Researchers push for more funding as dementia cases rise

The number of people living with dementia around the world is now estimated at 44 million, or up 22% from three years ago, according to a report released today by Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI), a federation of Alzheimer’s associations around the world.

The increase on the ADI’s previous finding is due at least in part to improved reporting of dementia prevalence in China and sub-Saharan Africa. And as people live longer, cases of dementia — a catch-all term describing the loss of memory, mental agility and understanding owing to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s — will rise to 76 million by 2030 and to 136 million by 2050, the ADI report says. “The current burden and future impact of the dementia epidemic has been underestimated,” it concludes.

The report ratchets up the pressure on funders to invest more into tackling dementia ahead of an 11 December summit in London, at which the World Health Organization and ministers from the G8 (Group of Eight) countries will discuss a global action plan on the condition.

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn the tide on dementia,” Doug Brown, director of research and development at the Alzheimer’s Society, a charity based in London, told reporters at a briefing yesterday. “We need as much investment in dementia research as we have in cancer,” he said.

Indeed, despite well-publicized political commitments — the United Kingdom’s prime minister David Cameron launched a ‘dementia challenge’ in March 2012, and the US government set out plans for extra Alzheimer’s funding in May 2012 — levels of funding remain low.

In the United Kingdom, for example, dementia costs the economy £23 billion a year (though mostly not in front-line medical expenses), the Alzheimer’s Society estimates — which is twice the burden of cancer. But public research funding only amounts to some £60 million a year, and that is barely one-eighth of what is spent on cancer research. The problem is similar around the world, Brown says.

Nick Fox, a neurologist who heads the Dementia Research Centre at University College London, says, more conservatively, that he hopes the G8 will double dementia funding in the next five years.

Drugs designed to fight Alzheimer’s disease have proved disappointing in clinical trials so far. But, says Fox, “some of the trials have been like trying chemotherapy for cancer when the patient is already in a care hospice,” given that Alzheimer’s starts to attack the brain up to a decade before symptoms such as memory loss appear.

In a new approach, at least four clinical trials are now planning to treat people who have not yet developed Alzheimer’s symptoms. One is a five-year trial of an antibody, crenezumab, which binds to fragments of neuron-damaging amyloid-β. The drug will be tested in people who carry a rare genetic mutation that makes them certain to get the disease. Another, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network study, will enrol patients with a possible familial risk for Alzheimer’s; a third, by companies Takeda (based in Osaka, Japan) and Zinfandel Pharmaceuticals (based on Durham, North Carolina), hopes to test an experimental drug in people whose genetic makeup suggests elevated risk of Alzheimer’s; and a fourth, known as the A4 study, will treat people who show biomarker evidence of amyloid plaques in positron-emission tomography.

The ADI report adds that better care and timely diagnoses are important, too. And dementia is not just a disease of the well-off: though cases are concentrated in the richest and most demographically aged countries, 63% of people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries where there is limited access to social services and support.

US agency reverses stance on controversial diabetes drug

If ever there were a case study in the messy uncertainties of drug development, the diabetes drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) would be a prime candidate. On 25 November, US regulators removed safety restrictions that had been placed on the drug in 2010 following concerns about heart risks. After years of debate and deliberation, Avandia can be marketed and prescribed freely again, even though, by now, sales of the drug have plummeted as people with diabetes turn to other options.

In June, advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted that warnings about cardiovascular safety should be revised in light of a re-evaluation of key clinical trial data, but the advisers differed in their opinions about what those changes should entail. (See our June blog post for more on the twists and turns leading up to that vote.)

Yesterday, the FDA announced its conclusion: results from a clinical trial known as RECORD failed to confirm the heart concerns highlighted in a 2007 analysis of earlier clinical trials.“Given these new results, our level of concern is considerably reduced,” said Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in a statement. “Thus, we are requiring the removal of certain prescribing restrictions.” The FDA plans to make the drug available to most patients with type 2 diabetes and to remove restrictions on who can prescribe the drug.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA), which pulled Avandia from European pharmacies in 2010, said in a statement that Avandia’s maker, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, has not asked for a re-evaluation of the drug. “Should it be asked to do so, the EMA will assess the total evidence carefully and consider any appropriate action,” it said.

Cholesterol guidelines back away from high-dose statin regimens

Long-awaited revisions to cholesterol clinical guidelines have dialed back previous recommendations to use cholesterol-lowering drugs to force ‘bad’ cholesterol below predetermined targets.

The guidelines, issued 12 November by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, aim to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, and come with a range of familiar recommendations including regular exercise and a low-salt diet.

But cardiologists — and pharmaceutical companies — have been eager to see how the guidelines would address the use of blockbuster drugs called statins to hit cholesterol targets. Although it is generally recognized that lower is better when it comes to LDL (bad) cholesterol, doctors and researchers have disagreed over the measures taken to get there.  The push to meet LDL targets has led some doctors to prescribe high doses of statins, sometimes combining multiple cholesterol drugs. Although that may lower LDL levels, it also boosts the risk of side effects from the medications. And critics of the approach have argued that there is not enough evidence showing that higher doses of cholesterol-lowering drugs reduce the risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease.

The guidelines released yesterday share this concern, noting that an expert panel was unable to find sufficient support for boosting statin doses to hit the targets laid out in previous guidance. Although high-intensity statins are still recommended for some high-risk patients, others are advised to stop at moderate doses.

The long-delayed revision was first undertaken by the US National Heart Lung and Blood Institute in 2008, but in June this year the institute decided to hand the reins for clinical guidelines to external partners.

Open-access genome project lands in UK

George Church

George Church{credit}Wikimedia Commons{/credit}

In 2008, a group of prominent scientists and entrepreneurs announced, after careful consideration, that they would make their genome sequences public, marking the launch of the Personal Genome Project (PGP). The “open source” genomics effort sought to make the genomes and medical histories of 100,000 people available for anyone to use. It was started by George Church, a genomicist at Harvard Medical School in Boston who was among the first 10 participants, or the “PGP-10.”

Now Church is taking his open-access genome model global. At a predictably packed press conference on 6 November, he announced the launch of a UK edition, and that a European franchise is on the way for 2014. A Canadian PGP started enrolling volunteers in December 2012.

The UK-PGP is aiming for another 100,000 participants. Stephan Beck, a genomicist at University College London leading the effort, says he is one of the 400 already on the waiting list. They plan to sequence 50 genomes in the first year.

In the five years since it started, the US edition has released 200 genomes and more limited genetic data on another 500, with a waiting list in the thousands. But Church expects growth to be exponential, once sequencing costs fall sufficiently.

In contrast to the United States, England has a publicly funded health care system in the National Health Service (NHS), with near-universal enrollment. This raises some interesting questions for the UK-PGP.

Like their American counterparts, UK participants will be asked to input their own medical histories to go along with their genome sequences. The questionnaire is exhaustive and it can take several hours to complete. But a patient’s NHS record — including the results of lab tests — would be even more helpful than patients’ self-reported information for scientists looking to correlate genetics and health. Beck says he hopes that NHS gives patients the option to upload their NHS records to PGP, but that is not yet possible.

Meanwhile, NHS England has its own genome sequencing effort, which is being led by a company called Genomics England with plans to sequence 100,000 genomes over the next 5 years. Beck says he has talked with officials there about collaborating. For instance, Genomics England could use a PGP data as a quality control, for a participant enrolled in both programmes. But Beck would like the relationship to extend even further. “We are very interested to work together with Genomics England to develop a procedure so those individuals willing to donate their genome can, so it becomes a PGP genome, and all associated data becomes open to everyone,” he says.

Genomics England, however, is eager to draw a distinction between it and PGP. “There are significant differences between PGP and our programme, notably that we are focusing on NHS patients with diagnosed diseases. We therefore have a different approach to privacy and data access and take this very seriously, because we have a duty of care to NHS patients,” executive chairman John Chisholm said in a press statement. A spokesman for Genomics England, Mark Palin, also questions whether patients would be able to release their NHS data through PGP. “I don’t know how it would work,” he says.

Nature has covered the US version of the PGP extensively (see: “Give me my genome”, “Nature readers flirt with personal genomics” , “Be prepared for the big genome leak”); and most recently, an op-ed in the magazine by Church advocated for more people to inspect their own genomes (see: “Improving genome understanding”).

UK backs away from ‘value-based pricing’ for drugs

The UK government seems to have rowed back on plans for a radical new pricing system for medicines that would have used independent assessments of their worth to limit costs. But some elements of the pharmaceutical industry are still warning that a new agreement on how much the country pays for drugs will drive research overseas.

Previously the government had said it would seek a ‘value-based pricing’ for medicines. However, in a deal with the pharmaceutical industry announced today, companies will still be allowed to set prices for new products, and as part of the deal the total amount the UK spends on drugs will be controlled.

Deepak Khanna, the president of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, says he hopes the deal will increase take up of innovative new medicines in the UK’s National Health Service.

But, “if we don’t see an improvement in the adoption and availability of that innovation, we will see an impact on the UK being a strategic market,” says Khanna — and that could mean research investment heading overseas.

Steve Bates, the head of the BioIndustry Organisation, which represents UK bioscience companies, was more blunt. In a statement, he said he feared that the agreement “will have a negative impact on industry investment here”.

The deal is part of a new ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme’, which is agreed every five years by the Department of Health and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). As part of the new scheme – which starts in 2014 – the industry has agreed to keep the current £12 billion spending on branded medicines in the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) flat for two years. Increases will be limited to less than 2% in the following three years. If the NHS drug bill does go higher than these agreed amounts, the industry will pay back the difference.

The UK is an important market for the drug industry, as many other countries take their lead from its prices and uptake, and it is an important base for medical research. But the pharmaceutical industry has sometimes seen it as an unfriendly environment because the NHS generally will not pay for products that do not represent value for money — based on reports from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

A value-based pricing scheme would have seen the NHS dictating prices to companies — as opposed to deciding whether or not to take the companies’ offers. The change had concerned some in the industry, which has already been under serious pressure to cut the cost of medicines in the face of the European financial crisis.

Today’s announcement appears to remove the most radical part of the UK’s value-based pricing plans. The Department of Health has not yet responded to a request for comment.

‘Ethical failure’ leaves one-quarter of all clinical trials unpublished

Hundreds of thousands of patients have been exposed to potential harm in clinical trials whose results have yet to be published since their completion nearly five years ago.

This amounts to “a failure to honour the ethical contract that is the basis for exposing study participants to the risks inherent in trial participation,” says the team behind the finding.

In a paper published today in the British Medical Journal, Christopher Jones, a physician at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University in Camden, New Jersey, and his colleagues looked at 585 clinical trials registered on the US government’s ClinicalTrials.gov website and officially completed as of January 2009. For 171, or 29%, of those, the team found no existing peer-reviewed publication. Although some of these had reported their results on ClinicalTrials.gov, 133 trials had no results on this site or in published journal papers.

Many medical researchers fear that studies that do not prove a treatment is effective are more likely to remain unpublished, skewing the medical literature and harming patients by giving a false impression of treatments’ efficacy. There are also concerns that the pharmaceutical industry may be tempted to bury findings that do not support the use of its products. (In Jones’s study 150 of the unpublished trials were funded by industry, 11 by the US government and 20 by other sources.)

But there is a more fundament ethical problem stemming from researchers’ failure to publish their findings, the authors of the report write.

“The non-publication of trial data … violates an ethical obligation that investigators have towards study participants,” they say. “When trial data remain unpublished, the societal benefit that may have motivated someone to enrol in a study remains unrealized.”

They estimate the total number of patients involved in just the 171 trials they found were unpublished was 299,763.

Millions of TB cases going undetected, says WHO

Posted on behalf of Meera Senthilingam.

Around 3 million people who were infected with tuberculosis (TB) in 2012 were not picked up by global health systems, the World Health Organization (WHO) has revealed. In addition, the testing and treatment of patients with drug-resistant forms of the disease are inadequate, according to the body’s 2013 Global Tuberculosis Report, published today.

The report states that in 2012 an estimated 8.6 million people developed TB, and that 1.3 million died from it. This is a decrease from previous years, but the rate of decline in disease incidence is slow, at only 2% per year, and when broken down to the regional and country level, outcomes are not as positive. Overall however, the 2015 United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of cutting TB incidence rates from the global baseline of 147 per 100,000  in 1990 and the target of reducing TB mortality rates by half from 25 per 100,000 worldwide in 1990, are on track. Mortality rates have already fallen by 45%.

The majority of TB cases in 2012 were in Southeast Asia (29%), Africa (27%) and the western Pacific region (19%). About 80% of those with TB live in one of 22 high-burden countries, only half of which have already met or are on track to meet the 2015 targets. The remaining 11 countries have faced challenges such as resource constraints, conflict and instability and HIV epidemics, which have constrained their control of tuberculosis.

Progress towards improving the diagnosis and treatment of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is well below target level, with 450,000 estimated MDR-TB cases in 2012, three quarters of MDR-TB cases remaining undiagnosed and many diagnosed but unable to receive treatment.

“The debt toll of tuberculosis, a disease that is preventable and curable, is far too high,” said Mario Raviglione, director of the WHO Global TB programme, before announcing the five priority actions recommended in the report. These are to (i) reach the 3 million missed TB cases, (ii) address the MDR-TB crisis, (iii) intensify and build on TB-HIV successes, as less than 60 percent of TB patients living with HIV were found to be receiving antiretroviral drugs, (iv) increase domestic and international financing to close resource gaps, and (v) accelerate the rapid uptake of new tools, including diagnostics for resistance such as GeneXpert and the newly available drug for resistance, bedaquiline.

“There is finally momentum to break the TB epidemic, but if we don’t pursue these five actions, then our gains in the past few years are at risk,” concluded Raviglione.

Non-governmental organizations gave a mixed response to the WHO report. “[Médecins Sans Frontières] is finding alarming numbers of cases of DR-TB in many countries where we treat TB, in large part thanks to a breakthrough in diagnostic technology, but we are still very far away from making real progress against this killer disease,” said Grania Brigden, TB adviser for Médecins Sans Frontières’ Access Campaign.

“Funding has increased in recent years but there is still a huge funding gap,” says Osamu Kunii from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. “We need data and information and this global report is critical to make decisions on country allocation of resources and monitoring and measuring progress.”

Drug industry can profit from clinical-trial data openness, say leading regulators

The drug industry’s opposition to greater access to clinical trial data is misplaced, four senior figures in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said today.

The agency is preparing to vastly expand the amount of information it makes available to researchers, and is close to finalizing a policy on making public data submitted to it by drug companies applying for licences for new medicines. Some elements of the pharmaceutical industry have fought back, complaining that this will release confidential data crucial to its interests and harm investment in the development of new drugs (see ‘Secrets of trial data revealed‘).

But writing today in the New England Journal of Medicine, an EMA team says that putting clinical trial data in the public domain will make it more cost-effective to develop new medicines — for example by making sure one company does not run down a blind alley already mapped by another and by providing more information that companies can use to prove the superiority of their treatments over rivals’ drugs.

“It is ironic that the organisations that most resist wider access to data are the ones that stand to benefit so much from greater transparency,” write the EMA experts, who include senior medical officer Hans-Georg Eichler and executive director Guido Rasi. Despite their roles in EMA, the authors wrote in a personal capacity.

They add: “Contrary to industry fears, we argue that access to full — though appropriate deidentified — data sets from clinical trials will benefit the research-based biopharmaceutical industry.”

In another article published alongside the piece by Eichler and his colleagues, Michelle Mello, a health-policy researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues set out a set of principles by which data can be safely and usefully shared, down to the level of information from individual patients.

“As in other areas of health care, the push for greater transparency in the area of clinical trial data appears inexorable,” they write. “The question is not whether, but how, these data should be broadly shared.”

Minister halts Italian stem-cell therapy trial

Posted on behalf of Alison Abbott

The clinical trial of a controversial stem-cell therapy supported by the Italian government has been stopped before recruiting any patients – to the relief of scientists who have been fighting the trial for months.

On 10 October, health minister Beatrice Lorenzin announced that she would follow the advice of a special panel of scientific advisors and disallow the trial. In their stinging report, the advisors described the clinical protocol submitted by the Brescia-based Stamina Foundation as scientifically unfounded and potentially dangerous.

“This is the end of the matter,” says Luca Pani, president of the Italian Medicines Agency. “And we are very happy.”

The Stamina affair had been polarising Italian society for more than a year. Stamina had been treating seriously ill patients since 2007 before its laboratory was closed down for safety reasons in August last year. Patient groups lobbied passionately for access to the therapy, but experts warned that the approach had no scientific base and could be dangerous.

The government decided in March to finance a €3million trial to put the clinical protocol to the test (see ‘Stem-cell ruling riles researchers‘). But when Nature revealed that the protocol itself was fraudulent, the scientists called for the trial to be abandoned (see ‘Italian stem-cell trial based on flawed data‘).

Davide Vannoni, Stamina’s president, immediately announced plans to move the trial abroad. The Turin-based pharmaceutical company Medestea which finances the Stamina Foundation says it will take the therapy to China.

 

 

Researchers urge Spain to stay smoke-free

320px-Papierosa_1_ubt_0069

{credit}Tomasz Sienicki/Wikimedia Commons{/credit}

Posted on behalf of Nuno Dominguez.

Tobacco-control experts from 14 countries today advised Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy against changing anti-smoking laws to land a multibillion-dollar casino project in the country’s capital.

Reversing current smoke-free legislation would be a “shortsighted” move “with long-term negative consequences for the health and the economy of Spain, and for global tobacco control”, says an open letter to Rajoy by 37 doctors and tobacco control researchers at leading US and European institutions.

The letter is a response to US billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s plan to build a new €17-billion (US$23-billion) casino complex on the outskirts of Madrid. Adelson has said that the development will go ahead only if current legislation is changed to allow smoking at gaming tables. The regional and central government have repeatedly expressed their interest in landing the project, which could create 92,000 jobs in a country that has the highest unemployment rates in the European Union, and in a city that recently lost the race to host the 2020 Olympics. A decision has yet to be made but Spain’s government is currently considering how to defang the current legislation, which bans smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos and any other public establishments.

Allowing smoking in enclosed public spaces could reverse key health gains, including the recent fall in the incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, says the letter, originally published by the science news website Materia. Lifting the smoking ban in Eurovegas will also break the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which Spain has ratified. Spain’s smoke-free law is “recognized by the international public health community as an example of good practice”, says the letter, and diluting it will have an impact on other countries. “The tobacco industry and its allies are always trying to dismantle anti-tobacco laws”, said cosigner Anna Gilmore of the Centre for Tobacco Control Studies of the University of Bath, UK. “A victory in Spain will encourage to keep on pushing in other countries,” she said.