E is an autosomal recessive disorder whose basis is a mutation in the SGCB gene, leading to insufficient production of its product, beta-sarcoglycan. As MYO-101 aims to deliver this gene the key data point investors will be looking for is expression of beta-sarcoglycan in muscle fibres; Goldman Sachs reckon expression in 20% of fibres in muscle biopsies would represent a robust result.
Bulls will hope for a repeat of the market euphoria that erupted when Sarepta revealed clinical data on the first three subjects treated with an in-house gene therapy, rAAVrh74.MHCK7.micro-dystrophin (Sarepta investors party like it’s 2015, 19 June 2018). This is the second pillar of Sarepta’s muscular dystrophy strategy, the first being its marketed exon-skipping drug, Exondys 51.
The microdystrophin project and MYO-101 both use an AAVrh74 vector, something that should increase confidence in the latter. On the other hand, MYO-101 comprises the full-length SGCB gene, whereas the microdystrophin therapy contains a truncated version because the full dystrophin-coding gene is too big to fit inside an AAV vector.
It is hoped that expression of beta-sarcoglycan will be sufficient. For now the only guide for investors is Myonexus’s highly positive findings in a mouse model.
Tolerability
Comparisons with microdystrophin gene therapies are also relevant in light of the troubles faced by a competitor, Solid Biosciences: its DMD gene therapy SGT-101 was briefly put on clinical hold after the first patient dosed at 5×1013vg/kg was hospitalised with a decreased platelet count and evidence of complement activation, issues that the group now reckons it can manage.
Obviously, investors will pay close attention to MYO-101’s safety profile, too. MYO-101 subjects were dosed a week apart, with each subsequent patient receiving the therapy if tolerability in the previous one had been acceptable; the fact that three subjects could apparently be dosed with no issues reported is thus another positive sign.
The upcoming data also represent a make-or-break test of Myonexus, a private startup founded in 2017 that Sarepta has an exclusive option to acquire. The MYO-101 clinical trial is Myonexus’s first ever, and the company appears to have benefited from just one equity investment, raising $2.5m of seed financing in December 2017.
As such the $60m it got up front from Sarepta in May was a significant windfall. Sarepta investors will soon find out whether this was money well spent.

What’s up with Gilead’s Phase 3 NASH drug selonsertib?


Earlier Wednesday we could detect a distinct disturbance in the biotech force as some careful students of clinicaltrials.gov picked up on some major — and recently filed — changes in the timelines listed for a readout on Gilead’s $GILD closely-watched NASH drug selonsertib.
STELLAR 4, their Phase III study for compensated cirrhosis due to NASH, and STELLAR 3, on advanced NASH and bridging F3 fibrosis, had been given near-term planned completion dates that lined up with Gilead’s repeatedly confirmed plans to post the initial results in Q1 and Q2. But the January and March completion dates were radically adjusted, just days ago, to November, 2022 and February, 2023.
Eyebrows were quickly raised.
The timelines on this drug are crucial to the company’s narrative as CEO John Milligan and Chairman John Martin head for the exits, with Roche’s Daniel O’Day coming in to take the helm. And the data are due as Intercept lines up rival late-stage data of its own.
A spokesman for Gilead, though, says that the interim readouts are still on tap for the first half, as analysts are eagerly anticipating.
Here’s the statement I got from Gilead Wednesday afternoon, right after the closing bell:
STELLAR 3 and 4 are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating the safety and efficacy of Selonsertib in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with F3 bridging fibrosis or F4 cirrhosis, respectively. The interim analyses of these trials at 48 weeks are expected to read out in the first half of 2019. The trial completion data at 240 weeks duration is expected to complete in November 2022 for the STELLAR 4 trial and February 2023 for the STELLAR 3 trial.
Clinical trials.gov was recently updated to reflect 240 weeks as the primary completion dates of both STELLAR trials.
Jefferies’ Michael Yee is on watch duty, noting a couple of weeks ago that these readouts pose a significant catalyst for the company’s stock.
Management remains confident and “optimistic” about Phase III selonsertib, though they acknowledge odds are stacked against them.
This is one of the most carefully tracked data releases of 2019. So we’ll be there on the watch with him.

Rafael Holdings (RFL) Buys Majority Stake in Rafael Pharma


Rafael Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: RFL) today announced that it has purchased a majority stake in Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Rafael Pharma). Rafael Pharma is a clinical stage, metabolic oncology-therapeutics company developing innovative, highly selective and well tolerated anti-cancer agents.
Building on its prior investments, Rafael Holdings further exercised its warrant and converted other interests. The total investment to date from Rafael Holdings in Rafael Pharma securities, inclusive of cash, debt instruments, conversion of notes and contributions from minority beneficial holders, has increased to $66.7 million. The Company and its subsidiaries now hold 51.0% of the outstanding stock of Rafael Pharma. (Exclusive of minority beneficial holders’ interests, Rafael Holdings now holds 38.7% of the outstanding equity in Rafael Pharma).
Howard Jonas, Chairman and CEO of Rafael Holdings, said, “We continue to invest in Rafael Pharma to support the promising clinical development of its lead drug, devimistat (CPI-613®), as well as other Rafael Pharma agents now in pre-clinical development that have been discovered from its Altered Metabolism Directed platform. As the two companies further align, we strengthen our capacity to leverage their complementary attributes for mutual benefit.”
“We very much appreciate the continuing investment by Rafael Holdings,” said Sanjeev Luther, President and Chief Executive Officer of Rafael Pharmaceuticals. “With this support, we believe we are well positioned to advance our clinical program and products in our development pipeline including two recently initiated, pivotal phase III studies of our lead drug, devimistat (CPI-613®) for patients battling metastatic pancreatic cancer and relapsed AML.”
Rafael Pharma’s first-in-class clinical lead compound, devimistat, is being evaluated in multiple Phase I, I/II, and III clinical studies. Devimistat has been granted orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer, acute myeloid leukemia (AML), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), Burkitt lymphoma and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) by the US Food and Drug Administration, and for patients with pancreatic cancer and AML by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
Rafael Holdings and its subsidiaries had previously invested in debt securities of Rafael Pharma and partially exercised the warrant for other shares of Series D Preferred Stock. The warrant is exercisable for up to a 56% of the fully diluted equity of Rafael Pharmaceuticals.

Henry Schein will no longer be key supplier to VCA and Pet Partners


Mars, Incorporated has informed Henry Schein that it will consolidate most of its veterinary distribution purchases with one of Henry Schein’s U.S. based distribution competitors. A transition will occur through the first quarter of 2019. Henry Schein Animal Health has been a primary distributor of animal health products to VCA, which was acquired by Mars in September 2017 and also distributes products on behalf of Pet Partners. Henry Schein has been informed that although Henry Schein Animal Health will no longer be a primary supplier to VCA and Pet Partners, following the pending spin-off, it may still have a relationship with these companies. Henry Schein believes product sales from VCA and Pet Partners represent approximately $100 million in annualized revenue, is low margin and is not material to the business or earnings of Henry Schein Animal Health or Henry Schein.

Can AI read xrays?

An artificial intelligence (AI) system can analyze chest X-rays and spot patients who should receive immediate care, researchers report.
The system could also reduce backlogs in hospitals someday. Chest X-rays account for 40 percent of all diagnostic imaging worldwide, and there can be large backlogs, according to the researchers.
“Currently, there are no systematic and automated ways to triage chest X-rays and bring those with critical and urgent findings to the top of the reporting pile,” explained study co-author Giovanni Montana. He is formerly of King’s College London and is now at the University of Warwick in Coventry, England.
Montana and his colleagues used more than 470,300 adult chest X-rays to develop an AI system that could identify unusual results.
The system’s performance in prioritizing X-rays was assessed in a simulation using a separate set of 15,887 chest X-rays. All identifying information was removed from the X-rays to protect patient privacy.
The system was highly accurate in distinguished abnormal from normal chest X-rays, researchers said. Simulations showed that with the AI system, critical findings received an expert radiologist opinion within an average of 2.7 days, compared with an average of 11.2 days in actual practice.
The study results were published Jan. 22 in the journal Radiology.
“The initial results reported here are exciting as they demonstrate that an AI system can be successfully trained using a very large database of routinely acquired radiologic data,” Montana said in a journal news release.
“With further clinical validation, this technology is expected to reduce a radiologist’s workload by a significant amount by detecting all the normal exams, so more time can be spent on those requiring more attention,” he added.
The researchers said the next step is to test a much larger number of X-rays and to conduct a multi-center study to assess the AI system’s performance.
More information
The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has more on chest X-rays.
SOURCE: Radiology, news release, Jan. 22, 2019

How to Safely Use Plastic Containers in Your Microwave


For many, a microwave is indispensable, but questions remain about the safety of containers used to cook and reheat food in it.
Most of the controversy surrounds the chemicals used to make plastic containers soft or clear, like BPA and phthalates. These chemicals are called endocrine disrupters, because they can mimic hormones such as estrogen in a bad way. The chemicals can leach into your food, especially when containers are heated. According to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, other chemicals, even replacements for BPA, haven’t been tested enough to know if they’re truly safe.
Some experts recommend not using any plastic container in the microwave, even if it is stamped “microwave safe.” Microwaves heat unevenly and can create hot spots where plastic is more likely to break down. Instead, use ceramics or glass labeled microwaveable. Also, rather than covering even a glass dish with plastic wrap, place wax paper, a plain white paper towel or parchment paper over the container before microwaving.
If you must use plastic, the Environmental Working Group suggests choosing containers marked with the number 1, 2, 4 or 5. These don’t contain BPA and may be better choices. Avoid polycarbonate containers, which are sometimes stamped with the number 7 or “PC.” If you must wash any plastic in the dishwasher (where high heat can break down the plastic), put them on the top rack.
Note that many takeout food containers aren’t microwave safe. Also, don’t re-use trays from pre-packaged microwavable foods.
No matter what container you choose, always remove it with care — most injuries related to microwaves are burns from hot containers, overheated foods and exploding liquids.
More information
The nonprofit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families has a tip sheet to help you reduce exposure to BPA.