Weird Medicine Healthcare for the Rest of Us

February 14, 2017

Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

Filed under: Non-pseudoscience Cancer Cures — dr steve @ 10:33 pm

Two Infants Treated with Universal Immune Cells Have Their Cancer Vanish

In a medical first, the children were treated with genetically engineered T-cells from another person.

by Antonio Regalado January 25, 2017

Doctors in London say they have cured two babies of leukemia in the world’s first attempt to treat cancer with genetically engineered immune cells from a donor. The experiments, which took place at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital, raise the possibility of off-the-shelf cellular therapy using inexpensive supplies of universal cells that could be dripped into patients’ veins on a moment’s notice.

The ready-made approach could pose a challenge to companies including Juno Therapeutics and Novartis, each of which has spent tens of millions of dollars pioneering treatments that require collecting a patient’s own blood cells, engineering them, and then re-infusing them.

Both methods rely on engineering T cells—the hungry predator cells of the immune system—so they attack leukemic cells.

The British infants, ages 11 and 16 months, each had leukemia and had undergone previous treatments that failed, according to a description of their cases published Wednesday in Science Translational Medicine. Waseem Qasim, a physician and gene-therapy expert who led the tests, reported that both children remain in remission.

Although the cases drew wide media attention in Britain, some researchers said that because the London team also gave the children standard chemotherapy, they failed to show the cell treatment actually cured the kids. “There is a hint of efficacy but no proof,” says Stephan Grupp, director of cancer immunotherapy at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who collaborates with Novartis. “It would be great if it works, but that just hasn’t been shown yet.”

Rights to the London treatment were sold to the biotech company Cellectis, and the treatment is now being further developed by the drug companies Servier and Pfizer.

Treatments using engineered T-cells, commonly known as CAR-T, are new and not yet sold commercially. But they have shown stunning success against blood cancers. In studies so far by Novartis and Juno, about half of patients are permanently cured after receiving altered versions of their own blood cells.

But commercializing such personalized treatments raises unprecedented logistical headaches. Grupp says Novartis has outfitted a manufacturing center in New Jersey and that patient cells have been flown in from 25 hospitals in 11 countries, modified, then quickly shipped back. Novartis has said it will seek U.S. approval to sell its T-cell treatment for children this year.

The promise of immunotherapy has drawn huge investments, yet many newer entrants are betting instead on the off-the-shelf approach. Among them are biotech giant Regeneron, Kite Therapeutics, Fate Therapeutics, and Cell Medica.

“The patient could be treated immediately, as opposed to taking cells from a patient and manufacturing them,” says Julianne Smith, vice president of CAR-T development for Cellectis, which specializes in supplying universal cells.

In the off-the-shelf approach, blood is collected from a donor and then turned into “hundreds” of doses that can then be stored frozen, says Smith. “We estimate the cost to manufacture a dose would be about $4,000,” she says. That’s compared to a cost of around $50,000 to alter a patient’s cells and return them.

Either type of treatment is likely to cost insurers half a million dollars or more if they reach the market.

Robert Nelsen, a venture capitalist and a founder of Juno Therapeutics, which raised hundreds of millions for the custom approach, says he’s not worried about companies developing universal alternatives. “What they can do in the future is what we can do today,” Nelsen said in an interview last year. “And I guarantee you even if things were equal, which they are not, you would want your own stuff, not someone else’s cells.”

The London treatment is notable for involving the most extensively engineered cells ever given to a patient, with a total of four genetic changes, two of them introduced by gene editing using a method called TALENs. One alteration was to strip the donor cells of their propensity to attack the body of another person. Another directs them to attack cancer cells.

In the U.S. and China, scientists are also racing to apply gene editing to make improved treatments for cancer and other diseases.

February 4, 2017

Dietary Supplements and Risk of Cause-Specific Death, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer

Filed under: Steve's Blog — Tags: , , , , — dr steve @ 2:19 pm

Here’s a nice article doing some actual SCIENCE on dietary supplements and health.  People ask me all the time, “do dietary supplements work?”  My first question is always “what do you want to accomplish?”  If you say,  “I want to take Vitamin D to prevent rickets,”  I’m all in!  If you say “I want to take Vitamin C to prevent the common cold,” I can’t find any decent data to support it.

So we have to define our endpoints (what do we want to accomplish) then study how various supplements help us reach those endpoints.  Sometimes, as in the case of “antioxidants,” the data may surprise and dismay us.  Other times, we may see a positive result and be able to make general statements about certain supplements.  Read this abstract and I’ll see you at the end for a brief analysis!  [Emphasis added below]

Dietary Supplements and Risk of Cause-Specific Death, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Primary Prevention Trials1,2,3

Abstract

Our aim was to assess the efficacy of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer by using meta-analytical approaches. Electronic and hand searches were performed until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) minimum intervention period of 12 mo; 2) primary prevention trials; 3) mean age >18 y; 4) interventions included vitamins, fatty acids, minerals, supplements containing combinations of vitamins and minerals, protein, fiber, prebiotics, and probiotics; and 5) primary outcome of all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes of mortality or incidence from CVD or cancer. Pooled effects across studies were estimated by using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall, 49 trials (69 reports) including 287,304 participants met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two trials were judged as low risk–, 15 trials as moderate risk–, and 2 trials as high risk–of-bias studies.

Supplements containing vitamin E (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96) significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality risk, whereas supplements with folic acid reduced the risk of CVD (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.94). Vitamins D, C, and K; selenium; zinc; magnesium; and eicosapentaenoic acid showed no significant risk reduction for any of the outcomes. On the contrary, vitamin A was linked to an increased cancer risk (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.35). Supplements with beta-carotene showed no significant effect; however, in the subgroup with betacarotene given singly, an increased risk of all-cause mortality by 6% (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.10) was observed. Taken together, we found insufficient evidence to support the use of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, incidence of CVD, and incidence of cancer. The application of some supplements generated small beneficial effects; however, the heterogeneous types and doses of supplements limit the generalizability to the overall population.

So, given this meta-analysis, if you want to try to reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease, Now Foods Advanced Gamma E Complex, Soft-gels, 120-Count  and Nature Made Folic Acid 400mcg, 250 Tablets (Pack of 3) may be worth a shot. Otherwise, at least for the supplements and outcomes they measured, no other supplements provided a positive effect, and some made things worse (beta carotene and vitamin A, basically).

We’ll stay on this; we’re always looking for new evidence to make your (our) lives better!

 

yr obt svt,

 

Steve

Powered by WordPress

Verified by MonsterInsights