Stem Cells Fast Facts | CNN



CNN
 — 

Here is some background information about stem cells.

Scientists believe that stem cell research can be used to treat medical conditions including Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Sources: National Institutes of Health, Mayo Clinic

Stem cell research focuses on embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells.

Stem cells have two characteristics that differentiate them from other types of cells:

– They are unspecialized cells that can replicate themselves through cell division over long periods of time.

– Stem cells can be manipulated, under certain conditions, to become mature cells with special functions, such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

There are many different types of stem cells, including: pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells.
Pluripotent stem cells (ex: embryonic stem cells) can give rise to any type of cell in the body. These cells are like blank slates, and they have the potential to turn into any type of cell.
Adult stem cells can give rise to multiple types of cells, but are more limited compared with embryonic stem cells. They are more likely to generate within a particular tissue, organ or physiological system. (Ex: blood-forming stem cells/bone marrow cells, sometimes referred to as multipotent stem cells)

Embryonic stem cells are harvested from four to six-day-old embryos. These embryos are either leftover embryos in fertility clinics or embryos created specifically for harvesting stem cells by therapeutic cloning. Only South Korean scientists claim to have successfully created human embryos via therapeutic cloning and have harvested stem cells from them.

Adult stem cells are already designated for a certain organ or tissue. Some adult stem cells can be coaxed into or be reprogrammed into turning into a different type of specialized cell within the tissue type – for example, a heart stem cell can give rise to a functional heart muscle cell, but it is still unclear whether they can give rise to all different cell types of the body.

The primary role of adult stem cells is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found.

Regenerative medicine uses cell-based therapies to treat disease.

Scientists who research stem cells are trying to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated as serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation.

Scientists believe stem cells can be used to generate cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies as the need for donated organs and tissues outweighs the supply.

Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases, including Alzheimer’s diseases.

Cloning human embryos for stem cells is very controversial.

The goal of therapeutic cloning research is not to make babies, but to make embryonic stem cells, which can be harvested and used for cell-based therapies.

Using fertilized eggs left over at fertility clinics is also controversial because removing the stem cells destroys them.

Questions of ethics arise because embryos are destroyed as the cells are extracted, such as: When does human life begin? What is the moral status of the human embryo?

1998 – President Bill Clinton requests a National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the question of stem cell research.

1999 – The National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommends that the government allow federal funds to be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells.

2000 – During his campaign, George W. Bush says he opposes any research that involves the destruction of embryos.

2000 – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issues guidelines for the use of embryonic stem cells in research, specifying that scientists receiving federal funds can use only extra embryos that would otherwise be discarded. President Clinton approves federal funding for stem cell research but Congress does not fund it.

August 9, 2001 – President Bush announces he will allow federal funding for about 60 existing stem cell lines created before this date.

January 18, 2002 – A panel of experts at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommends a complete ban on human reproductive cloning, but supports so-called therapeutic cloning for medical purposes.

February 27, 2002 – For the second time in two years, the House passes a ban on all cloning of human embryos.

July 11, 2002 – The President’s Council on Bioethics recommends a four-year ban on cloning for medical research to allow time for debate.

February 2005 – South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk publishes a study in Science announcing he has successfully created stem cell lines using therapeutic cloning.

December 2005 – Experts from Seoul National University accuse Hwang of faking some of his research. Hwang asks to have his paper withdrawn while his work is being investigated and resigns his post.

January 10, 2006 – An investigative panel from Seoul National University accuses Hwang of faking his research.

July 18, 2006 – The Senate votes 63-37 to loosen President Bush’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

July 19, 2006 – President Bush vetoes the embryonic stem-cell research bill passed by the Senate (the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005), his first veto since taking office.

June 20, 2007 – President Bush vetoes the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

January 23, 2009 – The FDA approves a request from Geron Corp. to test embryonic stem cells on eight to 10 patients with severe spinal cord injuries. This will be the world’s first test in humans of a therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells. The tests will use stem cells cultured from embryos left over in fertility clinics.

March 9, 2009 – President Barack Obama signs an executive order overturning an order signed by President Bush in August 2001 that barred the NIH from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

August 23, 2010 – US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issues a preliminary injunction that prohibits the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

September 9, 2010 – A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit grants a request from the Justice Department to lift a temporary injunction that blocked federal funding of stem cell research.

September 28, 2010 – The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit lifts an injunction imposed by a federal judge, thereby allowing federally funded embryonic stem-cell research to continue while the Obama Administration appeals the judge’s original ruling against use of public funds in such research.

October 8, 2010 – The first human is injected with cells from human embryonic stem cells in a clinical trial sponsored by Geron Corp.

November 22, 2010 – William Caldwell, CEO of Advanced Cell Technology, tells CNN that the FDA has granted approval for his company to start a clinical trial using cells grown from human embryonic stem cells. The treatment will be for an inherited degenerative eye disease.

April 29, 2011 – The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifts an injunction, imposed last year, banning the Obama administration from funding embryonic stem-cell research.

May 11, 2011 – Stem cell therapy in sports medicine is spotlighted after New York Yankees pitcher Bartolo Colon is revealed to have had fat and bone marrow stem cells injected into his injured elbow and shoulder while in the Dominican Republic.

July 27, 2011 – Judge Lamberth dismisses a lawsuit that tried to block funding of stem cell research on human embryos.

February 13, 2012 – Early research published by scientists at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Johns Hopkins University shows that a patient’s own stem cells can be used to regenerate heart tissue and help undo damage caused by a heart attack. It is the first instance of therapeutic regeneration.

May 2013 – Scientists make the first embryonic stem cell from human skin cells by reprogramming human skin cells back to their embryonic state, according to a study published in the journal, Cell.

April 2014 – For the first time scientists are able to use cloning technologies to generate stem cells that are genetically matched to adult patients,according to a study published in the journal, Cell Stem Cell.

October 2014 – Researchers say that human embryonic stem cells have restored the sight of several nearly blind patients – and that their latest study shows the cells are safe to use long-term. According to a report published in The Lancet, the researchers transplanted stem cells into 18 patients with severe vision loss as a result of two types of macular degeneration.

May 2, 2018 – The science journal Nature reports that scientists have created a structure like a blastocyst – an early embryo – using mouse stem cells instead of the usual sperm and egg.

June 4, 2018 – The University of California reports that the first in utero stem cell transplant trial has led to the live birth of an infant that had been diagnosed in utero with alpha thalassemia, a blood disorder that is usually fatal for fetuses.

January 13, 2020 – In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers announce they have created the world’s first living, self-healing robots using stem cells from frogs. Named xenobots after the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), the machines are less than a millimeter (0.04 inches) wide, small enough to travel inside human bodies. Less than two years later, scientists announce that these robots can now reproduce.

February 15, 2022 – A US woman becomes the third known person to go into HIV remission, and the first mixed-race woman, thanks to a transplant of stem cells from umbilical cord blood, according to research presented at a scientific conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

November 7, 2022 – Scientists announce they have transfused lab-made red blood cells grown from stem cells into a human volunteer in a world-first trial that experts say has major potential for people with hard-to-match blood types or conditions such as sickle cell disease.

Source link

#Stem #Cells #Fast #Facts #CNN

HIV/AIDS Fast Facts | CNN



CNN
 — 

Here’s a look at the origins, treatments and global response to HIV and AIDS.

HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus.

AIDS stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

HIV/AIDS is spread through sexual contact with an infected person, sharing needles with an infected person, through transfusions of infected blood or through an infected mother.

People infected with HIV go through three stages of infection:

  1. Acute infection, or acute retroviral syndrome, which can produce flu-like symptoms in the first month after infection.
  2. Clinical latency, or asymptomatic HIV infection, in which HIV reproduces at lower levels.
  3. AIDS, in which the amount of CD4 cells fall below 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood (as opposed to the normal level of 500-1,500).

HIV-1 and HIV-2 can both cause AIDS. HIV-1 is the most common human immunodeficiency virus; HIV-2 is found mostly in western Africa.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) involves taking a cocktail of HIV medications used to treat the virus. In 1987, Azidothymidine (AZT) became the first FDA-approved drug used to attempt to treat HIV/AIDS.

from UNAIDS:

38.4 million – Number of people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide in 2021.

5.9 million – Approximate number of people living with HIV globally that are unaware of their HIV-positive status in 2021.

160,000 – Newly infected children worldwide in 2021.

1.5 million – New infections worldwide in 2021.

650,000 – Approximate number of AIDS-related deaths worldwide in 2021.

Of the 4,500 new infections each day in 2019, 59% are in sub-Saharan Africa.

40.1 million – Approximate number of AIDS-related deaths worldwide since the start of the epidemic.

Sub-Saharan Africa is comprised of the following countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

1981 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish the first reports of men in Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco who were previously healthy and are suffering from rare forms of cancer and pneumonia, accompanied by “opportunistic infections.”

1982 The CDC refer to the disease as AIDS for the first time.

1983 French and American researchers determine that AIDS is caused by HIV.

1985 Blood tests to detect HIV are developed.

December 1, 1988 – First World AIDS Day.

1999 Researchers in the United States find evidence that HIV-1 most likely originated in a population of chimpanzees in West Africa. The virus appears to have been transmitted to people who hunted, butchered and consumed the chimpanzees for food.

January 29, 2003 In his State of the Union speech, US President George W. Bush promises to dramatically increase funding to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa.

May 27, 2003 – Bush signs H.R. 1298, the US Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003, also known as PEPFAR (US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), that provides $15 billion over the next five years to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria abroad, particularly in Africa.

July 30, 2008 H.R. 5501, The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, becomes law and authorizes up to $48 billion to combat global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Through 2013, PEPFAR plans to work in partnership with host nations to support treatment for at least four million people, prevention of 12 million new infections and care for 12 million people.

October 2011 – In his book, “The Origins of AIDS,” Dr. Jacques Pepin traces the emergence and subsequent development of HIV/AIDS to suggest that initial AIDS outbreaks began earlier than previously believed.

July 24, 2012 – Doctors announce during the 19th International AIDS Conference that Timothy Ray Brown, known as the “Berlin patient,” has been clinically “cured” of HIV. Brown, diagnosed with leukemia, underwent a bone marrow transplant in 2007 using marrow from a donor with an HIV-resistant mutation. He no longer has detectable HIV.

March 3, 2013 Researchers announce that a baby born infected with HIV has been “functionally cured.” The child, born in Mississippi, was given high doses of antiretroviral drugs within 30 hours of being born. A year later, the child now has detectable levels of the virus in her blood, 27 months after being taken off antiretroviral drugs, according to scientists involved with her case.

June 18, 2013 Marking the 10th anniversary of PEPFAR, Secretary of State John Kerry announces that the millionth child has been born HIV-free due to prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs (PMTCT).

March 14, 2014 – The CDC reports on a case of likely female-to-female HIV transmission. Unlike previous announcements of other cases involving female-to-female transmission, this case excludes additional risk factors for HIV transmission.

July 24, 2017 – A 9-year-old child from South Africa is reported to have been in remission for over eight years without treatment, according to Dr. Avy Violari, who spoke at the 9th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science in Paris.

November 2018 – According to PEPFAR’s website, they have “supported life-saving antiretroviral treatment (ART) for more than 14.6 million men, women and children” since 2003.

March 5, 2019 – According to a case study published in the journal Nature, a second person has sustained remission from HIV-1. The “London patient” was treated with stem cell transplants from donors with an HIV-resistant mutation. The London patient has been in remission for 18 months since he stopped taking antiretroviral drugs. The study also includes a possible third remission after stem cell transplantation, this person is referred to as the “Düsseldorf patient.”

May 2, 2019 – A study of nearly 1,000 gay male couples, where one partner with HIV took antiretroviral therapy (ART), found no new cases of transmission to the HIV-negative partner during sex without a condom. The landmark, eight-year study, published in the Lancet medical journal shows that the risk of passing on the HIV virus is eliminated with effective drugs treatment.

October 7, 2019 – Governor Gavin Newsom signs a bill making HIV prevention drugs available without a prescription in California starting on January 1, 2020. The medications covered by the new legislation are pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), which both help prevent HIV infections. California becomes the first state in the country to allow pharmacists to provide the drugs without a physician’s prescription.

November 6, 2019 – According to a study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, a team of scientists has detected a new strain of HIV. The strain is a part of the Group M version of HIV-1, the same family of virus subtypes to blame for the global HIV pandemic, according to Abbott Laboratories, which conducted the research along with the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

June 15, 2020 – A study is published in the journal JAMA Network Open showing that the life expectancy of people with HIV approaches that of people without the virus, when antiviral therapy is started early in infection. However, disparities still remain in the number of chronic health problems that people with HIV endure.

July 7, 2020 – Scientists presenting at the 23rd International AIDS Conference announce a new study that found an injection of the investigational drug cabotegravir every eight weeks was more effective at preventing HIV than daily oral pills. It is also announced that a Brazilian man might be the first person to experience long-term HIV remission after being treated with only an antiviral drug regimen – not stem cell transplantation.

November 16, 2021 – A new study finds a second patient whose body has seemingly rid itself of HIV. The international team of scientists reports in the Annals of Internal Medicine that the patient, originally from the city of Esperanza, Argentina, showed no evidence of intact HIV in large numbers of her cells, suggesting that she may have naturally achieved what they describe as a “sterilizing cure” of HIV infection. The 30-year-old woman in the new study is only the second patient who has been described as achieving this sterilizing cure without help from stem cell transplantation or other treatment.

December 20, 2021 – The US Food and Drug Administration announces that it has approved the first injectable medication for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to lower the risk of getting HIV through sex.

February 15, 2022 – A US woman becomes the third known person to go into HIV remission, and the first mixed-race woman, thanks to a transplant of stem cells from umbilical cord blood, according to research presented at a conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

December 1, 2022 – An experimental HIV vaccine, called eOD-GT8 60mer, has been found to induce broadly neutralizing antibody precursors among a small group of volunteers in a Phase 1 study. The clinical trial results, published in the journal Science, suggest that a two-dose regimen of the vaccine, given eight weeks apart, can elicit immune responses against the human immunodeficiency virus.

Source link

#HIVAIDS #Fast #Facts #CNN

FDA advisers narrowly vote in favor of experimental gene therapy for rare muscle disease | CNN



CNN
 — 

Most parents wouldn’t be thrilled with the idea of their kids getting hooked up to an IV bag filled with trillions of viruses.

But for Melanie Hennick, whose son, Connor, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, it was an opportunity she hoped would change his life.

“We knew this wasn’t a cure,” Hennick said. “But it was a chance.”

Connor is one of just dozens of kids to have received SRP-9001, an experimental gene therapy that aims to slow or stop the progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD. Current treatments for the disease – which primarily affects boys because of the way it’s inherited – include steroids and, later, heart drugs. But none stop it.

SRP-9001 uses viruses to ferry a copy of a gene to muscles to help make up for one that’s causing the disease. Hennick and many other parents like her advocated for the treatment’s accelerated approval Friday in a meeting of outside advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration.

The advisers voted 8-6 in favor of approving the treatment, and the FDA will now decide whether to follow their advice.

“The decision the FDA has to make doesn’t just affect the patients in study 301 [an ongoing confirmatory trial that Sarepta is running]; it affects the entire field of drug development for Duchenne,” said Dr. Caleb Alexander, a professor of epidemiology and medicine in the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, who voted against recommending approval. “The totality of evidence … simply doesn’t rise to the threshold that’s required for accelerated approval.”

Dr. Raymond Roos, a neurology professor at the University of Chicago Medical Center, voted in favor. “The downside of the gene therapy here is relatively small compared to whether it really helps the patient, and for this reason, I voted yes,” he said.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said his agency will take the recommendation and “do something that we have to do every day at FDA. … We have to manage through the uncertainty here.”

The FDA’s decision, expected by the end of the month, will have implications not just for families like Connor’s but for how the agency regulateths treatments like this one more broadly: It would be the first of its kind of medicine – one-time treatments delivering a gene to try to fix a disease – to get accelerated approval, a faster track through the regulatory process. Its approval would set a precedent for other drugs like this based on so-called surrogate endpoints, a measure of what the drug does in the body, before further clinical evidence is available.

“Approval of a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy will be huge,” said Jeffrey Chamberlain, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine who helped pioneer gene therapy approaches for the disease. “This, I think, will spur further research and further development of gene therapies for other diseases.”

DMD patients don’t have a lot of time to wait. Kids with Duchenne typically lose the ability to walk before they’re teenagers and often don’t live well into their 30s, Chamberlain said. He’s not directly involved with SRP-9001, which is being developed by Sarepta Therapeutics, and is on the scientific advisory board for another company working on DMD gene therapies, Solid Biosciences.

“Gene therapy appears to be a really good approach to try to treat this disease, because it’s a genetic disease,” Chamberlain said. “The cause of the disease is a mutation in a single gene.”

That gene is responsible for the production of dystrophin, a protein key to the structure of muscle cells.

“It’s kind of like the two-by-fours that make up your house,” Chamberlain said. “It’s really important for just holding everything together.”

SRP-9001, invented at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, before being licensed for development by Sarepta, delivers a miniaturized version of the dystrophin gene to cells, aiming to help them make a version of the muscle-preserving protein.

In a key clinical trial, the therapy appeared to do that. But it didn’t meet another main goal: showing a benefit on a measure of muscle function, complicating SRP-9001’s path through the FDA.

Sarepta blamed the outcome on an imbalance in how the trial separated patients into the placebo and treatment groups. But key FDA reviewers appear unconvinced.

“The clinical studies conducted to date do not provide unambiguous evidence that SRP-9001 is likely beneficial for ambulatory patients with DMD,” agency reviewers wrote in briefing documents released ahead of Friday’s meeting, referring to patients who can still walk – the group who will initially be eligible for the treatment if it gets approved.

Family after family who participated in Sarepta’s trials, like the Hennicks, disagree with the reviewers. They say they believe that the treatment has helped keep their kids walking and running in ways they never would have without it.

“It’s really miraculous,” said Nate Plasman, whose son Andrew got SRP-9001 as part of the trial in January 2019, at age 4.

Sara, left, Andrew and Nate Plasman on the day he was dosed in the trial in January 2019.

Andrew was away from school for more than two months when he got the experimental therapy, Plasman said, and when he returned, “his teachers at the preschool were blown away,” he recalled. “They’re like, ‘Who is this kid?’ He’s running. He’s jumping. He’s pedaling the tricycle. He’s getting up and down off the ground” – all things he couldn’t do as well before the therapy.

Marit Sivertson, mom to 9-year-old Brecken, agrees.

“We’ve seen the incredible changes with our son,” she said. “He’s not just walking around. He’s running; he’s swimming; he’s diving. He’s truly living the life that every 9-year-old boy ought to be living.”

Dr. Jerry Mendell of Nationwide Children's Hospital in Ohio, who developed the gene therapy, left, with Brecken Kinney.

Sivertson and Plasman also spoke at Friday’s meeting. Their goal isn’t to secure the therapy for their own kids; because it’s designed as a one-time treatment, they wouldn’t take it again. They say they’re speaking up on behalf of children who are still waiting.

That wait is especially painful for Daniel and Lindsey Flessner, who have two sons with DMD. Their 5-year-old son, Mason, is in the SRP-9001 clinical trial. Their 2-year-old, Dawson, is still too young.

“With every trip, every fall, every time he stands up by walking up his legs using his hands to help stabilize him, it just keeps chipping away at us,” Flessner said. “It’s very painful as the parents watching your children struggling knowing all you can do is wait, when waiting is what you don’t have time for.”

Lindsey and Daniel Flessner's sons, Mason and Dawson, both have DMD.

In addition to questions about how well the treatment works, the FDA reviewers raised concerns about safety, particularly “related to the possibility of administering an ineffective gene therapy.”

The reviewers focused on opportunity cost: Because of the viruses used to deliver the gene, patients can develop an immune response that could render future doses ineffective.

Chamberlain said work is underway to find ways to be able to administer more doses, if needed, but it’s currently a one-and-done treatment.

For now, he thinks this approach is the best hope for DMD patients.

“It’s not perfect,” he acknowledged. “It’s not a complete cure, but from what I can gauge from the clinical results that have been released by Sarepta and some of the other companies, I think the micro-dystrophin gene therapy is working better than any other drug that’s been tried for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.”

It’s unclear how long the effects will last; Sarepta is continuing trials, and a confirmatory study would be required as part of accelerated approval. Sarepta has proposed a trial that it’s already running to satisfy that requirement, with results expected later this year.

For families facing DMD, there’s an opportunity cost to waiting, too. In its briefing documents for the FDA meeting, Sarepta estimated that accelerated approval would speed up broad access to SRP-9001 by at least a year, a time in which about 400 boys could lose the ability to walk and another 400, whose disease is more advanced, would die.

Melanie Hennick said Connor was admitted to the trial just weeks before he’d have aged out, at 8 years old. She said she believes the therapy is the reason Connor’s doing so well.

“We had the opportunity to see Connor grow as an 8-, 9-, 10-, 11- and 12-year-old with more capacity than we ever dreamed,” she said. “He climbs stairs unaided; he runs around; he plays football; he plays hockey; he plays on a baseball team. … Those are things that we never thought we would be able to see him do, especially at 12.”

Source link

#FDA #advisers #narrowly #vote #favor #experimental #gene #therapy #rare #muscle #disease #CNN

Texas abortion drug ruling could create ‘slippery slope’ for FDA approvals, drug research and patients, experts say | CNN



CNN
 — 

What happened in one judge’s courtroom in Texas could have drastic effects for the United States’ entire drug approval process, experts warn.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling that suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication abortion drug mifepristone was an unprecedented one, the first time a court has bypassed the federal system set up to determine what drugs should be allowed on the market.

Regardless of whether the ruling – or a part of it – is ultimately allowed to stand, legal scholars, scientists and drugmakers are concerned that the decision could start a trend of drugs being targeted in courts, creating a chilling effect on drug development in the US and hurting patients in the process.

Vaccines, including the Covid-19 shots, antidepressants and psychotropic medicines could be at risk, some said.

“Well, one does not want to be Chicken Little,” former FDA Commissioner Dr. Jane Henney said Wednesday, but “I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t have implications for other products.

“The approval process will be at risk, and it’s not just an approval process that patients rely on and providers rely on, it’s one that has been considered the gold standard, really, for the world,” said Henney, who was the head of the FDA when mifepristone was approved.

Since the dawn of the 20th century, the FDA has had the sole authority in the United States to regulate drugs. In 1906, the federal government created the agency to enforce the Pure Food and Drug Act, which was instituted to ensure that medicine, food and cosmetics were safe.

Over the years, that authority became more defined.

After elixir of sulfanilamide, a drug used to treat streptococcal infections, killed 107 people in 1937, Congress created the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Signed into law in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it required manufacturers to conduct pharmacological studies to prove that their drugs were safe before they could be sold or advertised. In 1962, drug manufacturers were also required to prove to the FDA that their products were effective.

Modern drug approval in the US is a careful and conscientious process. Before any drug goes to market, there are countless hours of research, the work and expertise of multiple scientists, and several layers of oversight for approval.

Until now, the courts have been deferential to the FDA’s process and have never overturned an FDA decision on the grounds that the agency misjudged the science, said William Schultz, a former deputy commissioner at the FDA and former general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Any FDA drug approval involves hundreds of judgments by the agency. And if a court feels free just to kind of take a fresh look at each of those, there’s a chance that a court will find one of those FDA judgments wrong,” Schultz said in an online discussion Monday about the impact of the Texas court’s ruling that was hosted by Protect Our Care, an organization that advocates for equitable and affordable health care.

Hundreds of well-known biotech and pharmaceutical company leaders, concerned about the effects of Kacsmaryk’s ruling on other drug approvals, signed an open letter Monday in support of the FDA’s authority “to approve and regulate safe, effective medicines for every American.”

The letter also advocated a reversal of the mifepristone decision from a judge with “no scientific training,” saying it “set a precedent for diminishing FDA’s authority over drug approvals, and in so doing, creates uncertainty for the entire biopharma industry.”

In a separate statement, the biotech industry group BIO’s interim president and CEO, Rachel King, emphasized the “dangerous precedent” the decision sets.

“The preliminary ruling by a federal judge in Texas is an assault on science and the FDA’s long-standing role as the authority to make decisions on the safety and efficacy of medicines. For a court to invalidate the approval of a drug that was reviewed and approved more than two decades ago is without precedent. As legal scholars have noted, the courts do not have the medical expertise to make these types of scientific determinations,” King said.

The main lobbying group for the pharmaceutical industry, PhRMA, criticized Kacsmaryk’s ruling as undermining the regulatory process.

“PhRMA has serious concerns with any court substituting its opinion for the FDA’s expert approval decision-making,” said James C. Stansel, the association’s executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary. Stansel added that such a decision could have a “chilling effect on the research and development ecosystem.”

The pharmacutical sector is a huge part of the American economy. Of the world’s 25 largest phamacutical companies, 10 are based in the US, and most of the others have a large base of operations in the country.

Often, the US market is the first to get access to new drugs, but that could change if lawsuits undermine the regulatory integrity of the FDA process, said Susan Lee, partner in the law firm Goodwin’s Life Sciences group and Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance practice, who works with companies to get drugs approved by the FDA.

“If there do tend to be more lawsuits like this, I wonder if there might be a little bit of a tendency to not always look at the US as the first market,” Lee said. “Some manufacturers may say ‘we’d rather go to Europe, where we’re not going to be sued on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.’ “

Lee also wonders whether manufacturers will abandon efforts to develop drugs that could be considered unappealing to some, such as those that help women’s health or work to prevent HIV.

“I think there are just certain sectors that are already kind of thinking about whether they might also have a target on their back. I’ve definitely heard that discussed,” Lee said.

The groups at the heart of the Texas case have not disclosed any further plans regarding lawsuits over medications, but experts say they are already hearing concern.

“I’ve already been getting questions from lawmakers and other people about ‘could the Covid vaccine be next?’ or other things that may have stigma around it,” said Dr. Kristyn Brandi, an ob/gyn and abortion provider in New Jersey and a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The Covid-19 vaccines have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective, but they’re the subject of conspiracy theories and misunderstanding about how mRNA vaccines were tested. Beliefs that the vaccines were tested on recently harvested aborted fetal cells made some people decidedly anti-vaccine.

Dr. Lynn R. Goldman, professor and dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, is also concerned that mRNA vaccines could be targeted soon.

“There might be people who disagree with some of the technologies that are used by vaccine makers, like the mRNA vaccines, but feeling uncomfortable about a technology is not the same thing as identifying that there is risk,” she said in the Protect Our Care conversation.

Members of the LGBTQ+ community may also be vulnerable, experts say, as activists could target puberty blockers or hormones used in gender-affirming therapy.

“I don’t like to do slippery slope, but I’m also very worried about things like gender-affirming care, since there’s already been so many laws about that recently in other states,” Brandi said.

There is political pressure against other vaccines, antidepressants and psychotropic medicines, among others, former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and former Principal Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein wrote in an editorial published Thursday in the journal Science.

“If judges begin to dictate the terms of medication access, then others will seek to use ideology and influence to advance their agendas,” they warn.

Goldman said that any legal decision that could undermine the FDA drug approval process would ultimately hurt the doctors who prescribe them and the people who use them.

Doctors don’t have time to vet all the studies used to prove that a drug is safe and effective, so they rely on the FDA for this work, she said. Court interference could confuse this process.

“I think that this is, for doctors, an incredibly serious moment, because up to now, we have been able to trust that an approval by the FDA is a science-based decision and that we can say that if the FDA has approved a drug, that it is safe for us to use,” Goldman said.

A lack of confidence in the drug approval process will ultimately hurt people far beyond the most recent decision, Protect Our Care Chair Leslie Dach says.

“Confidence that the FDA can do its work is essential for clinicians and patients who depend on it in its decision-making for matters of life and death,” Dach said.

Source link

#Texas #abortion #drug #ruling #create #slippery #slope #FDA #approvals #drug #research #patients #experts #CNN

When children are told they were born via assisted reproduction can affect outcomes, study finds | CNN



CNN
 — 

At age 14, Helen wasn’t bothered by the fact she was born via surrogacy.

“My mum is still my mum. My dad is still my dad,” she told UK researchers conducting a study on the mental health and well-being of children born through egg donation, sperm donation and surrogacy. Helen is not her real name.

“I was talking to someone at school and they said they were an accident,” 14-year-old Simon (also not his real name) told the researchers. “I know I was no accident, I was really wanted, and it makes me feel special.”

Parents worried their children may experience difficulties as a result of learning they were conceived by assisted reproduction can stop fretting — the kids are just fine, according to the study published this week after two decades in the making.

“When we began this study more than 20 years ago, there was concern the absence of a biological link between the child and the parents could have a damaging effect on their relationship and on the well-being of the child,” said lead author Susan Golombok, professor emerita of family research and former director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge in the UK.

However, at age 20, children born via egg or sperm donation and surrogacy were psychologically well-adjusted, the study found, especially if parents told the children about their birth history before age 7.

“What this research means is that having children in different or new ways doesn’t actually interfere with how families function. Really wanting children seems to trump everything — that’s what really matters,” Golombok said.

Clinical psychologist Mary Riddle, an associate professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University called the study “important, in that it represents research conducted over a long period of time.”

However, Riddle, who was not involved in the study, said the results aren’t completely applicable to the United States because surrogacy can be practiced differently in the UK in several ways.

Called “tummy mummies” by some of the children, surrogates in the UK may become part of the family, participating in the upbringing of the child they helped bring into the world, according to Golombok’s 2020 book, “We Are Family: The Modern Transformation of Parents and Children.”

“In the UK, intended parents often know their surrogate prior to the surrogate pregnancy whereas in the US, commercial surrogates are often matched through agencies and don’t have prior relationships with the families for whom they carry babies,” Riddle said.

It’s also more common in the UK to use “partial” surrogacy, in which surrogates are impregnated with the sperm of the intended father and are therefore the biological mother of the child, Riddle said.

“Here in the US, gestational surrogacy, where the surrogate mother has no genetic connection to the child she is carrying, is far more common and thought to be potentially less fraught with psychological and legal pitfalls,” she added.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Developmental Psychology, followed 65 children — 22 born by surrogacy, 17 by egg donation and 26 by sperm donation — from infancy until age 20. Another 52 families who did not use any assistance were also followed. Researchers spoke to the families when the children were 1, 2, 3, 7, 10 and 14.

Young adults who learned about their biological origins before age 7 reported better relationships with their mothers, and their mothers had lower levels of anxiety and depression, the study found.

However, children born through surrogacy had some relationship issues around age 7, “which seemed to be related to their increased understanding of surrogacy at that age,” Golombok said.

“We visited the families when the children were 10, and these difficulties had disappeared,” she said. “Interestingly, the same phenomenon has been found among internationally adopted children. It may have to do with having to confront issues of identity at a younger age than other children.”

Developmentally, children begin to notice and ask questions about pregnancy between the ages of 3 and 4, said clinical psychologist Rebecca Berry, an adjunct faculty member in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

“To satisfy their curiosity they’ll begin to ask questions about babies and where they came from as a way of trying to understand why they are here,” said Berry, who was not involved with the study.

Children as young as 7 will already have a basic understanding of genetics, and can be surprised when they learn they aren’t genetically connected to one or both parents, said Lauri Pasch, a psychology professor at the University of California San Francisco, who specializes in infertility and family building.

“Our current thinking is that it is best for parents to share the story of donor conception with their children at a very early age, so that if I were to ask their child when they are an adult when they learned that they were donor conceived, they would respond that they ‘always knew,’” said Pasch, who was also not involved in the study, via email.

“This allows the child to grow up with the information, as opposed to learning it later in life, when it comes as a surprise or shock and can hurt their trust in their parents and their identity development,” she added.

When it came to maternal anxiety and depression, there were no differences between families formed by surrogacy and egg or sperm donation and families with children born without assisted conception. Nor were they any differences in the mothers’ relationships with their partners at home, the study found.

However, mothers who had babies via donor eggs reported less positive family relationships than mothers who used sperm donation, likely due to insecurities about lack of a genetic connection to their children, Golombok said.

Young adults conceived by sperm donation reported poorer family communication than those conceived by egg donation, the study found. That’s perhaps due to a greater reluctance on the part of fathers to disclose they are not a genetic parent, Golombok said.

Only 42% of parents who had conceived via sperm donor had revealed the child’s birth history by the time their children were age 20, compared to 88% of egg donation parents and 100% of parents who used surrogacy.

When asked, many of the children said they weren’t concerned about how they were conceived.

“A lot of the children said ‘It’s not a big deal. I’ve got more interesting things going on in my life,’ while others said ‘Actually it’s something a bit special about me. I like talking about it,’ Golombok said. “I think it’s really nice to hear from the children themselves and I don’t think any other study has done this.”

Once told, a child needs to revisit the birth history from time to time, so parents should be sure any conversation is an ongoing one, Golombok said.

“There is this idea parents will tell the child and that is it. But you need to keep having these conversations to give the child a chance to ask questions in an age appropriate way as they grow older,” she said.

“Many of the parents in our study use children’s books that were specifically designed for this purpose,” Golombok added. “Then they could bring the child’s own story into the narrative.”

Source link

#children #told #born #assisted #reproduction #affect #outcomes #study #finds #CNN

What is autism? An expert explains | CNN



CNN
 — 

Some individuals with autism have challenges processing senses. Others struggle to communicate. Still others might have a tough time socializing, thinking, physically moving or just going about daily living.

People with autism have their own ways of interacting with the world, because autism is a developmental disability that affects everyone who has it a little differently, according to Dr. Daniel Geschwind, the Gordon and Virginia Macdonald distinguished professor of human genetics, neurology and psychiatry at UCLA.

Geschwind has spent 25 years studying autism and what causes it. To mark Autism Awareness Month, CNN talked with him about what autism is and what causes it.

This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

CNN: What is autism?

Dr. Daniel Geschwind: Autism refers to a broad range of conditions characterized by challenges with social skills and social and communication and repetitive behaviors, resistance to changes in routine, or restricted interests. I prefer to call it “the Autisms,” because it’s not one thing, and no two autistic children or adults are exactly alike even though they may share basic features. People with autism may also have some sensory-motor integration issues, especially sensory hypersensitivity.

CNN: How prevalent is autism today?

Geschwind: It isn’t rare. The most recent statistics (from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) came out in March, pulled data from 11 sites (in the United States) and reported 1 out of every 36 kids is autistic. The study before that estimated around 1 in 40. About 10 years ago, the autism rate was 1 in 100, or even lower.

It would be easy to look at this trend and say autism is increasing, but that’s not really what is happening. The most recent data reflects that our ability to recognize autism and diagnose it early has improved dramatically. We’re now able to diagnose people with autism who might have (previously) fallen through the cracks.

Everybody is neurodivergent to some extent. For example, if you look at a simple IQ test, a substantial portion of people will perform really badly on one specific item. That doesn’t mean they have problems — it’s just that it means we all have strengths and weaknesses.

If I were being tested on artistic ability, for example, or engineering ability, I would be far below what’s called typical. I think we have to accept that intelligence is not just one thing, that cognition isn’t one thing, that there’s not just one way to behave.

CNN: What does it mean when people describe some as being “on the spectrum”?

Geschwind: About a decade ago, the term “autism spectrum disorder” was adopted to encompass everything that we called autism into one rubric. The intent was simply to describe the variability in how people with autism act and behave biomedically. There are some autistic individuals who just need accommodations and don’t need treatment. There are other autistic individuals who need a lot of treatment. The spectrum was intended to include them all.

Over time, non-autistic people began referring to the spectrum in a linear fashion: high to low. That means some autistic individuals were categorized as “high-functioning,” while others were categorized as “low-functioning.” For many, the notion of a spectrum is now a loaded term. Many believe that instead of talking about autism in a linear fashion, we should talk about it as a wheel or pie, where each slice represents a different trait and every individual has different strengths and weaknesses.

CNN: Is there a cure for autism?

Geschwind: There is no cure. At the same time, we’ve come very far in understanding what autism is, and we’re making progress on how to treat it. When I started researching autism 25 years ago, the autism rate was 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 2,000. To put it in deeper historical perspective, I think at that time there was only about $10 million a year or less in autism research being done that was funded (by the National Institutes of Health). And so, there was a huge disconnect between the research dollars, public awareness and the real needs of patients and families.

The notion of the term “curing” autism can be controversial. From my perspective, our true goal is to establish a kind of personalized medicine, or precision health in autism and other neuropsychiatric disorders, so that each autistic person is seen as the individual they are. We envision a world where individuals who are severely impacted by autism have the opportunity to get therapy and drugs that can help them — and those for whom a therapy is not warranted or who don’t want it will have opportunities to live life the way they want to as well. Patient autonomy and societal accommodation are important aspects when considering these issues.

CNN: What causes autism?

Geschwind: Almost every medical condition has both genetic and environmental components. In autism, it seems that heritability is very high. The most recent large study suggested that heritable genetic factors — the things that you get from your parents that your parents have in their DNA — are probably somewhere around 80% or slightly higher.

That leaves 20% that’s nonheritable, and of that we know that at least 10% of autism is caused by rare mutations that are not inherited. And that sounds like a paradox, but it’s not. If you think about Down syndrome, that’s a genetic mutation that the parents don’t have in their DNA. That’s called a new, or de novo, mutation.

You can calculate a risk score for having autism based on genetics, (but) right now, the risk score for autism is not that predictive because we haven’t done enough research. For other conditions like cardiovascular or certain cancers, risk scores are very predictive because very large numbers of people have been studied.

Even so, this autism risk score is strongly correlated with high educational attainment, or a high IQ, which again speaks to the strengths associated with being autistic and highlights that we need to be more aware of the strengths that autistic individuals may have as well to optimize their opportunities to achieve their goals or contribute to society.

There also are several environmental factors that have been shown to increase the risk of autism. One of them is maternal exposure to valproate, which is an anti-epilepsy medication. There are several maternal viral infections that have been associated with autism. And two other things: the interbirth interval — how quickly after one birth a mother has another — and the age of the father. The thought on the last point is that as a man ages, their DNA repair mechanisms are maybe less active, and there are more frequent mutations in sperm.

A key point is that all these known environmental factors act prenatally, so in most cases the tendency towards being on the spectrum is something that individuals are born with.

CNN: To what extent has research debunked the controversial notion that vaccines can cause autism?

Geschwind: The notion that vaccines cause autism has been entirely (disproved). There have been dozens of studies, using very different methodologies. There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines cause autism, and there’s been much more harm than good done by purveyors of that fiction.

CNN: How do you treat autism?

Geschwind: It is imperative to have an early diagnosis, because we know that early identification and early intervention with behavioral therapies can be effective in up to 50% of kids. Some kids will respond so well that it’s very hard to make a diagnosis of autism when they’re 9 years old if the therapy is started early enough.

The problem is that for many autistic individuals, current therapies are not that effective. There’s a lot of work being done developing more effective cognitive behavioral therapies, figuring out which therapy is the best for which child. There’s also work being done to develop medications that can be helpful to treat certain symptoms such as injurious behavior, repetitive behavior or difficulty with changes in routines.

My colleagues and I want to use treatment to augment and improve people’s symptoms, not change who they are fundamentally. We believe strongly in every individual’s autonomy. We also believe in personalized medicine so that it’s not one-size-fits-all. There will be some patients in whom we’re trying to correct a severe genetic mutation that has profound consequences, and there’ll be others that need only a handful of accommodations, just like we provide for folks who need wheelchairs.

CNN: What will your research focus on next?

Geschwind: There are two basic frontiers in my research. One recognizes that most of the work in neuropsychiatric disorders and autism has been done in primarily White European populations and focuses on a pressing need to be studying diverse populations. About seven or eight years ago, I started working with African American communities because certain aspects of genetics are population-specific, and we as researchers really need to understand that.

The frontier that is crosscutting across all of this is we need to be able to move from genetics in a population to genetics in an individual, so that by looking at somebody’s genetic makeup, we can understand the mechanism of their autism. This is precision medicine.

My work is trying to understand how specific genetic variants, how specific mutations, impact brain development to eventually lead to the symptoms of autism. If my colleagues and I can understand that mechanism, just like we can understand the genetic mechanism in cancer, we can find a drug to target that and improve those symptoms over time.

Source link

#autism #expert #explains #CNN

Colorectal cancer is rising among younger adults and scientists are racing to uncover why | CNN



CNN
 — 

Nikki Lawson received the shock of her life at age 35.

A couple of years ago, she noticed that her stomach often felt irritable, and she would get sudden urges to use the restroom, sometimes with blood in her stool. She even went to the hospital one day when her symptoms were severe, she said, and she was told it might be a stomach ulcer before being sent home.

“That was around the time when Chadwick Boseman, the actor, passed away. I remember watching him on the news and having the same symptoms,” Lawson said of the “Black Panther” star who died of colon cancer at age 43 in August 2020.

“But at that time, I was not thinking ‘this is something that I’m going through,’ ” she said.

Instead, Lawson thought changing her diet would help. She stopped eating certain red meats and ate more fruits and vegetables. She began losing a lot of weight, which she thought was the result of her new diet.

“But then I went for a physical,” Lawson said.

Her primary care physician recommended that she see a gastroenterologist immediately because she had low iron levels.

“When I went and I saw my gastro, she said, ‘I’m sorry, I have bad news. We see something. We sent it off to get testing. It looks like it is cancer.’ My whole world just kind of blanked out,” Lawson said. “I was 35, healthy, going about my day, raising my daughter, and to get a diagnosis like this, I was just so shocked.”

Lawson, who was diagnosed with stage III rectal cancer, is among a growing group of colon and rectal cancer patients in the United States who are diagnosed at a young age.

The share of colorectal cancer diagnoses among adults younger than 55 in the US has been rising since the 1990s, and no one knows why.

Researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are calling for more work to be done to understand, prevent and treat colorectal cancer at younger ages.

In a paper published last week in the journal Science, the researchers, Dr. Marios Giannakis and Dr. Kimmie Ng, outlined a way for scientists to accelerate their investigations into the puzzling rise of colorectal cancer among younger ages, calling for more specialized research centers to focus on younger patients with the disease and for diverse populations to be included in studies on early-onset colorectal cancer.

Their hope is that this work will help improve outcomes for young colorectal cancer patients like Lawson.

Among younger adults, ages 20 to 49, colorectal cancer is estimated to become the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States by 2030.

Lawson, now 36 and living in Palm Bay, Florida, with her 5-year-old daughter, is in remission and cancer-free.

The former middle school teacher had several surgeries and received radiation therapy and chemotherapy to treat her cancer. She is now being monitored closely by her doctors.

For other young people with colorectal cancer, “my words of hope would be to just stay strong. Just find that courage within yourself to say, ‘You know what, I’m going to fight this.’ And I just looked within myself,” Lawson said.

“I also have a very supportive family system, so they were definitely there for me. But it was very emotional,” she said of her cancer treatments.

“I remember crying through chemotherapy sessions and the medicine making you so weak, and my daughter was 4, and having to be strong for her,” she said. “My advice to any young person: If you see symptoms or you see something’s not right and you’re losing a lot of weight and not really trying to, go to see a doctor.”

Signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer include changes in bowel habits, rectal bleeding or blood in the stool, cramping or abdominal pain, weakness and fatigue, and weight loss.

A report released this month by the American Cancer Society shows that the proportion of colorectal cancer cases among adults younger than 55 increased from 11% in 1995 to 20% in 2019. Yet the factors driving that rise remain a mystery.

There’s probably more than just one cause, said Lawson’s surgeon, Dr. Steven Lee-Kong, chief of colorectal surgery at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey.

He has noticed an increase in colorectal cancer patients in their 40s and 30s within his own practice. His youngest patient was 21 when she was diagnosed with rectal cancer.

“There is a phenomenon of decreasing overall colorectal cancer rates in the population in general, we think because of the increase in screening for particularly for older adults,” Lee-Kong said. “But that doesn’t really account for the overall increase in the number of patients younger than, say, 50 and 45 that are developing cancer.”

Some of the factors known to raise anyone’s risk of colorectal cancer are having a family history of the disease, having a certain genetic mutation, drinking too much alcohol, smoking cigarettes or being obese.

“They were established as risk factors in older cohorts of patients, but they do seem to be also associated with early-onset disease, and those are things like excess body weight, lack of physical activity, high consumption of processed meat and red meat, very high alcohol consumption,” said Rebecca Siegel, a cancer epidemiologist and senior scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, who was lead author of this month’s report.

“But the data don’t support these specific factors as solely driving the trend,” she said. “So if you have excess body weight, you are at a higher risk of colorectal cancer in your 40s than someone who is average weight. That is true. But the excess risk is pretty small. So again, that is probably not what’s driving this increase, and it’s another reason to think that there’s something else going on.”

Many people who are being diagnosed at a younger age were not obese, including some high-profile cases, such as Broadway actor Quentin Oliver Lee, who died last year at 34 after being diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer.

“Anecdotally, in conferences that I’ve attended, that is the word on the street: that most of these patients are very healthy. They’re not obese; they’re very active,” Siegel said, which adds to the mystery.

“We know that excess weight increases your risk, and we know that we’ve had a big increase in body weight in this country,” she said. “And that is contributing to more cancer for a lot of cancers and also for colorectal cancer. But does it explain this trend that we’re seeing, this steep increase? No, it doesn’t.”

Yet scientists remain divided when it comes to just how much of a role those known risk factors – especially obesity – play in the rise of colorectal cancer among adults younger than 55.

Even though the cause of the rise of colorectal cancer in younger adults is “still not very well understood,” Dr. Subhankar Chakraborty argues that dietary and lifestyle factors could be playing larger roles than some would think.

“We know that smoking, alcohol, lack of physical activity, being overweight or obese, increased consumption of red meat – so basically, dietary factors and environmental and lifestyle factors – are likely playing a big role,” said Chakraborty, a gastroenterologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“There are also some other factors, such as the growing incidence of inflammatory bowel disease, that may also be playing a role, and I think the biggest factors is most likely the diet, the lifestyle and the environmental factors,” he said.

It has been difficult to pinpoint causes of the rise of cases in younger ages because, if someone has a polyp in their colon for example, it can take 10 to 15 years to develop into cancer, he says.

“During that, all the way from a polyp to the cancer stage, the person is exposed to a variety of things in their life. And to really pinpoint what is going on, we would need to follow specific individuals over time to really understand their dietary patterns, medications and weight changes,” Chakraborty said. “So that makes it really hard, because of the time that cancer actually takes to develop.”

Some researchers have been investigating ways in which the rise in colorectal cancer among younger adults may be connected to increases in childhood obesity in the US.

“The rise in young-onset colorectal cancer correlates with a doubling of the prevalence of childhood obesity over the last 30 years, now affecting 20% of those under age 20,” Dr. William Karnes, a gastroenterologist and director of high-risk colorectal cancer services at the UCI Health Digestive Health Institute in California, said in an email.

“However, other factors may exist,” he said, adding that he has noticed “an increasing frequency of being shocked” by discoveries of colorectal cancer in his younger patients.

There could be correlations between obesity in younger adults, the foods they eat and the increase in colorectal cancers for the young adult population, said Dr. Shane Dormady, a medical oncologist from El Camino Health in California who treats colorectal cancer patients.

“I think younger people are on average consuming less healthy food – fast food, processed snacks, processed sugars – and I think that those foods also contain higher concentrations of carcinogens and mutagens, in addition to the fact that they are very fattening,” Dormady said.

“It’s well-publicized that child, adolescent, young adult obesity is rampant, if not epidemic, in our country,” he said. “And whenever a person is at an unhealthy weight, especially at a young age, which is when the cells are most susceptible to DNA damage, it really starts the ball rolling in the wrong direction.”

Yet at the Center for Young Onset Colorectal and Gastrointestinal Cancers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, researchers and physicians are not seeing a definite correlation between the rise in colorectal cancer among their younger adult patients and a rise in obesity, according to Dr. Robin Mendelsohn, gastroenterologist and co-director of the center, where scientists and doctors continue to work around the clock to solve this mystery.

“When we looked at our patients, the majority were more likely to be overweight and obese, but when we compare them to a national cohort without cancer, they’re actually less likely to be overweight and obese,” she said. “And anecdotally, a lot of the patients that we see are young and fit and don’t really fit the obesity profile.”

That leaves many oncologists scratching their heads.

Some scientists are also exploring whether genetic mutations that can raise someone’s risk for colorectal cancer have played a role in the rise of cases among younger adults – but the majority of these patients do not have them.

Karnes, of UCI Health, said “it is unlikely” that there has been an increase in the genetic mutations that raise the risk of colorectal cancer, “although, as expected, the percentage of colorectal cancers caused by such mutations, e.g., Lynch syndrome, is more common in people with young-onset colorectal cancer.”

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer, causing about 4,200 cases in the US per year. People with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get cancers at a younger age, before 50.

“In my practice and in the medical community, the oncologic community, I don’t think there’s any proof that genetic syndromes and gene mutations that patients are born with are becoming more frequent,” El Camino Health’s Dormady said. “I don’t think the inherent frequency of those mutations is going up.”

The tumors of younger colorectal cancer patients are very similar to those of older ones, said Mendelsohn at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

“So then, the question is, if they’re biologically the same, why are we seeing this increasingly in younger people?” she said. “About 20% may have a genetic mutation, so the majority of patients do not have a family history or genetic predisposition.”

Therefore, Mendelsohn added, “it’s likely some kind of exposure, whether it be diet, medication, changing microbiome,” that is driving the rise in colorectal cancers in younger adults.

That rise “has been something that’s been on our radar, and it has been increasing since the 1990s,” Mendelsohn said. “And even though it is increasing, the numbers are still small. So it’s still a small population.”

Dormady, at El Camino Health, said he now sees more colorectal cancer patients in their early to mid-50s than he did 20 years ago, and he wonders whether it might be a result of colorectal cancer screening being easier to access and better at detecting cancers.

“The first thing to consider is that some of our diagnostic modalities are becoming better,” he said, especially because there are now many at-home colorectal cancer testing kits. Also, in 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended age to start screening for colon and rectal cancers from 50 to 45.

“I think you have a subset of patients who are being screened earlier with colonoscopies; you have advancing technology where we can potentially detect tumor cell DNA in the stool sample, which is leading to earlier diagnosis. And sometimes that effect will skew statistics and make it look like the incidence is really on the rise, but deeper analysis shows you that part of that is due to earlier detection and more screening,” he said. “So that could be one facet of the equation.”

Overall, pinpointing what could be driving this surge in colorectal cancer diagnoses among younger ages will not only help scientists better understand cancer as a disease, it will help doctors develop personalized risk assessments for their younger patients, Ohio State University’s Chakraborty said.

“Because most of the people who go on to develop colorectal cancer really have no family history – no known family history of colon cancer – so they would really not be aware of their risk until they begin to develop symptoms,” he said.

“Having a personalized risk assessment tool that will take into account their lifestyle, their environmental factors, genetic factors – I think if we have that, then it would allow us hopefully, in the future, to provide some personalized recommendations on when a person should be screened for colorectal cancer and what should be the modality of screening based on their risk,” he said. “Younger adults tend to develop colon cancer mostly in the left side, whereas, as we get older, colon cancer tends to develop more on the right side. So there’s a little difference in how we could screen younger adults versus older adults.”

Source link

#Colorectal #cancer #rising #among #younger #adults #scientists #racing #uncover #CNN

100,000 newborn babies will have their genomes sequenced in the UK. It could have big implications for child medicine | CNN



CNN
 — 

The UK is set to begin sequencing the genomes of 100,000 newborn babies later this year. It will be the largest study of its kind, mapping the babies’ complete set of genetic instructions, with potentially profound implications for child medicine.

The £105 million ($126 million) Newborn Genomes Programme will screen for around 200 rare but treatable genetic conditions, with the aim of curtailing untold pain and anxiety for babies and their families, who sometimes struggle to receive a diagnosis through conventional testing. By accelerating the diagnostic process, earlier treatment of infants could prevent many severe conditions from ever developing.

The study would see roughly one in 12 newborn babies in England screened on a voluntary basis over two years. It will operate as an extension of current newborn testing, with the findings intended to inform policymakers, who could pave the way for sequencing to become more commonplace.

Nevertheless, the project has raised many longstanding ethical questions around genetics, consent, data privacy, and priorities within infant healthcare.

In the UK, like many other countries, newborn babies are screened for a number of treatable conditions through a small blood spot sample. Also known as the heel prick test, this method has been routine for over 50 years, and today covers nine conditions including sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and inherited metabolic diseases.

“The heel prick is long overdue to be obsolete,” argues Eric Topol, an American cardiologist and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute, who is not connected with the UK sequencing initiative. “It’s very limited and it takes weeks to get the answer. Sometimes, babies that have serious metabolic abnormalities, they’re already being harmed.”

Some conditions that are tested for have variations that may not register a positive result. The consequences can be life-altering.

One example is congenital hyperthyroidism, which impacts neurological development and growth and affects “one in 1,500 to 2,000 babies in the UK,” explains Krishna Chatterjee, professor of endocrinology at the University of Cambridge. It is the result of an absent or under-developed thyroid gland and can be treated with the hormone thyroxine, a cheap and routine medicine. But if treatment doesn’t begin “within the first six months of life, some of those deleterious neurodevelopmental consequences cannot be prevented or reversed.”

The Newborn Genomes Programme will test for one or more forms of congenital hypothyroidism that are not picked up by the heel prick test. “At a stroke, you can make a diagnosis, and that can be game changing – or life changing – for that child,” Chatterjee says.

The program is led by Genomics England, part of the UK Department of Health and Social Care. Along with its partners, it has carried out a variety of preparatory studies, including a large-scale public consultation. A feasibility study is currently underway to assess whether a heel prick, cheek swab or umbilical cord blood will be used for sampling, with the quality of the DNA sample determining the final choice.

Genomics England says that each of the 200 conditions that will be screened for has been selected because there is evidence it is caused by genetic variants; it has a debilitating effect; early or pre-symptomatic treatment has a life-improving impact; and treatment is available for all through the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

Richard Scott, chief medical officer and deputy CEO at Genomics England, says the program aims to return screening results to families in two weeks, and estimates at least one in 200 babies will receive a diagnosis.

Contracts for sequencing are still to be confirmed, although one contender is American biotech company Illumina. Chief scientist David Bentley says the company has reduced the price of its sequencing 1,000-fold compared to its first genome 15 years ago, and can now sequence the whole human genome for $200.

Bentley argues that early diagnosis via genome sequencing is cost effective in the long term: “People get sick, they get tested using one test after another, and that cost mounts up. (Sequencing) the genome is much cheaper than a diagnostic odyssey.”

Illumina equipment in a sequencing laboratory. The cost of sequencing the human genome has fallen significantly in the last 15 years, says the company.

But while some barriers to genetic screening have fallen, many societal factors are still in play.

Feedback from a public consultation ahead of the UK project’s launch was generally positive, although some participants voiced concerns that religious views could affect uptake, and a few expressed skepticism and mistrust about current scientific developments in healthcare, according to a report on its findings.

Frances Flinter, emeritus professor of clinical genetics and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, described the program as a “step into the unknown” in a statement to Science Media Centre in December 2022, reacting to the launch of the program.

“We must not race to use this technology before both the science and ethics are ready,” she said at the time. “This research program could provide new and important evidence on both. We just hope the question of whether we should be doing this at all is still open.”

Genome sequencing has raised many philosophical and ethical questions. If you could have aspects of your medical future laid ahead of you, would you want that? What if you were predisposed to an incurable disease? Could that knowledge alone impact your quality of life?

“People don’t generally understand deterministic or fatalistic-type results versus probabilistic, so it does require real teaching of participants,” says Topol. In other words, just because someone has a genetic predisposition to a certain condition, it doesn’t guarantee that they will develop the disease.

Nevertheless, sequencing newborn babies has made some of those questions more acute.

“One of the tenets of genomics and genomics testing is the importance of maintaining people’s autonomy to make their own decisions,” says Scott, highlighting the optional nature of the program.

“We’ve been quite cautious,” he stresses. “All of the conditions that we’re looking for are ones where we think we can make a really substantial impact on those children’s lives.”

Parents-to-be will be invited to participate in the program at their 20-week scan, and confirm their decision after the child’s birth.

“These will be parents, most of whom won’t have any history of a genetic condition, or any reason to worry about one. So it will be an additional challenge for them to appreciate what the value might be for their family,” says Amanda Pichini, clinical lead for genetic counseling at Genomics England.

Part of Pichini’s remit is to ensure equal access to the program and to produce representative data. While diversity comes in many forms, she says – including economic background and rural versus urban location – enlisting ethnically diverse participants is one objective.

“(There) has been a lack of data from other ethnic groups around the world, compared to Caucasians,” says Bentley. “As a result, the diagnostic rates for people from those backgrounds is lower. There are more variants from those backgrounds that we don’t know anything about – we can’t interpret them.”

If genomics is to serve humanity equally, genome data needs to reflect all of it. Data diversity “isn’t an issue that any one country can solve,” says Pichini.

Other countries are also pursuing sequencing programs and reference genomes – a set of genes assembled by scientists to represent a population, for the purpose of comparison. Australia is investing over $500 million AUS (around $333 million) into its genome program; the “All of Us” program is engaged in a five-year mission to sequence 1 million genomes in the US; and in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates is seeking its own reference genome to investigate genetic diseases disproportionately affecting people in the region, where Illumina’s recently opened Dubai office will add local sequencing capacity.

Richard Scott of Genomics England says he hopes findings from the UK will be useful to other countries’ health systems, especially those not in “a strong position to develop the evidence and to support their decisions as well.”

Sequenced genomes will enter a secure databank using the same model as the National Genomic Research Library, in which they are deidentified and assigned a reference number.

Researchers from the NHS, universities and pharmaceutical companies can apply for access to the National Genomic Research Library (in some cases for a fee), with applications approved by an independent committee that includes participants who have provided samples. There are plenty of restrictions: data cannot be accessed for insurance or marketing purposes, for example.

“We think it’s really important to be transparent about that,” says Pichini. “Often, drugs and diagnostics and therapeutics can’t be developed in the NHS on (its) own. We need to have those partnerships.”

When each child turns 16, they will make their own decision on whether their genomic data should remain in the system. It hasn’t yet been decided if participants can request further investigation of their genome – beyond the scope of newborn screening – at a later date, says Scott.

After the two-year sampling window closes, a cost-benefit analysis of the program will begin, developing evidence for the UK National Screening Committee which advises the government and NHS on screening policies. It’s a process that could take some time.

Chatterjee suggests an entire lifetime might be needed to measure the economic savings that would come from early diagnosis of certain diseases, citing the costs of special needs schooling for children and support for adults living with certain rare genetic conditions: “How does that balance against the technical cost of making a diagnosis and then treatment?”

“I’m quite certain that this cost-benefit equation will balance,” Chatterjee adds.

Multiple interviewees for this article viewed genome sequencing as an extension of current testing, though stopped short of suggesting it could become standard practice for all newborn babies. Even Topol, a staunch advocate for genomics, does not believe it will become universal. “I don’t think you can mandate something like this,” he says. “We’re going to have an anti-genomic community, let’s face it.”

Members of the medical community have expressed a variety of concerns about the program’s approach and scope.

In comments released last December, Angus Clarke, clinical professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genetics at Cardiff University, queried if the program’s whole genome sequencing was driven by a wish to collect more genomic data, rather than improve newborn screening. Louise Fish, chief executive of the Genetic Alliance UK charity, questioned whether following other European nations that are expanding the number of conditions tested through existing bloodspot screening may have “just as great an ability to improve the lives of babies and their families.”

If genome sequencing becomes the norm, it remains to be seen how it will dovetail with precision medicine in the form of gene therapy, including gene editing. While the cost of sequencing a genome has plummeted, some gene therapies can cost millions of dollars per patient.

But for hundreds of babies not yet born in England, diagnosis of rare conditions that have routine treatments will be facilitated by the Newborn Genomes Programme.

“So much of medicine today is given in later life, and saves people for a few months or years,” says Bentley. “It’s so good to see more opportunity here to make a difference through screening and prevention during the early stages of life.

“It is investing maximally in the long-term future as a society, by screening all young people and increasing their chances of survival through genetics so they can realize their enormous potential.”

Source link

#newborn #babies #genomes #sequenced #big #implications #child #medicine #CNN

How human gene editing is moving on after the CRISPR baby scandal | CNN

Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.


London
CNN
 — 

For most of her life, Victoria Gray, a 37-year-old mother of four from Mississippi, had experienced excruciating bouts of pain.

Born with the blood disorder sickle cell disease, lengthy hospital stays and debilitating fatigue disrupted her childhood, forcing her to quit pursuing a college nursing degree and take potent and addictive painkillers.

“The pain I would feel in my body was like being struck by lightning and hit by a freight train all at once,” she said this week at the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing in London.

In 2019, she received an experimental treatment for the inherited disease that used the gene-editing technique CRISPR-Cas9, which allowed doctors to make very precise changes to her DNA. While the procedure itself was grueling and took seven to eight months to fully recover from, she said it has transformed her life.

“The feeling is amazing. I really feel that I’m cured now,” Gray said. “Because I no longer have to face the battles that I faced on a day-to-day (basis). I came from having to have an in-home caregiver to help me take baths, clean my house and care for my children. Now I do all those things on my own.”

She’s now able to enjoy a life she once felt was passing her by. She holds down a full-time job as a Walmart cashier, and she’s able to attend her children’s football games and cheerleading events and enjoy family outings. “The life I felt I was just existing in I’m now thriving in,” she said.

Gray shared her experience with doctors, scientists, patient advocates and bioethicists who gathered in London for the human genome editing summit, at which participants reported on advances made in the field and debated the thorny ethical issues posed by the cutting-edge technology.

“I’m here really to be a light because there’s mixed feelings about gene editing. And I think people can see the positive result of it. You know that a person who was once suffering in life, was miserable, now is able to be a part of life and enjoy it,” Gray told CNN.

Gray’s uplifting story, which received a standing ovation from the audience, stood in contrast to a presentation made the last time the conference was held, in Hong Kong in 2018, when Chinese doctor He Jiankui stunned his peers and the world with the revelation that he had created the world’s first gene-edited babies.

The two girls grew from embryos He had modified using CRISPR-Cas9, which he said would make them resistant to HIV. His work was widely condemned by the scientific community, which decried the experiment as medically unnecessary and ethically irresponsible. He received a three-year jail sentence in 2019.

Questions about the baby scandal still linger more than four years later, and after being recently released from prison, He is reportedly seeking to continue his work. China has tightened its regulation of experimental biomedical research since 2018, but it hasn’t gone far enough, said Joy Zhang, a medical sociologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.

“Ethical governance in practice is still confined to traditional medical, scientific, as well as educational, establishments. The new measures fail to directly address how privately funded research and other … ventures will be monitored,” Zhang said at the conference.

Ethically questionable experimental research isn’t an issue confined to China, said Robin Lovell-Badge, head of the Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology and Developmental Genetics at the Francis Crick Institute in London, who chaired the 2018 Hong Kong conference session in which He attempted to defend his work.

“(He Jiankui) is not the only concern in this area. One of our big concerns I always have is the possibility that there will be rogue companies, rogue scientists setting up to do genome editing in an inappropriate way,” Lovell-Badge said on Monday at the conference.

Gray shared her story at Monday's conference.

While the CRISPR baby scandal tarnished the technology’s reputation, CRISPR-Cas9 and related techniques have made a major impact on biomedical research, and two scientists behind the tool — Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna — won a Nobel prize for their work in 2020.

“Clinical trial results demonstrate that CRISPR is safe, and it’s effective for treating and curing human disease — an extraordinary advance given the technology is only 10 years old,” Doudna said at the conference in a video address. “It’s important with a powerful technology like this to grapple with the challenges of responsible use.”

In addition to the sickle cell trial that includes Gray, clinical trials are also underway to test the safety of gene editing in treating several other conditions, including a related blood disorder called beta thalassemia; leber congenital amaurosis, which is a form of inherited childhood blindness; blood cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma; type 1 diabetes; and HIV/AIDS.

DNA acts as a instruction manual for life on our planet, and CRISPR-Cas9 can target sites in plant and animal cells using guide RNA to get the Cas-9 enzyme to a more precise spot on a strand of DNA. This allows scientists to change DNA by knocking out a particular gene or inserting new genetic material at a predetermined site in the strand.

People with sickle cell disease have abnormal hemoglobin in red blood cells that can cause them to get hard and sticky, clogging blood flow in small vessels.

In the trial that Gray was part of, doctors increased the production of a different kind of hemoglobin, known as fetal hemoglobin, which makes it harder for cells to sickle and stick together. The process is invasive and involves removing premature cells from the bone marrow and modifying them — by using CRISPR-Cas9 in the lab — to eventually produce fetal hemoglobin. The patient has to undergo a round of chemotherapy before receiving the gene-edited cells to ensure the body doesn’t reject them.

The conference also shed light on new, more sophisticated gene-editing techniques, such as prime editing and base editing, which recently was used to modify immune cells and successfully treat a teen with treatment-resistant leukemia.

These next generation techniques will allow humans “to have some say in the sequence of our genomes so we are no longer so beholden to the misspellings in our DNA,” said David Liu, the Richard Merkin professor and director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University.

The gene therapy trials currently underway involve treating people who were born with a certain disease or condition by altering non-reproductive cells in what’s known as somatic gene editing.

The next frontier — many would say red line — is heritable gene editing: altering the genetic material in human sperm, eggs or embryos so that it can be safely passed onto the next generation. The goal would be to prevent babies from inheriting genetic diseases.

A researcher handles a petri dish while observing a CRISPR/Cas9 process through a stereomicroscope at the Max-Delbrueck-Centre for Molecular Medicine in 2018.

“It’s a very different set of ethical trade-offs when you’re not a treating disease in an existing individual but you’re in fact preventing an individual yet to be born from suffering from a disease. That’s a very different set of considerations,” said George Daley, Caroline Shields Walker Professor of Medicine and dean of the faculty of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

In a statement released at the end of the conference, the organizers said “heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time.”

They added that public discussion and policy debates should continue and were important for resolving whether this technology should be used.

The hope offered by gene therapy is creating fresh ethical storms — primarily over who gets access to such treatments. The therapy Gray received, which is expected to soon receive regulatory approval, is likely to cost more than $2 million per person, putting it out of reach for many who need it in the United States and in low-income countries.

“If we want to be serious about equitable access to these kinds of therapies, we have to start talking early on about ways to develop them and make them available and make them cost effective and sustainable,” said Alta Charo, the Warren P. Knowles Professor Emerita of Law and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Researchers want to develop CRISPR therapies that can be delivered though an injection rather than the chemotherapy and invasive bone marrow transplant Gray went through.

Worldwide, more than 300,000 children are born with sickle cell disease every year, over 75% of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa, where screening programs and treatment options are limited.

Even relatively affordable drugs to treat sickle cell disease, such as hydroxyurea, don’t reach everyone who needs them in India, said Gautam Dongre, the secretary of the National Alliance of Sickle Cell Organizations in India and father of two children with sickle cell disease.

“After 40 years if these drugs aren’t reachable for the common people, then what about gene therapy?” Dongre asked at the conference.

Julie Makani, an associate professor in the department of haematology and blood transfusion at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Tanzania, said more genomic research should take place in Africa.

“The ultimate thing for me, particularly as a physician scientist, is not just discovery, but also seeing the application of knowledge…into (an) improvement in health,” Makani said.

Source link

#human #gene #editing #moving #CRISPR #baby #scandal #CNN

Elite athletes with genetic heart disease can safely return to play with diagnosis and treatment, early study suggests | CNN



CNN
 — 

In a new study, most elite athletes with a diagnosed genetic heart disease did not experience serious or fatal symptoms of their condition, such as sudden cardiac death. The research suggests it can be “feasible” and “safe” for athletes to continue to participate in their sport.

Among a sample of 76 elite athletes with a genetic heart disease who had competed or are still competing in either Division I university or professional sports, 73 out of the 76 did not experience a cardiac event triggered by their disease during the study period, according to researchers behind a late-breaking clinical trial presented Monday at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session Together With the World Congress of Cardiology.

Among those elite athletes with a genetic heart disease, 40 of them – 52% – were asymptomatic, the study abstract finds.

Over the years, researchers have become more aware of alarming reports about elite athletes experiencing heart problems, or even suddenly collapsing during games.

“For athletes with genetic heart conditions, and I would add non-athletes, the tragedies occur when we don’t know of their condition,” said Dr. Michael Ackerman, a genetic cardiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was a senior author of the new research. “When we know of their condition, and we assess the risk carefully and we treat it well, these athletes and non-athletes, they can expect to live and thrive despite their condition.”

The new research has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the findings suggest that many athletes with a genetic heart disease can decide with their health care professionals on whether to continue competing in their sport and how to do so safely, instead of being automatically disqualified due to their health conditions.

“In sports, historically, we’ve been paternalistic and de-emphasize patient preference and risk tolerance, but we know that athletes come from all walks of life. They are intelligent and when there’s scientific uncertainty, their values should be incorporated in medical decision-making,” Dr. J. Sawalla Guseh, cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, who was not involved in the new study, said during Monday’s scientific session.

“Shared decision-making when done well can have very favorable outcomes,” he said.

Elite basketball, hockey, soccer and football players, were among the 76 athletes included in the new study, conducted by researchers at Mayo Clinic and other institutions in the United States. They wrote in their study abstract that this is the first study to their knowledge describing the experience of athletes competing at the NCAA Division I level or in professional sports with a known genetic heart disease that puts them at risk of sudden cardiac death.

The athletes in the study were cleared for return-to-play at either a NCAA Division I school or at the professional level. They were studied over an average of seven years, and all had been diagnosed with a genetic heart disease in the past 20 years, being treated at either Mayo Clinic, Morristown Medical Center, Massachusetts General Hospital or Atrium Health Sports Cardiology Center.

“Only three of them had a breakthrough cardiac event, which means after they were diagnosed and treated, they were still having an event,” said Katherine Martinez, an undergraduate student at Loyola University in Baltimore, who helped conduct the research as an intern in the Mayo Clinic’s Windland Smith Rice Sudden Death Genomics Laboratory.

Fainting was the most common event, and one athlete received a shock with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or ICD. None of the athletes died.

“The majority of these athletes went on to continue their career with no events at all,” Martinez said. But most of the athletes in the study – 55 of them, or 72% – were initially disqualified from competing by their primary provider or institution after their diagnosis. Most ultimately opted to return to play with no restrictions after undergoing comprehensive clinical evaluations and talking with their doctors.

While each sports league has its own set of rules, historically, some people diagnosed with a genetic heart disease that puts them at an increased risk for sudden cardiac death have been restricted from competitive sports, the researchers wrote in their study abstract.

“Just because you were given this diagnosis, doesn’t mean that your life, your career, the future that you see for yourself is over, but taking a second opinion from an expert who knows what they’re doing and is comfortable with shared decision-making is the next step,” said Martinez, who worked on the new research alongside her father, Dr. Matthew Martinez, director of Atlantic Health System Sports Cardiology at Morristown Medical Center and an author of the new research.

Regarding the new study, “the take-home message is, if you have one of these findings, seek out an expert who’s going to help you identify a safe exercise plan for you and determine what level you can continue to safely participate in,” he said. “This is the next best step – the next evolution – of how we manage athletes with genetic heart disease.”

Leaving their sport due to a genetic heart disease can be “very destructive” for athletes who have devoted their lives to excelling in competitions, said Dr. Lior Jankelson, director of the Inherited Arrhythmia Program at NYU Langone Heart in New York, who was not involved in the new research.

Yet he added that these athletes still need to consult with their doctors and be watched closely because some genetic diseases could be more likely to cause a serious cardiac event than others.

The new study highlights that “the majority of athletes with genetic heart disease could probably – after careful, meticulous expert risk-stratification and care strategy – participate in sports,” Jankelson said. “But at the same time, this is exactly the reason why these patients should be cared only in high-expertise genetic cardiology clinics, because there are other conditions that are genetic, that could respond very adversely to sports, and have a much higher risk profile of developing an arrhythmia during intense activity.”

Separately, the NCAA Sports Science Institute notes on its website, “Though many student-athletes with heart conditions can live active lives and not experience health-related problems, sudden fatality from a heart condition remains the leading medical cause of death in college athletes.”

For athletes with a genetic heart disease, their symptoms and their family history of cardiac events should be considered when determining their risks, said Dr. Jayne Morgan, a cardiologist with Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta, who was not involved in the new research.

“Certainly, there is concern with elite athletes competing and whether or not they are being screened appropriately,” Morgan said. But she added that the new research offers “some understanding” to the mental health implications for athletes with a genetic heart disease who may be required to step away from a competitive sport that they love.

“This study, I think, begins to go a long way in identifying that we may not need to pull the trigger so quickly and have athletes step away from something that they love,” Morgan said.

The new study is “timely” given the recent national attention on athletes and their risk of sudden cardiac death, Dr. Deepak Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York City, who was not involved in the research, said in an email.

“These are some of the best data showing that the risk of return to play may not be as high as we fear,” Bhatt said about the new research.

“Some caveats include that the majority of these athletes were not symptomatic and about a third had an implantable defibrillator,” he added. “Any decision to return to the athletic field should be made after a careful discussion of the potential risks, including ones that are hard to quantify. Input from experts in genetic cardiology and sports cardiology can be very helpful in these cases.”

Source link

#Elite #athletes #genetic #heart #disease #safely #return #play #diagnosis #treatment #early #study #suggests #CNN