Search This Blog

Friday, July 12, 2019

Karyopharm drug tested in ‘industry-first’ approach to brain cancer

Karyopharm’s new drug Xpovio is to be tested in a new type of clinical trial designed to rapidly select individualised treatment combinations for brain cancer.
The unusual phase 0/2 design starts with a preclinical phase in which Xpovio (selinexor) will be tested as part of several drug cocktails for glioblastoma – on a patient-by-patient basis – by scientists from the Ivy Brain Tumor Center in Phoenix, Arizona.
Selinexor – a first-in-class oral XPO1 inhibitor – will initially be given alongside various other new experimental drugs to see which combinations have the greatest potential in the study, described as an ‘industry-first approach’ to drug testing.
The tissue-based testing design can show if a combination is having an impact on a patient’s tumour in as little as seven days, allowing patients to quickly continue onto an advanced trial or switch to a different treatment, says Nader Sanai, a neurosurgical oncologist and director of the Ivy Centre.
Glioblastoma – the cancer that killed US Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy – is one of the deadliest types of cancer with a median survival of just 14 months, and has proved to be one of the toughest challenges for drug developers.
According to the Ivy Centre, only five drugs have been approved for brain cancer patients in the US since 1982, while in the same timeframe more than 50 have been approved to treat lung cancer patients.
Xpovio is variously described as a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) or an ‘exportin’ inhibitor, forcing tumour suppressor proteins such as p53 and p27 to be retained and accumulate in the cell nucleus, resulting in cell death.
It was approved to treat multiple myeloma earlier this month – despite a call for a delay by an FDA advisory committee – and is also in mid- and late-stage testing in lymphoma as well as solid tumours such as liposarcoma and endometrial cancer.
It’s already in a phase 2 trial as a second-line monotherapy in relapsed or refractory glioblastoma patients.
Results in 30 subjects presented at the ASCO congress in June showed that the drug was able to achieve a 10% response rate – including one complete response and two partial responses.
While not impressive at first glance, that is around twice what has been achieved with other drugs and 19% of the group had progression-free survival of six months.
“Selinexor exploits a compelling target in glioblastoma patients, which is why we have selected it as the backbone of a new experimental drug cocktail,” says Sanai.
“Our scientific partnership with Karyopharm…will arrive at a new therapeutic strategy that can be accelerated into the clinic and patients in need.”

Progenics shareholders thumbs down on chairman, director

Preliminary results from Progenics Pharmaceuticals’ (PGNX -0.5%) Annual Meeting showed that Chairman Peter Crowley and board member Michael Kishbauch failed to receive a majority of votes cast supporting their re-election.
Both have submitted contingent resignations pending the certification of the votes.

ProQR up ahead of QR-421a presentation

ProQR Therapeutics N.V. (PRQR +12.9%) is up on slightly higher volume ahead of a presentation on candidate QR-421a in Usher syndrome tomorrow at the Annual Usher Connections Conference in Philadelphia.
QR-421a is an investigational RNA-based therapeutic designed to exclude exon 13 from the USH2A gene’s messenger RNA, thereby removing the mutation that causes retinitis pigmentosa associated with Usher syndrome type 2.
Usher syndrome is an inherited disorder characterized by hearing and vision loss that worsens over time.
Phase 1/2 study is in process with a primary completion date in December.

Mental Health in a Cannabis Nation

Drew Ramsey, MD: Welcome back to our coverage of the American Psychiatric Association annual conference, where we’re celebrating 175 years of psychiatry.
We wanted to focus on cannabis right now. I’m with Dr Deborah Hasin, a professor of epidemiology in psychiatry at Columbia University, and one of our experts on understanding what’s happening in terms of cannabis and substance use in America.
It feels like I’m getting an incredible number of questions in my practice, as I know other clinicians are, about cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD)—whether they can use it and whether it works. Can you tell us what’s changing in that area?
Deborah Hasin, PhD: There are a lot of things changing, actually. If you think back to 30 years ago, there were no states that had legal marijuana use, either for medical or recreational purposes. If you fast-forward to today, two thirds of US citizens now live in states that have legalized medical marijuana and about 25% in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. The number of Americans who think that marijuana is a harmless substance has gone up sharply in the past several years.
It’s certainly a point worth making that while a lot of people can use marijuana safely without harm, just as with drinking alcohol, cannabis is not a risk-free substance. There are risks involved in using it, and we see time trends for some of those risks increasing as the number of Americans using cannabis rises.

Not a Risk-Free Substance

Ramsey: What are the big risks that clinicians need to be aware of? Because I’m often surprised that this doesn’t get discussed as much as I would think.
Hasin: One of the things that is perhaps most obvious, but that not everybody knows about, is the risk for cannabis use disorder. People assume that cannabis is not addictive. Although it may not be as addictive as opioids, for example, there still is a full syndrome of cannabis use disorder, including cannabis withdrawal, which is included now in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The number of Americans driving under the influence of cannabis is also increasing, which has risks for vehicle crashes. We have new findings coming out that in people with pain, nonmedical cannabis use is increasing, and the association is growing stronger over time. And there is a relationship between using cannabis and developing psychosis, especially among people who have risk factors like a family history of those kinds of problems.
Ramsey: In terms of us screening and trying to better partner with patients, it feels that as a field, we’ve been very risk-averse and really want to focus on the problems. Yet that’s a little out of step with where the public is and where our patients are sometimes. How do you recommend that we talk about the risks, especially when it comes to psychosis?
Hasin: I think acknowledging that cannabis isn’t a horrible substance for everybody is a good starting point, because then it’s acknowledging that there is some room for discussion. But then saying something about the risks and having a meaningful discussion about what those might be could be a good way to at least get a conversation started.

Latest on Patterns of Use and Effects on Mood Disorders

Ramsey: You noted that a quarter of Americans live in states where they have access to legal recreational cannabis. That’s a huge amount going out into the population. What do you think is going to happen in those states?
Hasin: That’s a great question. There haven’t been that many years of data available for recreational marijuana laws, because the first ones were only passed in 2012. So in terms of national data, that’s not that many years. My colleagues and I have a paper that’s under review now. The findings in that show that cannabis use overall in adults, frequent use, near daily use, and cannabis use disorder have increased more in states that enacted recreational laws than in other states. So it suggests that these laws are having an impact.
Ramsey: We talk a lot about the risk in psychotic disorders, but there’s also an effect in mood disorders and comorbidities with other substance use disorders. And for many years, marijuana was framed as this gateway drug. Can you tell us about other disorders and also whether in some ways it does facilitate people getting into other substances?
Hasin: There’s a lot of controversy about that last point. Certainly in adolescence, we started to see a switch over 4 or 5 years ago with tobacco no longer being the first substance used by teenagers but cannabis being the first substance used. So now people worry about an effect of cannabis acting as a gateway to tobacco.
In regard to other psychiatric disorders, like depressive disorders, if you look at the diagnostic criteria for cannabis withdrawal, a lot of those symptoms are almost exactly the same as symptoms of major depressive disorder. Sometimes people could be using cannabis, thinking that it’s self-treating depression, and what they may actually be experiencing, if they’re using cannabis every day, is that when it wears off, they start to get withdrawal symptoms and it feels like depression. So they use it and those symptoms go away, but they may actually be perpetuating an ongoing withdrawal syndrome. That’s something else for clinicians to think about.
Ramsey: Thank you so much for all of this great information about some of the big changes that are happening in all of our clinical practices, where patients have increasing access, increasing use, and changes in use patterns of cannabis, and the potential risks associated with that. Again, I think we should be encouraged to be flexible when we meet our patients and understand that there are people who can tolerate this and others who can’t. On the clinical side, it’s our job to distinguish who’s who and do our best to get people toward health. Thank you so much.
Hasin: You’re very welcome.

Rise in GI Cancers in Younger Adults: Unraveling the Why

The increase in younger-onset gastrointestinal cancer is creating an ever-growing population of patients who have substantial unmet needs, says an expert.
Irit Ben-Aharon, MD, PhD, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, called for greater consultation and discussion with these younger adult patients (aged 29 to 49 years) on the role of fertility preservation, as well as on the subsequent risk for cardiovascular morality and issues related to quality of life.
However, she also emphasized that elucidating the “possibly unique biology and etiology” of young-onset gastrointestinal cancer is “essential” if better and more personalized treatments are to be identified in the future.
Speaking here at the World Conference on Gastrointestinal Cancer (WCGC) 2019, Ben-Aharon highlighted recent data that show an increase in incidence in younger adults. She also discussed several possible causes that have been proposed — obesity, antibiotic use, and epigenetic changes related to lifestyle.

Increase in Younger-Onset CRC Incidence

recent analysis of a US population–based cancer registry showed that the incidence of six obesity-related cancers increased significantly among younger adults (aged 25 to 49 years) from 1995 through 2014.
Gastrointestinal cancers accounted for most of those; the incidence of colorectal, pancreatic, gall bladder, and other biliary cancers also increased markedly, Ben Aharon noted. There was an increase in the incidence of gastric noncardia cancer in younger adults, and although this increase was smaller than that for the other GI cancers, the incidence is rising in successively younger generations.
The increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in persons younger than 50 in the United States has been reported widely during the past 2 years, and experts have told Medscape Medical News that this is “an issue screaming for attention.”
study published earlier this year showed that a significant increase in the incidence of CRC in people younger than 50 years has also been reported in many countries in Europe, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The researchers said their data suggest that “there has been a real increase in risk and that the trends do not represent a shift in age at diagnosis attributable to earlier detection.”
In her talk, however, Ben-Aharon pointed out that although this trend has been observed in North America and Western Europe, it is not seen everywhere.
In the Middle East, the picture is more mixed. Cancer rates among younger adults in the Mediterranean tend to be more stable, and in East Asia, cancer rates across age groups are not homogeneous.
With regard to CRC, Ben-Aharon showed results from another recent study of almost 30,000 cases diagnosed among adults aged 40 to 49 years from 1975 to 2015 in the United States.
This study revealed that among younger adults, there were annual percentage increases of CRC of 2.9% for distant disease, 1.4% for localized disease, and 1.3% for regional disease.
These figures suggest that “there has been a real increase in risk,” she commented.
This leads to the question, what is underlying this increase in cancer among young adults?
To date, young-onset cancer has been considered a hallmark of an inherited predisposition to cancer. However, a recent study of 450 patients younger than 50 who had early-onset CRC found that only 16% had hereditary genetic mutations, such as in Lynch syndrome.
This suggests that environmental factors are involved, Ben Aharon commented.

Obesity Increases Risk for CRC

Regarding the reasons for this increase, many researchers have pointed to obesity, which is a known risk factor for cancer.
In her talk, Ben Aharon highlighted two recent studies that suggest that carrying extra weight is associated with an increase in CRC.
study that analyzed data from two large US cohort studies found that, particularly among women, there appeared to be an association between early-life body fatness and CRC risk.
Also, an analysis of data from more than 85,000 women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study II showed that obese women had almost double the risk for early-onset CRC and that the risk was increased for overweight women compared to women who had a healthy weight (body mass index of 18.5 kg/m2to 22.9 kg/m2).

Increase in Antibiotic Use

One theory that has been put forward to explain the increase in early-onset CRC is that it may be due to a rise in antibiotic use.
Ben-Aharon said that several studies have presented evidence that antibiotic use, particularly long-term use during early to middle adulthood, is associated with an increased risk for CRC, possibly through alterations in the gut microbiome.
Moreover, the use of antibiotics during infancy or childhood, which increased markedly in the 1970s and 1980s, may affect microbial diversity and increase cancer risk.
It is not clear, however, whether the use of antibiotics has a direct effect on early-onset CRC, Ben-Aharon commented.

Epigenetic Changes

Another area of exploration regards epigenetic changes that occur in response to factors such as an increase in the consumption of sugary drinks and foods, increases in pollution levels, or increases in sedentary habits associated with gaming and the use of smartphones.
Although the genomic landscape of early-onset CRC does not differ significantly from that of late-onset disease, there are data that show striking differences in DNA methylation profiles, Ben-Aharon told the audience.
DNA hypomethylation is typically the first epigenetic abnormality that is recognized in human tumors in high-resolution genome-wide studies, although, again, its relevance to early-onset disease is not clear.
The case is different for pancreatic cancer. As Ben-Aharon and colleagues recently reported, in early-onset pancreatic cancer (patients younger than 55 years), the molecular landscape was quite different from that of pancreatic cancer of average-age onset (older than 70 years).
Comparing gene expression in early-onset and average-age-onset pancreatic cancer, they found that there was a host of genes with increased expression in younger-onset disease across several pathways that gave it a highly distinct profile.

“What Is Going On in This Disease?”

After the presentation, Sharlene Gill, MD, professor of medicine, British Columbia Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, praised Ben-Aharon for offering an “insightful perspective.”
Ben-Aharon was asked whether dietary factors such as folic acid deficiency could contribute to DNA hypomethylation and thereby increase the incidence of early-onset gastrointestinal cancer.
Ben-Aharon replied: “We don’t know much about the biology.
“Compared to pancreatic cancer, for example, in which you can really define pathways, in colorectal cancer, if you look for the patient profile of the genomic signature in the tumor itself, there are subtle changes, but it’s not something very striking.
“But we know that it’s something that probably goes with the environment that may induce epigenetic changes, and hypomethylation may reflect it.”
She added that other possible factors include air pollution, stress, or the microbiome.
To further examine the question, she noted, requires large multinational studies, because the increase in incidence varies between countries and regions.
Only when demographic data are assessed in conjunction with characteristics of normal tissue and diseased tissue; changes in the microbiome; dietary factors; and genetic information from biobanks will researchers possibly “have a clue of what is going on in this disease,” she said.
The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
World Conference on Gastrointestinal Cancer (WCGC) 2019. Presented July 4, 2019.

Calorie Restriction: A Win for Heart Health

Calorie restriction helped improve all factors of metabolic syndrome in people without obesity, according to the phase II CALERIE trial.
Adults who restricted their calories by 12% — about 300 fewer calories a day — saw significant improvement in metabolic syndrome score compared with adults on a control diet after 12 months, and this improvement was maintained through 24 months, William Kraus, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues wrote in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
Compared with the control dieters, calorie restrictors saw significant improvements in multiple cardiovascular risk factors from baseline through two years of the diet:
  • Systolic BP: +2.15 mm Hg (control) vs -2.20 mm Hg (calorie restriction)
  • Diastolic BP: +1.55 mm Hg vs -3.40 mm Hg
  • LDL-cholesterol: +0.03 mmol/L vs -0.23 mmol/L
  • Total cholesterol to HDL-cholesterol ratio: -0.047 vs -0.532
  • Triglycerides: -0.03 mmol/L vs -0.27 mmol/L
Calling the trial “groundbreaking” in an accompanying commentary, Frank Hu, MD, PhD, of Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston, praised the study for being the “first long-term calorie restriction intervention in non-obese young and middle-aged participants with a large sample size.”
Hu also pointed out that the high retention and compliance rate was a particular strength of the trial, which was “higher than a typical weight loss trial.”
Regardless, the hurdle to this type of intervention is adherence to a calorie-restricted diet long-term in the general population. This was represented by the 18% dropout rate in the calorie-restricted group versus only a 5% dropout rate in those on the control diet.
The benefits of a calorie-restricted diet likely span beyond cardiovascular health, Hu noted, highlighting how this diet strategy is also being studied for slowing the aging process and extending lifespan. Despite these benefits, Hu seemed less then convinced that this diet strategy could actually put a dent in the global obesity epidemic.
“We are living in an increasingly obesogenic environment with an abundance of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, which are cheap, readily available, accessible, and heavily marketed,” he wrote, adding that “[b]ecause individual food choices are shaped by the food environment, the long-term sustainability of calorie restriction and its benefits on body weight can be easily undermined.”
Kraus and colleagues also noted some other significant benefits after two years of a calorie-restricted diet, including an improvement in fasting insulin (-1.71 μIU/mL), fasting glucose (-0.05 mg/dL), C-reactive protein (-0.068 nmol/L), and insulin sensitivity (+0.099).
Although not surprised by the many health benefits of a calorie-restricted diet, Kraus told MedPage Today his group was “surprised at the magnitude of the effect in already healthy, relatively young, normal weight individuals. And these effects were above and beyond those due to the weight loss alone.”
More than advocating solely for calorie restriction, Kraus pointed out how “maintaining a healthy weight and getting adequate amounts of physical activity are important health goals,” which should be advocated to patients. However, he also added that it’s “entirely possible that some degree of caloric restriction should be included with these other health behaviors due to its beneficial effects on health parameters.”
The Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) trial included 143 adults on the calorie-restricted diet and 75 adults on an ad libitum control diet with a baseline BMI from 22 to 28, the majority of whom were women. Those on the diet were instructed to restrict their calories by 25%, but few achieved this level of restriction.
During the initial 6 months on the diet, the group averaged a 19.5% decrease in energy intake — accounting for about 480 kcal less per day — which later dropped to an average of 9.1% fewer calories after six months. During the two-year study period, adults on the diet intervention averaged an 11.9% reduction in energy intake per day, or 216 fewer calories a day. Those in the control diet saw a slight, but non-significant 0.8% decrease in mean calorie intake.
After two years, those who restricted their calories saw a 16.5 lb (7.5 kg) drop in body weight and a 2.6 point drop in BMI. The majority of body weight lost was also fat mass — 11.7 lb (5.3 kg) of total weight lost — with only a 4.9 lb (2.2 kg) drop in fat-free mass. They saw a 4.6% reduction in body fat, as well. On the other hand, the control dieters experienced a small 0.2 lb (0.1 kg) increase in body weight after two years.
In a sensitivity analysis controlled for reduction in body weight, Kraus’ group still determined a “substantial residual and significant dose–response effects of calorie restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors,” they reported.
Last Updated July 12, 2019
The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health. Kraus and co-authors reported no disclosures.
Hu reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and has received research support from the California Walnut Commission and honoraria for lectures from Metagenics and Standard Process and honoraria from Diet Quality Photo Navigation.

Health companies start reporting next week: 3 things to keep in mind

Health companies will begin reporting second-quarter earnings next week, starting with two Dow components, Johnson & Johnson and UnitedHealth Group Inc.
It has been a tumultuous few months for managed-care companies, pharmaceutical companies and biotechs. Fears around “Medicare for all” weighed on earnings last quarter. Shares of UnitedHealth UNH, +1.50% facing investor anxiety about the implementation a single-payer system, dropped sharply in April even after the company beat Wall Street expectations and boosted full-year guidance. Shares of other insurers and managed-care companies also fell at the time, and biopharma stocks followed suit.
Some of those fears have since dissipated and health stocks have mostly recovered to their pre-April levels. But there’s still some unease about where the health regulatory landscape is headed, and pharmaceutical companies are still facing questions about their long-term growth potential.
Here are three big things on investors’ minds as earnings season kicks off this time around.
Potential changes in health policy
Although it seems that the worst is over for health stocks, the fate of the Affordable Care Act remains uncertain, with 20 state attorneys challenging the law’s constitutionality without its penalty on patients without coverage.
Change could also be coming for drug pricing. The Trump administration has vowed it will drive down drug costs, but how and when is still up in the air. The administration has made several proposals — requiring drugmakers to disclose drug prices in television ads, overhauling the current rebates system and mulling an executive order allowing the U.S. to buy drugs based on the lowest price paid by other countries — but investors aren’t sure which, if any, of those will stick. The administration said on Thursday it would be withdrawing its plan to overhaul the rebates that drugmakers give to middlemen in Medicare, and a federal judge on Monday blocked the plan to require pharmaceutical companies to disclose drug prices in TV ads.
“In the near term… we expect the focus on drug pricing reform (congressional action and/or potential presidential executive orders) will likely dictate sentiment and complicate setups into the print themselves. As such, we expect the sector will be volatile over the next couple of weeks,” UBS analyst Carter Gould wrote in a Thursday note on second-quarter biotech earnings to clients.

Patent expirations and generic competition
Many big biopharma companies rely on just one or two drugs for a big chunk of their revenue. Now they’re facing the twin demons of patent expiration and generic competition. This was a big theme last earnings season and is expected to loom large over second-quarter earnings as well.
A prime example: AbbVie Inc.’s ABBV, -0.57% top-selling drug Humira, which brought in 61% of the company’s revenue in 2018, is facing increasing competition in Europe. The drugmaker warned investors that 2019 sales would drop after competitors like Mylan NV MYL, +0.92%  and Amgen Inc.AMGN, -1.60%   began selling lower-cost biosimilars of the drug in Europe in October.
Sales of AbbVie’s Humira fell 5.6% last quarter, but management assured investors that the company’s pipeline would more than plug up any holes that biosimilar competition to Humira might leave. AbbVie has said the competition will likely reduce overall Humira sales by $2 billion this year.
M&A wave
Investors did not expect that AbbVie would expand its portfolio by acquiring troubled pharmaceutical giant Allergan Plc AGN, -0.12% The deal, announced in late June and worth about $63 billion, adds several big-name cosmetic treatments, like anti-wrinkle injectable Botox and dermal filler Juvéderm, to the AbbVie line-up.
The acquisition came shortly after Pfizer Inc. PFE, -1.26%   agreed to buy cancer-therapy biotech Array BioPharma Inc. ARRY, -0.06%  for $10.64 billion in cash. Earlier that month, Merck & Co. Inc. MRK, -1.72%   bought Tilos Therapeutics Inc.for $773 million, and in May, Merck agreed to acquire Peloton Therapeutics Inc.for around $1.1 billion. In January, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. BMY, -0.79%   kicked off the new year by announcing it would acquire Celgene Corp. CELG, -0.39%  for an estimated $74 billion.
This wave of megamergers comes as large biopharmaceutical companies look for ways to generate growth. And investors should expect more of these; last month, Moody’s said M&A activity is set to rise and named Amgen Inc. AMGN, -1.60%Biogen Inc. BIIB, +0.64% Gilead Sciences Inc. GILD, +0.38% and Novo Nordisk A/S NVO, -2.84%  as likely acquirers.