Search This Blog

Saturday, November 9, 2019

UPenn’s CRISPR-edited immune cells prove safe in small cancer study

In 2016, Facebook and Napster billionaire Sean Parker gained a lot of attention for his promises about “hacking cancer” and bringing “disruption” to life sciences research. But it was more than just talk: The internet pioneer put up $250 million to launch the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, which then became the first research institution to get a thumbs-up from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to launch a human trial of an immuno-oncology therapy made from the gene-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9.
Now the researchers running that trial are providing some hints of how it’s going so far. At the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting in Orlando, the team, led by the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, will discuss two multiple myeloma patients and one sarcoma patient who are participating in the trial, which is also supported by Tmunity Therapeutics.
According to an abstract of the study released Wednesday, the CRISPR treatment was well tolerated. The gene-edited cells the patients received expanded and traveled to the tumors they were meant to treat. And the three patients, all of whom had failed previous treatments, are still alive nine months following their cell infusions, though it’s too early to assess their overall response.

The technology at the heart of the trial involves using CRISPR to make three edits in T cells that are collected from patients. One of the edits eliminates PD-1, a “checkpoint” that prevents immune cells from being able to recognize and attack cancer. The other two snips remove parts of T cells that would normally prevent them from attaching to cancer cells.
Then a virus is used to insert an “affinity-enhanced T cell receptor (TCR),” which instructs the T cells to target a particular antigen on cancer cells, according to a statement.
The University of Pennsylvania was a pioneer of CAR-T technology, and research there led to the development and commercialization of Kymriah, Novartis’ blood cancer treatment, which also involves removing immune cells from patients and engineering them to recognize and attack cancer. But the cells used in this trial are different.
CAR-T cells are armed with receptors like CD19, which makes them active in most patients with cancers that are driven by those receptors. CRISPR-edited T cells, by contrast, are only active in the presence of HLA-A201, an antigen that’s overly abundant in some cancer patients. For that reason, patients have to undergo testing for HLA-A201 over-expression before they can receive the treatment.
The ASH presentation is the latest news from the Parker Institute, which has funded immuno-oncology research at a variety of academic institutions and companies. The organization’s other recent cell-therapy endeavors include forming a pact with Xyphos Biosciences to develop next-generation CAR-T therapies and participating in an $85 million funding of ArsenalBio, which also plans to use CRISPR to develop cell therapies.
The Penn trial will include 18 patients with multiple myeloma, synovial sarcoma or myxoid/round cell liposarcoma and is expected to run through 2022. The researchers plan to provide further details about the function of the cells and the clinical outcomes they’ve observed so far on December 7 at the ASH conference.

10x Genomics posts 67% growth in Q3, its first report since going public

10x Genomics
10x has been expanding its global manufacturing base, with plans to begin operations at facilities in Singapore next year. (10x Genomics)

Siemens’ Corindus unit performs its first robotic brain aneurysm surgery

Corindus
Corindus has also been developing its system for telerobotics, potentially using 5G communications. (Corindus)

Cardiologist’s Diet Built for Improving Cholesterol

As a cardiologist, patients often ask me for ways to lower their cholesterol without taking statins. They wonder how effective and viable alternatives can be and what strategies they can use to lower their cholesterol in other ways.
I often tell my patients at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center that diet is key. A focus on a plant-based diet, reducing saturated fat, and increasing fiber with vegetables and whole grains, has been shown to reduce cholesterol levels with or without the use of statins. Those levels can drop further by incorporating supplements like soluble fiber products or plant sterols and stanols.
So several months ago, when my own LDL cholesterol climbed above the optimal range (<100 mg/dL in primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention), I decided to find out for myself.
I’m 34, and have few traditional risk factors for atherosclerotic disease, aside from a family history. But because LDL cholesterol levels are so tightly associated with heart disease risk, I wanted to take action and change the way I eat.
Major portions of my diet, growing up in Ohio, included the standard American fare of bacon, eggs, and toast for breakfast, a sandwich and chips at lunch, and then “meat and potatoes”-based dinners. I indulged in pork barbecue, complete with Southern-style fixings, during medical training in North Carolina. So, I feel equipped to commiserate with my patients by sharing my personal journey down a new path.
I cut back on steaks and burgers and replaced them with more greens and fish. At home, we switched to cooking with plant-based oils, such as grapeseed or sunflower. I began eating more vegetables and grains and added over-the-counter plant sterol/stanol as well as high-potency fish oil supplements.
I expected to see improvement due to my changes, but when I checked the results after 6 months, even I was surprised. I had reduced my LDL cholesterol by 29%, which is similar to the effect of low- or moderate-intensity statin treatment. Along the way, I learned it’s a plan my family and I can work into our normal routine, and one that I believe would potentially be effective for anyone who isn’t underweight or dealing with digestive diseases.
Here’s how I built a diet I would recommend to anyone trying to lower their cholesterol…
Predominantly Pescatarian: My Modified Mediterranean Diet
Benefits of the Mediterranean diet are generally well-accepted, despite some scrutiny of the scientific rigor of the PREDIMED trial, and it’s likely a good basis for many individuals. I appreciate the emphasis on fish and healthful oils, but I think putting olive oil on a health pedestal is extreme. Olive oil’s monounsaturated fatty acids are clearly more beneficial for health than saturated fat but likely not as metabolically helpful as certain polyunsaturated fats like alpha-linoleic acid or omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.
I also appreciate the focus on limiting land-based meat, but I think the average American’s diet still includes more saturated fat than I aim for, particularly in preparations involving poultry skin. Low-fat vegetarian diets have long been touted as capable of reversing atherosclerotic plaque, but I often see that accompanied by increased carbohydrate intake, which can lead to weight gain and metabolic syndrome at the expense of potentially healthy fats.
Less Red Meat
Like many, I’m disappointed by the recent NutriRECS Consortium recommendation that people should “continue current [levels of] processed meat and unprocessed red meat consumption” despite cited information that a reduction in such consumption likely has health benefits. An analysis of multiple studies involving hundreds of thousands of people concluded that diets with less red and/or processed meat were associated with a reduction of approximately 14% in cardiovascular mortality over a period of 4 to 26 years.
The Consortium suggested that these benefits of red/processed meat reduction “probably do not outweigh the undesirable effects (impact on quality of life, burden of modifying cultural and personal meal preparation and eating habits).” My own experience is a rebuttal to this argument. I have enjoyed challenging my historical dietary norms and have already realized significant cholesterol reduction and some weight loss as a result. Unfortunately, I can’t prove that I’m preventing a heart attack from occurring.
Not Quite Vegan
Though I do support reduced meat consumption on a societal level, I didn’t become fully vegan because I accept many dairy and seafood products, particularly fish, as part of a healthy diet, assuming one pays attention to dietary sources of cholesterol such as egg yolk and shrimp.
My family would describe me as adventurous with plant-based protein sources like tofu, quinoa, and chia seeds, but I still crave a protein-dense option that, I’ve found, can only be satisfied by fish. In addition, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in fatty fish such as salmon and sardines have proven health benefits. I have nothing against a vegan diet, but I personally don’t want to miss out on the dietary satisfaction and potential health benefits from fish.
Fewer Carbs, Not Zero Carbs
I appreciate the benefits of promoting carbohydrate reduction in individuals who are overweight, particularly if they have a cardiometabolic profile of prediabetes that includes hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia. However, I don’t promote strict, very-low-carb diets in individuals of normal weight who have elevated cholesterol, given that many low-carb or “ketogenic” diets may actually raise LDL cholesterol.
One patient of mine adopted the ketogenic diet to lose weight and found that her LDL cholesterol tripled, likely because she replaced the carbohydrates with a lot of breakfast meat such as bacon and pork sausage. The choice of fats that replace carbs in the diet needs very special attention in people contemplating a ketogenic diet. These low-carb diets may severely restrict nutrient-dense foods that offer cardiovascular benefits and show mixed effects on LDL cholesterol levels.
I tell my patients that we celebrate small successes in change together, as something as fundamental to identity as dietary choices usually takes a long time to evolve.
M. Wesley Milks, MD, is a cardiologist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. He has a focus in cardiovascular disease prevention, which includes management of lipid disorders and advanced cardiovascular risk prediction tools. Milks is a Diplomate of the American Board of Clinical Lipidology.
Milks disclosed no relevant relationships with companies or entities.

Self-Testing for Cervical Cancer Increases Screening Rates

Mailing self-sampling kits to test for the cervical cancer-causing virus HPV significantly increased screening rates for the cancer, according to a new study.
The research included nearly 20,000 women in the Kaiser Permanente Washington (state) system who hadn’t been screened for cervical cancer in more than three years.
About half got an HPV (human papillomavirus) self-sampling kit in the mail, which they could complete instead of undergoing a Pap screening. The other half received only standard reminders to get a Pap test from a health care provider.
Screening rates were 26% in the self-testing group and 17% in the standard reminder group. Of the women who used the self-testing kits, 88% tested negative for HPV, meaning they had a low risk of cervical cancer.
“Many studies have shown that an HPV test on a sample that a woman collects for herself performs as well as an HPV test done on a physician-collected sample,” said lead author Rachel Winer, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
“Randomized trials in other countries have shown that offering home-based HPV testing increases screening participation, but this was the first U.S. trial to study the impact of mailed kits in a real-world health system setting,” Winer said in a university news release. Winer is also an affiliate investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute.
Previous research shows that half of the 12,000 cervical cancers diagnosed each year in the United States are in women who have not be screened for more than three years, which makes them high-priority to get screened, the study authors said.
“We found that mailing unsolicited self-collection kits for HPV testing increased cervical cancer screening by 50% in women who were underscreened for cervical cancer, and that’s a particularly hard population to reach,” study co-author Diana Buist. She is director of research and strategic partnerships at the institute.
“So, it’s a good news story,” Buist said in the release. “And now that HPV-only testing is a recognized screening strategy in the United States, it really opens up the possibility for home testing to be a widespread option for women.”
The study was published Nov. 6 in the journal JAMA Network Open.
More information
The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more on cervical cancer screening.

3 things to know about Michael Bloomberg’s healthcare views

Former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg is taking the preliminary steps to run for president in 2020, The New York Times reports.
Though he has not officially declared his candidacy, Mr. Bloomberg is filing paperwork to get on the ballot for the Democratic presidential primary in Alabama, which closes its application process Nov. 8, according to the report. Advisers of Mr. Bloomberg told The New York Times his last-minute decision to run is largely motivated by faltering confidence in former Vice President Joe Biden, who has a similar voting base of centrist Democrats. For more on Mr. Bloomberg’s potential run, read the full story from The New York Times here.
Three quick notes on Mr. Bloomberg’s healthcare views:
1. He wants to preserve private health insurance. “I think you can have ‘Medicare for All’ for people that are uncovered,” he said in January, according to The New York Times. “But to replace the entire private system where companies provide healthcare for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time.”
2. He believes in the ACA’s individual mandate. Mr. Bloomberg published an op-ed that mentioned support for the mandate in Bloomberg News — the news outlet subsidiary of his company Bloomberg LP — days before President Donald Trump eliminated the tax penalty associated with the individual mandate in 2017. “This is nothing more than a backdoor tax increase on healthcare for millions of middle-class families that will leave them with less disposable income for savings, investment and spending,” Mr. Bloomberg wrote.
3. He is a longtime supporter of public health initiatives. Not only is Mr. Bloomberg partially credited for inspiring the publishing of calorie counts at fast food chains and putting national bans on trans fats and smoking in public places, as Sarah Kliff reported for The Washington Post, he also donated $1.5 billion to the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, which is now named after him, according to The Baltimore Sun.

As fateful FDA review nears, Amarin makes case for Vascepa

  • Amarin CEO John Thero said Tuesday he expects an expert Food and Drug Administration panel to challenge the company with “intentionally tough” questions on clinical data supporting the company’s request for an expanded approval of its fish oil-based drug Vascepa.
  • On Nov. 14, an FDA advisory committee will consider Amarin’s application to broaden Vascepa’s label to include cardiovascular risk reduction. A “naturally adversarial tone” from these expert panels is standard, Thero said, adding that Amarin has prepared for the test, even holding mock meetings to simulate the expected debates.
  • The company’s chief executive previewed those anticipated arguments on a Tuesday call discussing third quarter results. At the end of October, the company received an advanced draft of the FDA’s briefing documents on Vascepa, which outlined the agency’s focus areas for the panel discussion. An FDA approval decision is expected by Dec. 28.

Next Thursday’s advisory committee meeting is preceded by more than a year of build-up since Amarin first released clinical results from a cardiovascular outcomes study of Vascepa (icosapent ethyl). That data vaulted the company from a small industry player selling a fish oil-based pill to a $6 billion biopharma with a heart treatment predicted to earn billions of dollars.
That clinical trial, called REDUCE-IT, will be the center of attention for the panel. The primary result of a 25% relative cardiovascular risk reduction has already led Vascepa sales to skyrocket, likely through off-label use. The drug brought in $112 million for the three months of July, August and September — up 103% from the same period a year ago.
On the Tuesday call and in simultaneous regulatory filings, Amarin outlined the primary topics it expects to be debated.
Most of those are typical clinical considerations on a drug’s benefits and risks, as well as related points on what patient population an approved label would include.
Amarin expects the committee to dissect the data by different patient populations and subgroups. The company also foresees discussion on safety data that showed patients taking Vascepa had higher rates of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter leading to hospitalization (3.1% versus 2.1% on placebo) and adverse events of bleeding (11.8% versus 9.9% on placebo).
And Amarin also acknowledged the likelihood it will face questions on the use of a mineral oil placebo, a choice that has stirred controversy and debate in investor and medical circles since the release of REDUCE-IT data.
The REDUCE-IT placebo group received mineral oil pills, which were chosen to mimic Vascepa’s color and consistency. The theory goes that mineral oil could have affected statin absorption, worsening the placebo group and contributing to the statistical difference between the two groups.
The primary piece of evidence underlying the theory is median changes to baseline LDL cholesterol levels. While patients on Vascepa saw bad cholesterol rise by 3.1% on average, placebo patients saw a mean LDL increase of 10.2%.
In the months leading up to the advisory committee, Amarin has defended its use of mineral oil, pointing to special protocol agreements with the FDA that allowed it as an acceptable placebo.
“We do not believe such an interaction occurred,” Thero said on the Tuesday call, adding that even if determined a plausible theory, it’s “unlikely to change the overall conclusion of treatment benefit.”
The FDA also requested quarterly, unblinded safety analyses by REDUCE-IT’s independent data monitoring committee to search for evidence of biological activity from the placebo, Amarin stated. That committee never found such evidence and consistently recommended continuing the study.
Amarin has detailed its thoughts on the mineral oil question in an official response exceeding 2,500 words, which could preview how Amarin plans to handle the topic next Thursday. The biopharma points to an analysis of individual patients that showed a mix of increasing, decreasing and flat LDL levels in both the placebo and Vascepa groups.
“If mineral oil affected statin absorption significantly, it is reasonable to expect that such an effect might be evident in all patients on placebo … rather than the observed mixed results that include many patients with LDL-C decreases or lack of change in LDL-C,” the document states.
Final versions of the FDA’s briefing documents are expected next Tuesday, two days before the meeting. If the label expansion is approved, Amarin intends to double its salesforce from 400 to 800 employees.
As is typical for the day-long affair of advisory committees, Amarin plans to ask the Nasdaq to halt market trading next Thursday.