Health Information & News

 

Protection Without a Vaccine

Last month, a team of scientists announced what could prove to be an enormous step forward in the fight against H.I.V.

Scientists at Scripps Research Institute said they had developed an artificial antibody that, once in the blood, grabbed hold of the virus and inactivated it. The molecule can eliminate H.I.V. from infected monkeys and protect them from future infections.
But this treatment is not a vaccine, not in any ordinary sense. By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease. Researchers are testing this novel approach not just against H.I.V., but also Ebola, malaria, influenza and hepatitis.
“The sky’s the limit,” said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.
Dr. Farzan and other scientists are increasingly hopeful that this technique may be able to provide long-term protection against diseases for which vaccines have failed. The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.
“It could revolutionize the way we immunize against public health threats in the future,” said Dr. Gary J. Nabel, the chief scientific officer of Sanofi, a pharmaceutical company that produces a wide range of vaccines.
Whether I.G.T. will succeed is still an open question. Researchers still need to gauge its safety and effectiveness in humans. And the prospect of genetically engineering people to resist infectious diseases may raise concerns among patients.

“The reality is we are touching third rails, and so it’s going to take some explanation,” said Dr. David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize recipient and virologist at Caltech who is testing I.G.T. against a number of diseases.
Conventional vaccines prompt the immune system to learn how to make antibodies by introducing it to weakened or dead pathogens, or even just their molecular fragments. Our immune cells produce a range of antibodies, some of which can fight these infections.
In some cases, these antibodies provide strong defenses. Vaccinations against diseases such as smallpox and measles can lead to almost complete protection.
But against other diseases, conventional vaccines often fail to produce effective antibodies. H.I.V., for example, comes in so many different strains that a vaccine that can protect against one will not work against others.
I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.
Photo Dr. Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps Research Institute, helped develop an artificial antibody that inactivated H.I.V. in monkeys. Credit Benjamin Rusnak for The New York Times
The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.
The idea for I.G.T. emerged during the fight against H.I.V. In a few people, it turned out, some antibodies against H.I.V. turn out to be extremely potent. So-called broadly neutralizing antibodies can latch onto many different strains of the virus and keep them from infecting new cells.
Dr. Philip R. Johnson, a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, had an idea: Why not try to give broadly neutralizing antibodies to everybody?
At the time, Dr. Johnson and other researchers were experimenting with gene therapy for disorders like hemophilia. Researchers had figured out how to load genes into viruses and persuade them to invade cells, and it occurred to Dr. Johnson that he might be able to use this strategy to introduce the gene for a powerful antibody into a patient’s cells.
After the cells began producing antibodies, the patient in effect would be “vaccinated” against a disease.
The idea represented a radical new direction for gene therapy. Until then, researchers had focused on curing genetic disorders by providing working versions of defective genes. I.G.T., on the other hand, would protect healthy people from infectious diseases.
And there was no guarantee that it would succeed. For one thing, the best virus Dr. Johnson had for delivering genes worked only to invade muscle cells — which normally would never make antibodies.
In 2009, Dr. Johnson and his colleagues announced that the approach worked after all. In their experiment, they sought to protect monkeys from S.I.V., a primate version of H.I.V. To do so, they used viruses to deliver powerful genes to the monkeys’ muscles.
The muscle cells produced S.I.V. antibodies, as Dr. Johnson and his colleagues had hoped. Then they infected the monkeys with S.I.V. The monkeys produced enough antibodies in their muscles to protect them from S.I.V. infections, the scientists found. Without the I.G.T. procedure, monkeys dosed with the virus died.
Dr. Johnson’s study persuaded Dr. Farzan that I.G.T. has great promise. “I started drinking the Kool-Aid,” he said. Dr. Farzan and his colleagues have been modifying H.I.V. antibodies to develop more potent defenses against the virus.
Meanwhile, in 2011, Dr. Baltimore and his colleagues showed that antibodies delivered into cells with viruses could protect mice against injections of H.I.V., suggesting that I.G.T. could protect people against H.I.V. in contaminated needles.
But most H.I.V. infections occur through sex. So Dr. Baltimore and his colleagues also infected female mice with H.I.V. through their vaginal membranes. Last year, they reported that the technique also protected mice from infection in this way.
“We’re going around the immune system, rather than trying to stimulate the immune system,” Dr. Baltimore said. “So what we’re doing is pretty fundamentally different from vaccination, although the end result is pretty similar.”
Gary W. Ketner, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was intrigued by Dr. Baltimore’s results and wondered if I.G.T. could be marshaled against another major disease that has eluded vaccines: malaria.
Photo Dr. Philip R. Johnson, a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, developed an approach of giving neutralizing antibodies to healthy people. Credit Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
Dr. Ketner, Dr. Baltimore and their colleagues found a potent antibody against malaria and used a virus to deliver the gene for making it into mice. Last August, they reported that when malaria-laden mosquitoes bit the mice, up to 80 percent of the treated animals were protected.
“It is encouraging,” Dr. Ketner said. “It’s good for a first shot of an unproven method, but it should be better.” Now Dr. Ketner is searching for better antibodies that provide more protection in a smaller dose.
These experiments suggest that antibodies created by I.G.T. could help against diseases that have resisted vaccines for decades. Other studies suggest that I.G.T. might also help against sudden outbreaks in the future.
Dr. James M. Wilson, a pathologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and his colleagues have investigated using gene therapy to treat cystic fibrosis by delivering genes into the cells lining patients’ airways. It occurred to him that many fast-spreading viruses, such as influenza and SARS, also attack the same cells.
In 2013, Dr. Wilson and his colleagues reported that viruses carrying antibody genes into airway cells can enable mice and ferrets to fight off a wide range of flu strains. Since then, he and his colleagues have tested I.G.T. against other viruses causing deadly outbreaks — including Ebola.
Dr. Wilson and his colleagues teamed with Mapp Biopharmaceutical, a company that has developed an antibody against Ebola called ZMapp. The scientists have synthesized a gene for the ZMapp antibody and have delivered the gene into mouse muscles. The experiments are only in their early stages, but “we have encouraging data,” Dr. Wilson said.
For Dr. Johnson, the growing interesting in I.G.T. is gratifying. “It’s catching on, but it’s certainly not mainstream,” he said. That seems likely to change, and soon.
Last February, Dr. Johnson began the first clinical trial of I.G.T. in humans. His team has placed H.I.V. antibody genes into the muscles of volunteers to see if the treatment is safe. The researchers expect to finish gathering the results this spring. “We’re optimistic. We’re hopeful,” Dr. Johnson said.
Dr. Baltimore is collaborating with the National Institutes of Health to start a similar trial of an I.G.T.-engineered virus against H.I.V. Dr. Wilson is preparing to test I.G.T. against the flu later this year.
There is no guarantee that the successes in the animal trials can be replicated in humans. “Humans are not just big mice,” said Dr. Ronald G. Crystal, chairman of genetic medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College.
Human immune systems may attack the artificial antibodies or the viruses delivering them, destroying their protection. Or muscle cells might make too many antibodies, because they do not have the built-in regulation that immune cells do.
Dr. Farzan and other researchers are investigating molecular switches that can turn off the production of antibodies, or just adjust their dose. “If we really want to see this blossom, we need regulatory ‘off’ switches,” he said.
Despite the lingering concerns about I.G.T., Dr. Nabel says he remains optimistic. “There are safety concerns that have to be addressed, but there are logical ways to approach them,” he said.
Bioethicists do not foresee major ethical hurdles to I.G.T., because it is based on gene therapy, which has been developed for more than 30 years. “It doesn’t strike me as a radical departure,” said Jonathan Kimmelman, an associate professor at McGill University.
Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.
“But my feeling, as a basic scientist, is that it’s our responsibility to take things into the clinic that we feel will make a difference,” he said.

Prostate, breast cancer share genetic link

A family history of prostate cancer may be tied to a woman's risk of breast cancer, a new study suggests.

Women whose father, brother or son have had prostate cancer may have a 14 percent higher risk of developing breast cancer, said Jennifer Beebe-Dimmer, a researcher at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Those women with a family history of both prostate and breast cancer were at a 78 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer, the researchers found. And the risk was greater for black women than whites.
The researchers found a link, not a direct cause-and-effect relationship, between family history of prostate cancer and women's breast cancer risk. However, this is "one of the largest studies, if not the largest study, to examine the association," Beebe-Dimmer said.
The 14 percent increase "is a modest increase in risk," she said. Of the two, "breast cancer family history is likely still more important in terms of risk assessment," she added.

10 Photos
Prostate Cancer Self-Defense: Nine Deadly Myths
Frequent Sex Blocks Prostate Cancer? That's Just One of Many Myths about the Disease
The findings underscore the need for women to know their complete family medical history, "particularly cancer diagnosed among first-degree relatives," including fathers, brothers and sons, Beebe-Dimmer said.
Doctors should ask about all cancers in the family, even in members of the opposite sex, she suggested.
"Communication of this information to the physician is important in assessing future risk of breast cancer and may impact screening recommendations," Beebe-Dimmer said.
For the study, published online March 9 in the journal Cancer, Beebe-Dimmer's team evaluated more than 78,000 women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study between 1993 and 1998. At the study start, all were free of breast cancer. When follow-up ended in 2009, more than 3,500 breast cancer cases had been diagnosed. The researchers looked to see which patients' family members had either breast or prostate cancer.
Cancers of the breast and prostate are among the most common invasive cancers found in the United States, Beebe-Dimmer said. In 2014, an estimated 233,000 new breast cancer cases and 233,000 new prostate cancer cases were diagnosed in the United States, according to background information in the study.
Beebe-Dimmer can't say for sure what may be driving the potential link between prostate and breast cancers. "It may be genetic, it may be shared environment," she said. The two cancers have similar causes in that both are driven by exposure to the sex steroid hormones estrogen and testosterone, she explained.
Dr. Courtney Vito, assistant professor of surgical oncology at City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., was not involved with the study. She said the "article raises an interesting point."

26 Photos
Breast cancer awareness: 25 myths busted
How much do you really know about breast cancer? Less than you might think
Some of the possible increased risk, Vito said, may be due to the presence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations. However, that information was not available to the researchers. Men with BRCA1 and 2 mutations have a higher risk of prostate cancer, and women with the mutations have higher risks of breast and ovarian cancer, researchers have found.
These mutations "may explain some of this relationship but not all," Vito said.
Discoveries about new genes that may function in concert with the BRCA genetic mutations might shed more light on the possible link, she said.
Vito and Beebe-Dimmer agreed that more study is needed to figure out to what extent genes and shared environment contribute to risk for both breast and prostate cancer.

FDA Approves United States' First 'Biosimilar 'Drug, Zarxio

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar product in the U.S.

By Rebekah Marcarelli r.marcarelli@hngn.com | Mar 08, 2015 05:38 PM EDT

The FDA approved the country's first biologically similar product. (Photo : Wikimedia )
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar product in the U.S.
The drug, dubbed Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), is biosimilar ("highly similar to an already-approved biological product") to Amgen Inc.'s Neupogen, the FDA reported. Biological products are those derived from living organisms such as yeasts or even humans and animals.
Zarxio is approved for the same applications as Neupogen, which includes prescriptions for: "patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy; patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy; patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantation; patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy; and patients with severe chronic neutropenia."
"Biosimilars will provide access to important therapies for patients who need them," said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg. "Patients and the health care community can be confident that biosimilar products approved by the FDA meet the agency's rigorous safety, efficacy and quality standards."
FDA
The approval of this new biosimilar drug was based on "structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data and other clinical safety and effectiveness data." The most common side effects seen with the newly-approved drug include aching in the bones and muscles as well as irritation at the injection site. Serious side effects can occur such as spleen rupture, serious allergic reaction, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was passed as part of the Affordable Care Act and creates an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products that can be proven to be biologically similar to those that have already been FDA approved. It allows biosimilar biological product to be licensed based on "less than a full complement of product-specific preclinical and clinical data," the FDA stated. 

A drink a day may not be good for everyone

Based on a new analysis, the health benefits of having a drink a day may be exaggerated, UK researchers say.
Only women over age 65, if anyone, might get a protective effect from light drinking, compared to people who never drank, the study found.
Much past research has shown that people who drink a low to moderate amount of alcohol – about one drink per day – fare better than both heavy drinkers and those who abstain completely.
But that non-drinker comparison group may be skewing the results, according the new study’s lead author Craig S. Knott of the department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London.
People who used to drink but don’t anymore, for whatever reason, tend to be less healthy and more likely to die than others, he told Reuters Health by email.
“With existing research having largely grouped former and never drinkers together, there was the possibility that reductions in risk among lighter drinkers may be partly due to their comparison against people who are simply less healthy,” he said.
And people who have never had alcohol may have other health conditions that make drinking unsafe and make them less healthy than others, he noted.
When he and his coauthors left out former drinkers and compared light, moderate and heavy drinkers to those who only occasionally drank, the apparent benefits of drinking disappeared almost entirely.
They used annual, nationally-representative surveys of English adults age 50 or older collected from 1994 to 2008 and including a total of more than 45,000 people. At each survey, the participants reported how often they consumed alcohol during an average week and how much they drank on the heaviest drinking day of a typical week.
As other studies have found, currently drinking alcohol was associated with a lower risk of death in almost all age groups and levels of drinking compared to people who were not current drinkers, based on a linked database of deaths in England.
But when the researchers excluded those who used to indulge but had given it up, the apparent protective effect remained only for men between ages 50 and 65 and women over age 65. Protection was minimal for the men and only applied to those who drank at least seven pints of beer in an average week. It was broader, but still low, for the women, the authors write in BMJ.
Some other studies have in fact found the opposite, that alcohol in moderation is more effective for men than women, according to Dr. Giovanni de Gaetano of the University of Milan in Italy, who was not involved in the new study.


“Relative to occasional drinkers, there was little to no indication that regular light consumption may actually be of benefit in any age-sex group, at least in terms of mortality risk,” Knott said.
Any reductions in risk that remained after the study team adjusted for personal, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, and left out the former drinkers, could still be the result of other biases in group selection, inaccurate alcohol reporting or residual factors that haven’t been accounted for, Knott said.
“On this basis, it seems sensible for current drinkers to consider moderating the amount of alcohol they consume, and for non-drinkers to remain abstinent,” he said.
Assigning a group to drink alcohol and another to abstain for a study would be unethical, so researchers have to try more sophisticated ways of comparing people in the real world and trying to account for other differences between them, he noted.
There is no good biological explanation for why light drinking might benefit older women, according to Jürgen Rehm, director of the Social and Epidemiological Research (SER) Department of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada.
“Let us face it: alcohol is not consumed for health reasons,” Rehm told Reuters Health by email. “To avoid too much risk, people should drink lightly, best one drink at most per day. Most European drinkers exceed this limit and put themselves into risk.”
As age increases, it gets harder and takes longer for the body to eliminate ethanol from the blood, the authors note. Alcohol-related hospitalizations and deaths are most common for older age groups, they write.
“Nobody should drink alcohol for health reasons,” Rehm said.

Entri Populer

Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.