Search This Blog

Monday, January 31, 2022

Cell That Might Trigger Alzheimer's Disease

 It all started with genetic data.

A gene here, a gene there.

Eventually the story became clearer: If scientists are to one day find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, they should look to the immune system.

Over the past couple decades, researchers have identified numerous genes involved in various immune system functions that may also contribute to Alzheimer's.

Some of the prime suspects are genes that control immune cells called microglia, now the focus of intense research in developing new Alzheimer's drugs.

Microglia are amoeba-like cells that scour the brain for injuries and invaders. They help clear dead or impaired brain cells and literally gobble up invading microbes. Without them, we'd be in trouble.

In a normal brain, a protein called beta-amyloid is cleared away through our lymphatic system by microglia as molecular junk.

But sometimes it builds up. Certain gene mutations are one culprit in this toxic accumulation. Traumatic brain injury is another, and, perhaps, impaired microglial function.

One thing everyone agrees on is that in people with Alzheimer's, too much amyloid accumulates between their brain cells and in the vessels that supply the brain with blood.

Once amyloid begins to clog networks of neurons, it triggers the accumulation of another protein, called tau, inside of these brain cells. The presence of tau sends microglia and other immune mechanisms into overdrive, resulting in the inflammatory immune response that many experts believe ultimately saps brain vitality in Alzheimer's.

The Gene Scene

To date, nearly a dozen genes involved in immune and microglial function have been tied to Alzheimer's.

The first was CD33, identified in 2008.

"When we got the results, I literally ran to my colleague's office next door and said, you gotta see this!" says Harvard neuroscientist Rudolph Tanzi.

Tanzi, who goes by Rudy, led the CD33 research. The discovery was quickly named a top medical breakthrough of 2008 by Time magazine.

"We were laughing because what they didn't know is we had no idea what this gene did," he jokes.

But over time, research by Tanzi and his group revealed that CD33 is a kind of microglial on-off switch, activating the cells as part of an inflammatory pathway.

"We kind of got it all going when it came to the genetics," he says.

Microglia normally recognize molecular patterns associated with microbes and cellular damage as unwanted. This is how they know to take action ― to devour unfamiliar pathogens and dead tissue. Tanzi believes microglia sense any sign of brain damage as an infection, which causes them to become hyperactive.

Much of our modern human immune system, he explains, evolved many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Our lifespans at the time were far shorter than they are today, and the majority of people didn't live long enough to develop dementia or the withered brain cells that come with it. So our immune system, he says, assumes any faulty brain tissue is due to a microbe, not dementia. Microglia react aggressively, clearing the area to prevent the spread of infection.

"They say, 'We better wipe out this part of the brain that's infected, even if it's not.' They don't know," quips Tanzi. "That's what causes neuroinflammation. And CD33 turns this response on. The microglia become killers, not just janitors."

A Brake on Overactive Microglia

If CD33 is the yin, a gene called TREM2 is the yang.

Discovered a few years after CD33, TREM2 reins in microglial activation, returning them to their role as cellular housekeepers.

Neurologist David Holtzman of Washington University in St. Louis, who studies TREM2, agrees that where you find amyloid, tau, or dead braincells, there are microglia, raring to go and ready to scavenge.

"I think at first a lot of people thought these cells were reacting to Alzheimer's pathology, and not necessarily a cause of the disease," he says.

It was the discovery of TREM2 on the heels of CD33 that really shifted the thinking, in part because it produces a protein that in the brain is only found in microglia. Genes are stretches of DNA that encode for the proteins that literally run our bodies and brains.

"Many of us [in the field] immediately said, 'Look, there's now a risk factor that is only expressed in microglia. So it must be that innate immune cells are important in some way in the pathogenesis of the disease,' " he adds.

Holtzman sees microglial activation in impending dementia as a double-edged sword. In the beginning, microglia clear unwanted amyloid to maintain brain health. But once accumulated amyloid and tau have done enough damage, the neuroinflammation that comes with microglial activation does more harm than good. Neurons die en masse and dementia sets in.

Not all researchers are convinced.

Serge Revist is a professor in the Department of Molecular Medicine at the Laval University Medical School in Quebec. Based on his lab's research, he believes that while impaired immune activity is involved in Alzheimer's, it's not the root cause. "I don't think it's the immune cells that do the damage, I still think it's the beta-amyloid itself," he says, "In my lab, in mouse studies, we've never found that immune cells were directly responsible for killing neurons."

He does believe that in some Alzheimer's patients, microglia may not be able to handle the excess amyloid that accumulates in the disease and that developing treatments that improve the ability of microglia and the immune system to clear the protein could be effective.

Microglial Medicines

The biological cascade leading to Alzheimer's is a tangled one.

Gene variants influencing the accumulation and clearance of amyloid are likely a major contributor. But immune activity caused by early life infection might also be involved, at least in some cases. This infectious theory of Alzheimer's was first proposed by Tanzi's now-deceased colleague Robert Moir. Tanzi's group even has evidence that amyloid itself is antimicrobial and evolved to protect us from pathogens, only to become a problem when overactive and aggregated.

And the same goes for microglia, cells whose over-ambition might cause much of the brain degeneration seen in Alzheimer's.

In theory, if a treatment could, say, decrease CD33 activity or increase that of TREM2, doctors might one day be able to slow or even stop the progression of dementia. Instead of going after amyloid itself ― the mechanism behind so many failed investigational Alzheimer's drugs ― a therapy that quells the immune response to amyloid might be the answer in treating dementia.

"There are number of scientists and companies trying to figure out how to influence genes like TREM2 and CD33 and to both decrease amyloid and act on the downstream consequences of the protein," says Holtzman. "All of this is to say that somewhere in the biology that causes Alzheimer's, the immune system is involved."

It seems that in many cases, the most common form of a dementia might be due to a well-intentioned immune cell going rogue.

"I think you'd hear this from basically any researcher worth their salt," says Tanzi. "I feel strongly that without microglial activation, you will not get Alzheimer's disease."

This article originally appeared on Shots, NPR's health blog.

Bret Stetka, MD, is the editorial director of Medscape Neurology and Medscape Psychiatry. His book, A History of the Human Brain, was published by Timber/Workman Press in March 2021.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/967592

Preclinical Alzheimer's: More Common Than We Think?

 Prevalence of abnormal amyloid was about 10% higher than previously estimated among people with normal cognition, updated data from the Amyloid Biomarkers Study indicated.

Across 19,000 people in 85 cohorts, those without dementia had higher amyloid abnormality prevalence when adjusted data-driven cutoffs of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures were used, suggesting preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease could be more prevalent than once thought, reported Willemijn Jansen, PhD, and Olin Janssen, MSc, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and co-authors in JAMA Neurology.

"At age 50, about 18% of persons with normal cognition had abnormal amyloid, increasing to 54% at age 90," Jansen told MedPage Today. "This was 10% higher than we previously estimated when using unbiased CSF cutoffs."

"Overall, the prevalence of amyloid abnormality was 10% higher in all pre-dementia stages," she added. "Also, the prevalence estimated with these new CSF cutoffs was 10% higher as compared to PET estimates of amyloid abnormality. This indicates that CSF amyloid abnormality might be more sensitive to identify persons earlier in the disease process compared with PET."

The methodology to define abnormal amyloid cutoffs differs by center and can influence prevalence estimates, Janssen noted. "It has appeared recently that some CSF values gradually increased over the past 2 decades, indicating that older cutoffs might be too conservative," she told MedPage Today. "Using older available CSF cutoffs that are not corrected for drift in CSF values might lead to an underestimation of amyloid abnormality."

The findings update earlier data from the Amyloid Biomarkers Study, which reported the prevalence of amyloid abnormality in 56 cohorts of people with and without dementia in 2015.

The current analysis extended that work by increasing sample sizes to 19,097 participants in 85 cohorts, including 9,908 people with normal cognition, 1,524 with subjective cognitive decline, 5,405 with mild cognitive impairment, and 2,260 with Alzheimer's dementia. Mean age was 69, and 53% were women. CSF and PET data were collected from 2013 through 2020.

Amyloid measurements were dichotomized as normal or abnormal using cohort-defined cutoffs for CSF or PET. Adjusted data-driven cutoffs for abnormal amyloid were calculated using Gaussian mixture modeling that incorporated within-cohort distributions of continuous amyloid values.

Using cohort-defined cutoffs, amyloid abnormality prevalence mirrored 2015 estimates for people without dementia and was similar across PET- and CSF-based estimates, at 24% for people with normal cognition, 27% for people with subjective cognitive decline, and 51% for people with mild cognitive impairment. For people with clinical Alzheimer's dementia, however, estimates were higher for PET than CSF (87% vs 79%, mean difference 8%, 95% CI 0%-16%, P=0.04).

Adjusted cutoffs for PET amyloid measures were similar to cohort-defined cutoffs. For CSF, adjusted cutoffs resulted in higher amyloid abnormality prevalence than PET-based estimates in people with:

  • Normal cognition (mean difference 9%, 95% CI 3%-15%, P=0.004)
  • Subjective cognitive decline (mean difference 9%, 95% CI 3%-15%, P=0.005)
  • Mild cognitive impairment (mean difference 10%, 95% CI 3%-17%, P=0.004)

Adjusted cutoffs between CSF and PET amyloid were comparable in people with clinical Alzheimer's dementia (mean difference 4%, 95% CI -2% to 9%, P=0.18).

"These prevalence estimates can improve recruitment efficiency for clinical trials that target individuals with biomarker positivity," noted Christina Young, PhD, and Elizabeth Mormino, PhD, both of Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, in an accompanying editorial.

Amyloid alone is not sufficient to predict clinically meaningful Alzheimer's progression, Young and Mormino pointed out. "A primary source of controversy with the approval of aducanumab [Aduhelm] was the ambiguity of the association between treatment and clinical outcomes in the phase III trials," they noted.

"Although long-term cognitive assessments of individuals with amyloid positivity have shown cognitive decline at the group level, there has also been considerable heterogeneity in who experiences decline and how fast decline occurs," the editorialists added. "Characterization of clinically meaningful decline, especially among individuals with amyloid positivity and normal cognition, is an active area of research that is needed to elucidate the risks associated with amyloid positivity."

Race and ethnicity were not included in the data collected, which is a limitation of the study, Young and Mormino observed. "Given this gap, amyloid-positivity prevalence rates estimated by Jansen and colleagues should not be assumed to be reflective of all racial and ethnic groups," they wrote.

In addition, Gaussian mixture modeling could be applied only to a subset of cohorts that provided continuous data, the researchers noted.


Disclosures

This study was funded by Biogen. An employee of Biogen had a role in the analysis plan, review, and revision of the manuscript.

Jansen and Janssen reported no disclosures. Co-authors listed numerous relationships with academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and industry.

Young reported receiving grants from the Alzheimer's Association. Mormino reported relationships with NIH, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Neurotrack, and Roche.

Should We Prioritize the Development of Omicron-Specific Boosters?

 The identification of the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) in South Africa in November 2021 -- featuring an extensive set of 30 mutations in the spike protein alone, including 15 in the neutralizing antibody targeting receptor binding domain (RBD) -- raises the question of whether Omicron merits its own variant-specific spike vaccine. While data are accumulating, early indications suggest we may not need one to weather the current Omicron wave. However, given the breadth of genetic changes and divergence from prior strains, it could be a useful variant to include as part of a next generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Are Current Boosters Protective Against the Variants?

Fortunately, while extremely infectious, the Omicron variant appears to be less pathogenic than Alpha, Beta, or Delta. While multiple clinical reports from South Africa support this, it isn't yet clear whether the reduced clinical severity is due to a high background rate of pre-existing immunity (with over 73% prior infection rate and a 31% vaccination rate) or reduced virulence. On a positive front, preclinical studies suggest less lower respiratory tropism, and potentially lower risk for characteristic COVID-19 lung injury. At this time, however, given the extremely high force of infection and the number of unvaccinated people in the U.S., we believe an aggressive boosting approach is warranted.

It is important to note that so far, the boosters in clinical use have the same SARS-CoV-2 spike protein sequence as the original strain from the beginning of the pandemic. Early indications suggest these boosters induce Omicron-specific neutralizing antibodies at levels that appear to be protective. Nevertheless, as with Beta and Delta, both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech are pursuing development of and clinical trials for an Omicron-specific spike vaccine. While earlier variant vaccines look safe and immunogenic, they are only marginally more potent against their targeted variants than an ancestral strain boost, thus raising the possibility that any marginal improvement from an Omicron vaccine may not be necessary.

How Have the Ancestral Strain Boosts Fared Against Omicron?

press release from Moderna provided an update with respect to titers against Omicron specifically. Participants who had already received two doses of the Moderna vaccine were given a third dose of the original vaccine at either 50 µg (as currently deployed) or 100 µg; their titers against Omicron increased an average of 37-fold or 83-fold versus pre-boost levels. Participants who received a vaccine that consisted of a 1:1 mix of original and Beta (at either 50 µg or 100 µg) or a vaccine consisting of Beta + Delta (100 µg only) had a similar increase in Omicron-specific neutralization.

This suggests variant-specific boosters may have an advantage in eliciting variant-specific antibodies, but this advantage may not translate into meaningful clinical differences with current circulating variants and is likely to be offset by other factors.

Are Variant-Specific Boosters Worth the Investment?

To test, develop, and deploy variant-specific boosters would mean redirecting current vaccine manufacturing capacity, as well as complicating the logistics of shipping and administering vaccines on a global scale. Additional support from federal funding agencies and philanthropic organizations to continue to build vaccine infrastructure, including pilot lot manufacturing for rapid clinical trials, should be considered a public health priority. As the events of the last 2 years have shown, vaccine infrastructure should be considered an investment for the future.

It is also important to note that other arms of the immune system, particularly T cell-mediated elimination of infected cells, are likely to play a role in blunting the severity of disease in people who do have breakthrough infections. Unfortunately, numerous studies have shown that antibody levels decline relatively quickly after infection with SARS-CoV-2, which reinforces recommendations that people who have recovered from COVID-19 should also be vaccinated and boosted. Cytotoxic T cells responsive to a broad spectrum of strains may be important in filling this gap by quickly attenuating early infection when the neutralizing antibody response has waned.

Other Considerations

As SARS-CoV-2 is likely to continue to evolve, even if current vaccines provide adequate protection against emerging variants, future variants could be more challenging. Another concern is the emergence of an unrelated coronavirus with pandemic potential. To counter this, the NIH is supporting research and development of pan-coronavirus vaccines. Several different approaches are being assessed, including targeting conserved regions of the spike protein (receptor binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), and S2 region) and conserved cytotoxic T-cell epitopes. These immune targets are being tested as mosaic antigens, in multivalent configurations, and with novel delivery systems (e.g., protein nanoparticles or in virus like particles) that present the antigens to the immune system in ways that may improve cross-recognition. While some of these appear promising in animal models, clinical trials need to be conducted, and expediting these studies, as well as extending the correlates of protection analyses to serve as a benchmark for future COVID-19 vaccines, should be high priorities.

In summary, given the degree of genetic variance, we believe it is important to generate Omicron-specific vaccines for early phase testing. However, with the rapid spread of this strain throughout the world and the apparent benefit from current boosts, an Omicron-specific vaccine is unlikely to be necessary (or ready) for widespread use during this wave. The good news is boosted titers appear adequate to protect most individuals from severe disease within several months of their dose. So, public health efforts should continue to focus on boosting high-risk individuals with current vaccines now. Meanwhile, promising pan-sarbecovirus approaches that can induce both high levels of cross-neutralizing antibody and broad T-cell responses need robust support. Whether generation of an Omicron variant vaccine pays off in the future -- perhaps as part of a multivalent (flu-like) vaccine -- is unclear, but continuing vaccine development is wise given that it is the most successfully spreading and most divergent variant to date.

Troy Martin, MD, MPH, is Chief of Staff of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) and COVID-19 Prevention Trials Network (CoVPN) at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Stephen R. Walsh, MDCM, is an Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women's Hospital.

Disclosures

Martin disclosed NIAID funding for CoVPN activities. Walsh disclosed funding from NIAID and BARDA for CoVPN activities. He is also a co-investigator on Moderna CoVPN 3001/P301/COVE; co-investigator on Janssen/J&J CoVPN 3003/COV3001/ENSEMBLE; site PI for Sanofi VAT0002; site PI for Moderna P205; and Protocol Co-Chair for Sanofi CoVPN 3005/VAT0008.


https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/96925

COVID Self-Testers May Get Quarantine Wrong With 'Authorized' Instructions

 Users of at-home tests for COVID-19 may be less likely to follow CDC quarantine guidelines when using their testing kit instructions than with no instructions at all, a randomized trial found.

In a hypothetical involving a negative test result but a high risk of COVID exposure, 33% of participants who received the test's FDA-authorized instructions were likely to quarantine appropriately per CDC recommendations, as compared to 24% for a control group receiving no instructions (P=0.02) and 14% for an intervention group that received instructions based on "decision science principles" (P=0.004), reported Steven Woloshin, MD, of Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and colleagues.

"These findings suggest that many at-home COVID-19 self-test users will draw false reassurance from a negative result, ignoring conditions that pose a high pretest probability of infection -- and were perhaps the reason for testing," they wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

For a scenario with a low risk of COVID exposure, 31% of those using authorized instructions were likely to quarantine unnecessarily following a negative test versus 10% with no instructions and 22% for the intervention (both non significant).

In all groups in all scenarios, "the proportion of incorrect responses was highest with the authorized instructions, even higher than with no instructions," the authors wrote.

"The results of this study show how important it is to design and pilot-test instructions to ensure that they can be understood by as many users as possible," they stated. "These findings also indicate that public health policies need to reflect both the limited sensitivity of rapid antigen tests and the possibility and probability of improper use."

Woloshin's group even suggested that authorized instructions were worse than no instructions at all, as they overrode "intuitive common sense -- performance was poorer among this group than in the group with no instructions."

The authors devised a survey to examine how people with varying COVID risks would respond to the results of a home test.

Participants were recruited in April 2021 for an online survey, and were paid $5. They were randomized to hypothetical scenarios involving an at-home rapid antigen COVID test, where they were asked to examine:

They were then further randomized to one of four hypothetical scenarios where they asked about a healthy unvaccinated individual, age 45, who had:

  • COVID symptoms and recent close contact with someone who has COVID ("high pretest probability of infection")
  • No COVID symptoms and recent close contact
  • COVID symptoms and no recent close contact
  • No COVID symptoms and no recent close contact ("low pretest probability")

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants "who failed to state" that the patient "should quarantine when appropriate, per CDC recommendations."

Overall, 338 participants were included with a mean age of 38, and 54% were men. About two-thirds had a college degree; race/ethnicity information was not collected.

Not surprisingly, 95% of participants (95% CI 0.92-0.97) said they would quarantine appropriately given a positive test, regardless of which instruction group they were in.

Interestingly, 81%-82% of participants in both the authorized and intervention groups rated the instructions they were given as "easy or very easy to read," while 94%-96% of both groups described the instructions as "useful or extremely useful" for interpreting home test results.

Limitations to the data include that it was based on hypothetical decisions in an online setting, and the self-selected sample that may limit generalizability of the findings.

"The potential benefits of at-home self-test kits will only be realized if users know how to interpret their results," the authors wrote.


Disclosures

The study was supported by the Swedish Foundation for Social Sciences and Humanities , the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Health System Performance Initiative, and the S&R Foundation's Kuno Award for Applied Science for the Social Good.

Woloshin disclosed serving on editorial boards for the Cochrane Collaboration and JAMA Internal Medicine, as well as support from the National Cancer Institute and the State of New Mexico as an expert witness for a testosterone manufacturer for deceptive marketing.

Shionogi Aims to Begin Global Phase 3 Trial of Covid-19 Pill Late-February

 Japanese drugmaker Shionogi & Co. said Monday that it plans to start a global Phase 3 trial of its Covid-19 pill as soon as late February and is in discussions with U.S. and European regulators over the trial.

Shionogi said a Phase 2a trial showed that the virus was eliminated more quickly on average in a group of patients who took the pill compared with a group that took a placebo. The company didn't release data on whether the pill prevented complications of Covid-19 or deaths from the disease.

Currently, Shionogi is conducting what it calls a Phase 2b/3 trial in Japan and some other countries but not in the U.S. That trial is expected to end by late July this year, it said. Separately, it said it is talking to the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency about a global Phase 3 trial that it targets to begin in late February.

Shionogi said it plans to manufacture enough pills for a million patients by March. It said it is still in discussions with global pharmaceutical companies about a partnership deal.

Pfizer Inc. is already marketing a Covid-19 pill called Paxlovid that has a similar mechanism to Shionogi's pill, which is code-named S-217622.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/SHIONOGI-CO-LTD-6493659/news/Shionogi-Aims-to-Begin-Global-Phase-3-Trial-of-Covid-19-Pill-Late-February-37693625/

Eagle Pharmaceuticals on Track to Support Submission of NDA for Landiolol

 Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Monday that AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals GmbH, a member of AOP Health, has begun discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain alignment on the content and format of the pre-clinical and clinical data required to support a new drug application seeking approval of Landiolol.

Landiolol is a novel therapeutic for the short-term reduction of ventricular rate in patients with supraventricular tachycardia, including atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.

In August 2021, Eagle entered into a licensing agreement with AOP Health, a privately owned Austrian company devoted to the treatment of rare and special diseases, for the commercial rights to Landiolol in the U.S.

Eagle said Landiolol has never been marketed in the U.S., and it expects five years of new chemical entity exclusivity upon approval. Based on the FDA's responses to AOP Health's communications, the company remains on track to support the NDA next quarter.

Landiolol is already commercially available in Japan and several European markets.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/EAGLE-PHARMACEUTICALS-IN-15758349/news/Eagle-Pharmaceuticals-on-Track-to-Support-Submission-of-NDA-for-Landiolol-37697055/

Elusys Therapeutics Finalizes Contract With U.S. HHS Department

 Elusys Therapeutics Inc., which is being bought by Heat Biologics Inc., said it has finalized a contract with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the continued supply of an anthrax antitoxin for use in the event of a possible attack.

The company said the contract for the procurement of the antitoxin, Anthim obiltoxaximab, consists of a base period of performance, valued at $50 million, which has been fulfilled.

The contract includes options valued up to $31 million. If all options are exercised, the total contract value will be $80.98 million with completion of the contract expected by the first half of 2023, the company said.

Elusys is merging into a wholly owned subsidiary of Heat Biologics, and the acquisition is expected to close during the first quarter of 2022.