Search This Blog

Friday, March 8, 2019

Patients experiment with prescription drugs to fight aging

Dr. Alan Green’s patients travel from around the country to his tiny practice in Queens, N.Y., lured by the prospect of longer lives.
Over the past two years, more than 200 patients have flocked to see Green after learning that two drugs he prescribes could possibly stave off aging. One 95-year-old was so intent on keeping her appointment that she asked her son to drive her from Maryland after a snowstorm had closed the schools.
Green is among a small but growing number of doctors who prescribe drugs “off-label” for their possible anti-aging effects. Metformin is typically prescribed for diabetes, and prevents organ rejection after a transplant, but doctors can prescribe drugs off-label for other purposes—in this case, for “aging.”
Rapamycin’s anti-aging effects on animals and ‘s on people with diabetes have encouraged Green and his patients to experiment with them as anti-aging remedies, even though there’s little evidence healthy people could benefit.
“Many of (my patients) have Ph.D.s,” said Green, who is 76 and has taken the drugs for three years. “They have read the research and think it’s worth a try.”
In fact, it’s easier for patients to experiment with the drugs—either legally off-label or illegally from a foreign supplier—than it is for researchers to launch  that would demonstrate they work in humans.
No rigorous large-scale clinical trials have been conducted aimed at aging. The FDA so far has not agreed that a treatment could be approved for delaying the onset of aging or age-related diseases, citing questions about whether research can demonstrate an overall effect on aging rather than just on a specific disease.
Given such reservations, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to fund costly, large-scale trials. Also, both metformin and rapamycin are generic and relatively cheap.
“There’s no profit,” said Matt Kaeberlein, a professor of pathology at the University of Washington medical school whose team received a $15 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effects of rapamycin in dogs, but has noted the lack of funds for studies in people. “Without profit, there’s no incentive.”
Supplements with purported anti-aging effects routinely enter the market with little scrutiny and less evidence.
Yet, late last year, the NIH rejected a $77 million grant proposal by a prominent group of researchers to determine whether metformin could target multiple age-related diseases at once. It was the second rejection of the ambitious but unorthodox bid.
“We’re going to keep trying,” said a lead author of the metformin proposal, Stephen Kritchevsky, a co-director of the Sticht Center for Healthy Aging and Alzheimer’s Prevention. “These things take time.”
Less is known about rapamycin’s anti-aging effects and its possible side effects in the general population, including the possibility it could lead to insulin resistance. Yet a litany of studies show that rapamycin extends animal life spans. It also has been shown in such studies to stave off age-related diseases, from cancer to cardiovascular diseases to cognitive diseases.
“There should have been a clinical trial for rapamycin and Alzheimer’s disease years ago,” said Kaeberlein, who has publicly urged NIH to use a historic boost in Alzheimer’s funding to study the drug’s effects. “But the fact is, the clinical trials are really hard and expensive.”
Alexander Fleming, a former FDA official and advocate for the metformin proposal, said he believed it was difficult for regulators and funders to grasp that aging can be tackled as a whole—not just one disease at a time.
In fact, NIH reviewers who rejected the metformin proposal cited problems with the project’s aim of testing multiple age-related diseases at once. The researchers considered appealing the decision, asserting those reviewers were biased against studying aging as a whole. NIH, which declined to comment, discouraged the attempt.
Dr. Evan Hadley, director of the National Institute on Aging’s division of geriatrics and clinical gerontology, told Kaiser Health News that NIH is not ruling out funding projects that target aging, saying such proposals are still “of interest.”
The FDA also is open to considering such efforts “based on the  presented to us,” said FDA spokeswoman Amanda Turney.
Fleming, who oversaw the controversial FDA approval of metformin for Type 2 diabetes, said an argument could be made that it could approve a drug like metformin for preventing  instead of just treating them. He points to now widely used statins, which were approved to prevent heart disease.
“There is some kind of belief that the FDA can’t approve a therapy to reduce the progress of aging or age-related conditions,” said Fleming, an endocrinologist. “It’s just not true.”
Given the lack of consensus, other researchers have moved ahead with clinical trials focused on specific age-related conditions.
Researchers have shown that a “cousin” of rapamycin boosts the effectiveness of flu shots and lowers the incidence of upper respiratory infections in seniors by up to 30 percent. This group, led by Dr. Joan Mannick, has licensed it from Novartis and is now working on getting approval to target Parkinson’s disease.
“We’re trying to be pragmatic,” Mannick said of her team’s approach.
Some doctors and patients have decided not to wait. At a recent scientific forum on aging, one of the researchers on the NIH proposal asked the 300 or so people in attendance to raise their hands if they were already taking metformin for aging.
“Half the audience raised their hands,” recalled the researcher, Dr. Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, who said a pharmaceutical rep recently estimated that metformin sales are up 20 percent.
Barzilai is concerned about the off-label trend, although he sees metformin as promising. He contends that researchers in the longevity field first need to set up a framework for testing in clinical trials. Even if metformin doesn’t pan out as the most effective drug, he asserts a model like the metformin proposal is needed for any major clinical trial to proceed. His group is now trying to secure about half the amount of funding it requested from NIH from a mix of nonprofit and private investment.
“Much of the aging field is charlatans,” Barzilai said. “They tell you take this or that and you’ll live forever. But you have to do a clinical trial that is placebo-controlled and only then can you say what it really is and whether it’s safe.”
Green nonetheless said he plans to continue prescribing. He estimates about 5 percent of his patients are doctors themselves. Others have backgrounds in science or are in the upper-income bracket. According to his website, he charges $350 for an initial visit and does not accept insurance.
“They fly to see me on their own planes,” he said.
But other doctors who are open to prescribing metformin are holding off on rapamycin, given side effects in higher doses in sick patients.
I need to see more evidence,” said Dr. Garth Denyer, a doctor in The Woodlands, a wealthy Houston suburb, who said he prescribed metformin to a small number of patients but is waiting on rapamycin. “I’m hoping to see more data on safety.”
Michael Slattery, who has been HIV-positive since 1983, said he is taking both drugs because the virus is likely to shorten his life expectancy.
So far, he has not noticed any side effects or benefits. His partner, however, who is also HIV-positive, stopped taking rapamycin after getting kidney infections.
“I feel I have nothing left to lose,” said Slattery, a retired biotech consultant.
Other patients remain hopeful, even though the evidence is unlikely to be definitive anytime soon.
Linda Mac Dougall, 70, of Port Hueneme, Calif., said she participated in a small study that did not have a placebo control. She’s uncertain whether it had any effect on her.
“I really haven’t noticed anything, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t work,” said Mac Dougall, a massage therapist for seniors. She has slightly more confidence in the wide array of supplements she takes, she said: “If I live until I’m 110, we’ll know.”

Explore further

Is prediabetes really a medical condition that needs attention?

Charles Piller, a contributing correspondent for Science, has published a news article in the journal questioning the medical soundness of referring to prediabetes as a condition that needs treatment. In his article, he points out that there is little to no scientific evidence linking prediabetes to diabetes. He also notes that prediabetes has not been found to cause health problems in people who have been so diagnosed.
Piller outlines the history of the coinage of the term, relating that it came about as representatives from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and other diabetes-related institutions met to discuss the possible implications of patients with above-normal levels of glucose in their blood. The fear was that prediabetes would lead to full-blown diabetes and thus there existed an opportunity to prevent the disease if prediabetes could be treated.
Piller argues that the problem was a lack of evidence to suggest that might be the case. But that did not stop the CDC and many other institutions from adopting the term and using it as a warning marker for people with elevated glucose levels. Piller also suggests another problem. The ADA is a  and relies on donations to survive. Much of those funds, he found, come from  that sell drugs such as metformin, which have been developed to reduce the damage that diabetes does to the body.
Piller reports that in recent years, the ADA has lowered the conditions required to be diagnosed as prediabetic, resulting in far more people being diagnosed as such, a move he suggests could have been due to pressure from its pharmaceutical partners hoping to cash in on treatment products. This is because some doctors have begun prescribing medications to patients diagnosed as prediabetic. Some have even begun to prescribe drugs such as metformin to patients who do not even have diabetes, all in the name of preventing them from getting it.
But not everyone is on the prediabetes bandwagon, Piller points out. The World Health Organization has rejected it as a diagnosis, as have many other institutions around the world. There is also trouble with the numbers—tens of millions of people have been diagnosed as prediabetic, far more than will ever develop the disease. He cites an example: approximately 16 million people in the U.K. have been diagnosed as prediabetic, but only 3.3 million people there actually have type 2 diabetes.
He concludes by suggesting that coinage of the term has led to classifying many healthy people as having an illness, which has led to negative consequences for them such as financial losses due to having to pay for care, and unnecessary anxiety.

Explore further

More information: Charles Piller. Dubious diagnosis, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.363.6431.1026

Hep C Treatment Reduces Risk of Diabetes

In a large observational study, treatment of patients diagnosed with hepatitis C virus infection with direct-acting antiviral regimens was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes occurring within a year after treatment, researchers reported here.
Overall, 1,679 individuals who were not treated for hepatitis C virus were diagnosed with incident diabetes – a rate of 20.6 per 1,000 patient-years compared with 888 cases of diabetes among the individuals treated for hepatitis C virus – and an incident rate of 15.4 per 1,000 patient-years, a significant difference (P<0.001), said Adeel Butt, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
In a press conference at the annual Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Butt said that almost all the difference in diabetes onset was driven by treatment with the direct-acting antivirals.
Among the patients treated with interferon/ribavirin, there were 633 cases of diabetes, for an incident rate of 19.8 per 1,000 patient-years, which was not statistically different from the overall rate for untreated patients (P=0.39)
But there were just 255 cases of diabetes in the patients on direct-acting antivirals, or an incidence of 9.89 per 1,000 patient-years, a highly statistically significant difference (P<0.001), Butt reported.
“Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection with direct-acting antiviral regimens confers benefits beyond virologic control and may be useful in controlling or mitigating some of the extrahepatic complications of hepatitis C virus,” Butt suggested. “We found that hepatitis C virus infection treatment reduces the incidence and risk of subsequent diabetes. This appears to be driven by direct-acting antiviral regimens. We found that the benefit of treatment is more pronounced in persons with more advanced liver fibrosis or cirrhosis.”
He also noted that patients who achieved a sustained virologic response – a functional cure of the disease – also had a lower risk of diabetes. The incident rate was 13.3 per 1,000 patient-years if a sustained virologic response was achieved, compared with a rate of 19.2 per 1000 patient-years if the individuals failed to achieve a sustained response, Butt said.
Press conference moderator Robert Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, told MedPage Today that it is not clear why treatment of hepatitis C virus infection would have an impact on diabetes: “Diabetes is a complex disease that includes abnormalities in the pancreas, but also in the end organ tissues where insulin acts. Hepatitis is pretty much like a grenade in your liver, which is the center of your metabolism, and whatever is going on in disrupting the metabolism gets into the factors that enhance the incidence of diabetes.”
“Now that we have a way to reverse the process in the liver that drives it is one more reason to treat people with hepatitis C,” Schooley continued. He said it may become more important as the population gets heavier in weight and more diabetes occurs in that group.
For the study, Butt and colleagues scrutinized the Electronically Retrieved Cohort of HCV Infected Veterans (ERCHIVES) and included 4,764 patients who were treated for hepatitis C virus infection with the combination of PEG-interferon and ribavirin, who were matched with 4,764 untreated controls.
The researchers also included a second cohort of 21,279 patients with hepatitis C virus infection who were treated with direct-acting antivirals and matched with 21,279 untreated controls.
The patients were treated with at least 8 weeks of any direct-acting antiviral regimen that had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or by at least 24 weeks of the interferon/ribavirin combination.
The treated population had a median age of 61, compared with 58 for the untreated population. About 54% of the patients were white; about 29% were black; about 3% were Hispanic; and 96% of the cohort were men, representing the sexual makeup of veterans treated at Veterans Affairs health centers. Patients’ body mass index averaged about 27 in all arms of the study.
Butt reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Merck.
Schooley reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences

TG clears board data review on way to key Phase 3 readout

A data safety monitoring board has recommended the continuation of TG Therapeutics’ phase 3 chronic lymphocytic leukemia trial. The board made the call after assessing the safety and efficacy data generated to date.
The trial, UNITY-CLL, is subject to periodic, preplanned reviews to assess whether it should carry on, or if its inability to meet the primary endpoint or safety problems necessitate an early halt. At the latest review, the board did not raise any safety concerns, found the study was not futile and said it should continue as planned.
TG welcomed the news.
“We are highly encouraged that based on the progression-free survival data accumulated to date, the UNITY-CLL DSMB determined that the study was not futile and supported continuation of the trial as planned,” TG CEO Michael Weiss said in a statement.
The news sent TG’s stock up 9% in premarket trading, although the stock is still down on the price it traded at prior to the board’s previous assessment of the trial in September. Back then, TG dropped plans to seek an accelerated approval based on overall response data because they “were not sufficiently mature to conduct the analysis.”
That lengthened TG’s path to market and raised questions about how its ublituximab-umbralisib (U2) combination is performing in the phase 3. TG expects to have data on PFS, the primary endpoint, late in 2019 or early in 2020 that will either quash or confirm doubts about the efficacy of U2.
The trial is advancing in parallel to a phase 2b study that is assessing U2 in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. The board reviewed safety data from the phase 2b and phase 3 trials and found no reason to stop the studies.
That lessens one of the concerns about U2. Umbralisib is a PI3K delta inhibitor, a class of drug that has been held back by toxicity. Autoimmune and infectious toxicities dogged the first FDA-approved PI3K inhibitor, Gilead’s Zydelig, and have restricted its use.

Genentech Breast Cancer Combo Gets FDA Accelerated Approval

– This Tecentriq combination is the first cancer
immunotherapy regimen approved for breast cancer –
– Triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive disease, with high
unmet medical need –
Genentech, a member of the Roche Group ((SIX: RO, ROG, OTCQX:RHHBY),
today announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted
accelerated approval to Tecentriq® (atezolizumab) plus
chemotherapy (Abraxane® [paclitaxel protein-bound particles
for injectable suspension (albumin-bound); nab-paclitaxel]) for
the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic
triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in people whose tumors express
PD-L1, as determined by an FDA-approved test. This indication is
approved under accelerated approval based on progression-free survival
(PFS). Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon
verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory
trial(s). The FDA’s Accelerated Approval Program allows conditional
approval of a medicine that fills an unmet medical need for a serious or
life-threatening disease or condition.

LogicBio Plans First Clinical Trial for Gene Editing in Children

Following last year’s stellar initial public offering in October, where it raised $80.5 million, about $10 million over initial expectations, LogicBio Therapeutics is planning a gene-editing clinical trial in children.
Based in Cambridge, Mass., LogicBio focuses on gene therapy and gene editing. Its technology came out of Stanford University and led to its GeneRide tech platform. This platform is designed to integrate corrective genes into a patient’s genome in a precise and stable way, using a natural DNA repair process called homologous recombination.
The company plans to submit an application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to launch its first clinical trial by the end of this year. The trial would be to treat methylmalonic acidemia, a hereditary disease that leaves patients unable to metabolize certain proteins and fats. It usually affects infants and children, and results in a range of symptoms, including muscle weakness and intellectual disabilities.
Children with the disease who make it past infancy have a life expectancy of 20 to 30 years. It affects about one in 50,000 children.

Instead of using CRISPR for gene editing, LogicBio’s GeneRide platform uses two homologous gene strands to transport a corrected gene into the DNA sequence. CRISPR has some yet-unresolved problems regarding off-target gene edits that the GeneRide system does not seem to have.
The Boston Business Journal notes, “Homologous recombination has historically had a low rate of success compared to other gene therapies,” according to Kyle Chiangvice president of product strategy. “LogicBio’s challenge is two-fold, because gene therapies are often administered in the liver, but infants and children’s liver cells divide and multiply much more frequently than in adults, degrading the treatment.”
But LogicBio’s approach utilizes the albumin gene, which is very active in the liver, resulting in better integration. The company also believes its approach could be used in muscles and other body sites.
The company’s chief executive officer Frederic Chereau also indicated it is looking for a commercial partner with a background in muscular diseases and disorders.
The company currently has 32 staffers and plans to hire almost 20 more this year.
In November 2018, the company inked a partnership deal with Children’s Medical Research Institute (CMRI) of Australia to develop new viral vectors. They formed a new AAV Development Program to develop next-generation synthetic adeno-associated virus (AAV) capsids. LogicBio holds exclusive worldwide commercial rights to vectors that come out of the partnership, with a goal of commercializing them as widely as possible.
The AAV Development Program is led by Ian Alexander, Head of CMRI’s Gene Therapy Research Unit and Leszek Lisowski, leader of CMRI’s Translational Vectorology Group. Lisowski is a scientific co-founder of LogicBio, who worked with Mark A. Kay at Stanford University.
“We are confident that we can further improve on the performance of current AAV vectors,” Lisowski stated at the time, “expanding their utility in a range of tissues, while also improving manufacturability and reducing cost.”
Most gene therapies utilize adeno-associated viruses, but for the most part, they haven’t changed in the last 10 years. LogicBio developed a synthetic liver-tropic AAV capsid, AAV-LK03, which is being evaluated by the company to deliver gene therapies using GeneRide.

FDA Advisory Panel Gives Mixed Review to Sanofi’s Dengue Vaccine

Sanofi has been hoping to secure approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)for its dengue vaccine, but a mixed review from a panel of experts could sink the chances of a green light for the medication.
The FDA is expected to rule on Sanofi’s Biologics License Application by May 1 but if an advisory review of the medication is an indication, the FDA may dash Sanofi’s hope for a blockbuster vaccine. On Thursday, the FDA advisory panel handed down a split decision on both the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, which would be sold under the trade name Dengvaxia. The panel voted six to seven on efficacy when it came to the target population of the drug, patients ages 9 to 45 years old. There was one abstention. On safety, the panel was evenly split at 7 to 7. When it came to a smaller group of patients, those ages 9 to 17, the advisory panel was more supportive of the treatment, voting 13 to 1 in support of the vaccine’s efficacy and 10 to 4 on safety. The FDA granted a priority review for Dengvaxia.
In December, Dengvaxia, a live recombinant tetravalent dengue vaccine, snagged regulatory approval in Europe. It was first approved in 2015. Dengvaxia will be available in Europe to prevent dengue disease in individuals 9-45 years of age with a documented prior dengue infection and who are living in endemic areas, the company announced in December.
Also known as break-bone-fever, Dengue is a mosquito-borne infection marked by episodes of high fever and severe joint pain. People can get dengue up to four times and dengue is unique in that the second infection tends to be worse than the first. According to the World Health Organization, the threat and incidence of dengue have grown over the past few decades and threatens about half the world’s population, including territories of the United States. In 2010, Puerto Rico experienced the largest outbreak with more than 12,000 cases.

While Sanofi is hoping to snag approval in the U.S., the FDA panel vote came at a time the government of the Philippines is preparing criminal charges against the company over the administration of the medication in that country. Last week, the government’s Department of Justice said it found probable cause to indict Sanofi officials over 10 deaths it claims are linked to the Dengvaxia vaccine.
Dengvaxia has been a sore point for the Philippines. In 2017 it was reported that the Dengue vaccine could actually worsen the symptoms of the illness in people who had previously not been exposed to the virus. Sanofi said the analysis showed more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination in patients who had not been previously infected by the dengue virus. The Philippines has halted the use of Dengvaxia in that country.
While Sanofi is struggling with the claims against Dengvaxia, rival drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical is one step closer to seeing its own vaccine approved. In January, the company said its vaccine for dengue fever hit its primary efficacy endpoint in its Phase III clinical trial. The data from this trial will be used to support a regulatory filing in the U.S. Takeda is also conducting a long-term safety study as well.