Niraparib shows significant promise in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients with poor treatment options


Encouraging results have emerged from a Phase3 clinical trial that investigated the efficacy of Niraparib, an orally administered poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who were at high risk for relapse (González-Martín et al, 2019). In such patients, Niraparib maintenance treatment resulted in significantly increasing progression-free survival (the time when the cancer did not progress further in the patient), compared to those treated with a placebo. Niraparib could consequently become an integral part in the arsenal against advanced ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is characterised with the poorest survival rate among all gynaecological cancers resulting in 152,000 deaths worldwide each year. The main treatments for ovarian cancer are surgery, and combination chemotherapy with platinum and paclitaxel. However, up to 85% of the patients with advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse on completing chemotherapy. Even when treatments exist, there are safety concerns, or only a subset of patients is targeted. Therefore, there remains an unmet medical need for the vast majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

The protein, poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP), plays a crucial role in DNA repair. PARP helps repair damaged cells by mending single-strand breaks in the DNA. PARP inhibitors halt DNA repair in cancer cells leading to cell death. Previous clinical studies have focussed on PARP inhibitors in tumours with BRCA mutations as fault in this gene too results in impaired DNA repair. The rationale is that blocking PARP with a PARP inhibitor in such a context would prevent the cells from repairing themselves leading to cell death. Therefore, clinical trials had been conducted in selected patient populations. Niraparib, had been previously shown to be significantly effective in ovarian cancer patients with BRCA mutations leading to its regulatory approval. However, recent studies as evident in the PRIMA trial show that Niraparib is effective in ovarian cancer patients regardless of BRCA mutations.

The latest clinical trial involved 733 ovarian cancer patients. Patients were at  Stages III or IV who have advanced disease and  considered to have incurable disease with chemotherapy alone, including those who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency (with either mutated or unmutated BRCA) and those with homologous-recombination proficiency. All patients had been previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and had shown response to it. Patients were randomised and treated with Niprarib or a placebo.

-The median progression-free survival in patients having tumours with homologous-recombination deficiency, was 21.9 months in the Niraparib group which was significantly longer than in the placebo group (10.4 months).
Within the population with homologous-recombination deficiency, the median duration of progression-free survival in the subgroup with BRCA mutations was 22.1 months in the niraparib group and 10.9 months in the placebo group. In the subgroup without BRCA mutations progression-free survival was  19.6 months with niraprib and 8.2 months on placebo

-In the subgroup of patients with homologous-recombination proficiency, the median duration of progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the niraparib group and 5.4 months in the placebo group.
In patients with advanced ovarian cancer in other subgroups with a poor prognosis, including in those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median duration of progression-free survival 13.9 (Niraparib) vs. 8.2 months (placebo).

In the overall population, the progression-free survival was 13.8 months in niraparib group and 8.2 months with placebo.

References: González-Martín A et al, Niraparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer,  N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28.


Recent innovations in the detection and management of Zika virus infection- A novel diagnostic test and a potential antiviral drug?


Zika virus (ZIKV)is  a single stranded RNA virus belonging to the Flaviviridae family, that shows similarity to other Flaviviruses (West Nile, Dengue, Yellow Fever and Japanese Encephalitis viruses). First identified in Africa, ZIKV has since been observed in other countries notably the Americas. In 2015, the world was gripped with reports from Brazil of Zika virus outbreak. To date, more than 86 countries have reported cases of Zika infection.

Primarily transmitted by the infected mosquito vector Aedes aegyptii, ZIKV can also be spread by Aedes albopictus. Transmission additionally occurs via transplacental, perinatal, sexual, laboratory-acquired, and transfusion routes. Majority of the infections (>80%) are asymptomatic or cause mild illness, with a very small proportion resulting in severe acute illness. The ZIKV outbreak in Brazilian regions has been linked to increase in congenital microcephaly (serious birth defect of the brain in which a baby has an abnormally small head and  associated with incomplete brain development) and other foetal development problems such as defects with eyes, ears, and impaired growth. Zika virus can also cause post-infective neurological syndromes notably the Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder, in which nerve cells are damaged  leading to muscle weakness and sometimes to partial or complete paralysis.

Although the Zika virus pandemic has diminished, the virus makes repeated comebacks as demonstrated by recent outbreaks in Asia and Africa. This raises the question as to how much we have progressed in our understanding of the disease, and in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease, since the last outbreak.

While tests exist for the screening of Zika virus infection, serodiagnosis is problematical because of false positives due to cross-reactivity in patients previously infected with other Flaviviruses. Now, researchers at ICB- USP (University Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Brazil) have developed a new test. This test reportedly detects Zika infection with greater accuracy and helps distinguish it from Dengue infection. Time will tell, how this test will fare in clinical setting, once it is launched.

Apart from the limitations in accurate diagnosis of Zika virus, hurdles exist in treatment of Zika patients.The management of the disease is difficult as interest as there are no drugs or vaccines commercially available against Zika virus. Current treatment is aimed at relieving symptoms with rest, fluids, and medications mainly acetaminophen, to relieve joint pain and fever. Recent studies from researchers in the US and Spain show that the polyanionic aromatic compound Aurintricarboxylic acid, a broad-spectrum antimicrobial and antiviral agent could be effective against  Zika virus. The studies were conducted in cell culture experiments and therefore will require clinical validation.

Several vaccines that will protect against Zika infection are in various stages of clinical testing. National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAD) is developing several vaccines, and results from some trials are eagerly anticipated later this year.

References:-
1. Basarab M, Bowman C, and Aarons EJ. Zika virus. BMJ 2016; 352: i1049
2. WHO Fact Sheet, Zika Virus.https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/zika-virus
3. Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Zika Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Component. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,August 2016
4. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/zika/india-november-2018/en/
5. https://www.cdc.gov/zika/laboratories/types-of-tests.html
7.  Park J-G et al, Front Microbiol. 2019; 10: 718.
8. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/zika-vaccines


Factors & solutions for manufacturers (Part 5 of the Recall of -sartans series)

The pharmaceutical companies involved in drug manufacture can be roughly classified into two: those who manufacture active ingredients and those who buy the active ingredients for producing drugs (sometimes both are the same company). The responsibility for detecting contamination and ensuring GMP normally lies with the manufacturers. Should a batch not meet criteria for quality, efficacy, and safety, the manufacturer has to document this and communicate this to the regulators who should (ideally) decide on the best response.

Indeed, manufacturers are best equipped to identify the source of the problem. Once a problem is detected (e.g. a contamination), they could backtrack each step of the production process and identify where the contamination took place, thereby removing the source of contamination.

However, as seen in previous posts, manufacturers (some, if not all) seem to engage in suppressing results and following suboptimal manufacturing practices - i.e. they consciously, unconsciously, or temporarily blindly decide to act unethically. Guido Palazzo, Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Lausanne, admits that, "What you see in some cases, also in the recent Boeing case, is that there are at one point quality controls, and they find something, but they overrule or they push the guy aside, threaten them, or they put them elsewhere. So it seems that the quality control does not really have the power to make decisions here." Some key reasons for this (gleaned from the -sartan recalls) are as follows:

At the company level
1. Financial motivations:  From the company point of view, suppressing results and making shortcuts might be tempting as drug manufacturing consumes resources and carries costs. As these companies exist in a competitive environment, their focus is on competitive advantage and financial performance.

2. Time pressure: Investigating the contamination requires time (and resources).

3. Reputational effects: Reporting the contamination to the regulator may affect the reputation of the company.

At the employee level
1. Performance pressure: Employees are expected to deliver a certain quantity of work each day.
Thus, they are motivated by reaching the quotas assigned for each day.

2. Cultural norms:  The work culture in some countries may not privilege following good manufacturing practices.

3. Laziness or reluctance: Even when investigations are done, employees are not diligent about filing reports or documenting the work they do.

4. Language barriers: A reason that often springs up is that employees may not have good language skills that prevent them from reporting in English.

Professor Palazzo urges examining the "role of quality managers or compliance and how can we strengthen it in a way that we can have speed, but not distort the quality". He points out that "from the ethical blindness perspective*, [...] speed makes everything invisible. So you focus on something and you don't see the rest. And this is getting worse with the whole debate on agility, we have the invitation to speed up even more."

Given this context, compliance managers can address the employee-level factors with training: on drug production process, GMP, regulations, and the consequences of suboptimal manufacturing practices and unethical behaviour. Ideally, third parties would conduct these, with the employees having to demonstrate excellent knowledge (perhaps certifications) that permits them to continued employment by the manufacturer. This training could be repeated every few years for refreshing the knowledge and accounting for changes in regulations and practices. Language tutorials could be given for those who need to utilise a language they are not proficient in.

Furthermore, employees should be motivated to prioritise ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of the products instead of achieving product output goals. This could be assisted by having a verification process for each step so that the onus does not lie on a single individual.

The company-level factors could be partly addressed by manufacturers benefit by having independent, third-party audits and being willing to address issues discovered by such audits. However, regulatory bodies are the key actors who can motivate manufacturers into compliance. This will be explored in the next post.

Image Source: RGtimeline

Sources:-
Bloomberg's previous articles:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/tainted-generic-drugs-force-fda-to-tighten-safety-regulations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/third-potential-carcinogen-found-in-blood-pressure-drugs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-31/culture-of-bending-rules-in-india-challenges-u-s-drug-agency
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-30/chinese-heart-drug-valsartan-recall-shows-fda-inspection-limits
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-29/america-s-love-affair-with-cheap-drugs-has-a-hidden-cost
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-09/red-flags-raised-at-chinese-heart-drug-maker-year-before-recall

Mayaro virus – the next Chikungunya?


Earlier in May, researchers at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro announced that they had discovered patients infected by the Mayaro virus in the state of Rio de Janeiro.

What is Mayaro virus? It’s related to Chikungunya, and produces very similar symptoms - fevers and intense muscular pains. Mayaro had previously been thought to be restricted to areas of the Amazon forest, where it is transmitted primarily by the forest mosquito Haemagogas janthinomys

However, the recent cases followed analysis of 3 workers in Niteroi, a city next to Rio, diagnosed with Chikungunya, but whose subsequent tests were negative. Significantly, none of the patients had been to Amazonia, implying Mayaro was circulating in the local population. 

James Gathany - PHIL, CDC, Public Domain,
The route of transmission in these cases is unknown, and one possibility is that the virus was again carried by Haemagogas janthinomys, which although traditionally a mosquito of the Amazon, has been detected in forest areas near cities in the south of Brazil, and has been implicated in an outbreak of Yellow Fever in 2016 (de Abreu et al 2019). 

There is however a more worrying possibility. It has been previously reported (Long et al 2011) that Mayaro can be transmitted by the mosquito Aedes aegypti, which is both much more common in urban areas, and more homophagous. 

There are doubts about how good a vector Aedes aegypti would be for Mayaro (Brustolin et al 2018), and it should be stressed that Aedes aegypti was infected in the laboratory, and no wild caught individuals have yet been found with the disease. However, if it does turn out to be an urban vector this is a matter for serious concern.

Sources

Pesquisadores da UFRJ anunciam que descobriram virus mayaro no estado do Rio. Globo. 16 May 2019.

Virus Mayaro, transmitido pelo Aedes aegypti, chega ao Rio. Globo. 17 May 2019. https://globoplay.globo.com/v/7622100/

Anopheles mosquitoes may drive invasion and transmission of Mayaro virus across geographically diverse regions. Brustolin, M. et al. (2018). PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 12(11), e0006895.

Haemagogus leucocelaenus and Haemagogus janthinomys are the primary vectors in the major yellow fever outbreak in Brazil, 2016–2018. De Abreu et al. (2019). Emerging Microbes & Infections, 8, 218-231.

Experimental transmission of Mayaro virus by Aedes aegypti. Long, K.C. (2011). Am J Trop Med Hyg., 85(4), 750-757.

Et tu, ...? (Part 4 of the Recall of -sartans series)

If tweets were indicative of general option, then the recall of blood pressure medications is owing to faulty manufacturing practices in China. However, this recall is only part of a far bigger problem in the global pharmaceutical industry: contamination of active ingredients/drugs and not following good manufacturing practices (GMP). As we will see from Bloomberg's investigative pieces, the issue is also not restricted to production in China. Several production facilities in neighbouring India had/have substandard laboratory practices, which came to light during the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) inspections.

  • In 2016, Hetero Labs Ltd./Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc. was found following substandard GMP for cleaning and maintaining equipment and having products with potential carcinogens. Two months ago, they too detected a potential carcinogen in their losartan batches. 
  • In 2017, employees at Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. plant in Andhra Pradesh were caught destroying computer files and documents (suspected to be relating to the production process).
  • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd was found to have falsified data at two factories and was fined $500 million by the US Justice Department.

Such examples being from India and China, there arises an argument for boycotting products manufactured in such countries. However, the problem of contaminated drugs and bad GMP is not restricted to the economic South.

  • In 2016, an inspection by the FDA found that production staff at the West Virginian facilities of Mylan (the second largest producer of generics) had recorded passing scores for drugs that failed tests and had destroyed documents (again relating to the production process). In 2018, they found evidence of bad manufacturing practices. 
  • Illinois-based Akorn was found to have submitted falsified data to the FDA when requesting an approval of their generic version of the antibiotic azithromycin. In addition, they did not follow good GMP, particularly in following cleaning, testing, and storage procedures for ensuring drugs are not contaminated. 

This then leads to a potential hypothesis that the problem has to do with the manufacturers of generics. However, brand names are not immune, as seen when Pfizer Inc.'s Hospira facility in Tamil Nadu recorded wrong (passing) data regarding the quality of some active ingredients. When these failed when retested in front of FDA inspectors, Pfizer paused manufacturing and later ceased production due to "significant long-term loss of product demand".

Thus, the problem of contaminated drugs and active ingredients is not one specific to manufacturing in certain countries or the nature of the manufacturer (generics or brand name). How then can the problem be solved? The three remaining blog posts of this series will offer pointers to the main stakeholders concerned: regulators, pharmaceuticals, and the general public.

Sources:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/tainted-generic-drugs-force-fda-to-tighten-safety-regulations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/third-potential-carcinogen-found-in-blood-pressure-drugs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-31/culture-of-bending-rules-in-india-challenges-u-s-drug-agency
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-30/chinese-heart-drug-valsartan-recall-shows-fda-inspection-limits
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-29/america-s-love-affair-with-cheap-drugs-has-a-hidden-cost

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-09/red-flags-raised-at-chinese-heart-drug-maker-year-before-recall

Image source: Dreamstime

Manufacturing and regulatory pitfalls (Part 3 of Recall of -sartans series)

A previous post on the -sartan recalls refers to the contamination process that occurred in the production/manufacturing process. In last week's post, I mentioned the existence of problems in US Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) verification process of drugs/active ingredients sold in the US. This week, I summarise findings from several of Bloomberg's investigative pieces (references at the base) that highlights the four manufacturing and regulatory pitfalls behind the recall of valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan.

1. Reduced number of inspections by FDA: Obtaining the approval of FDA involves visits of the production facilities by FDA's own inspectors. Whilst the number of approved generics increased (for meeting the election promise of the current Trump administration), the number of FDA inspections (both international and domestic) dropped in the fiscal year of 2018. In the 2018 fiscal year, FDA inspections in China (having a market share of around 8% in the US) decreased by approx. 11%. On the other hand, FDA inspections increased by 18% in India (having a market share of 38% in the US and is the world's largest exporter of generics).
This reduction-increase was justified by the FDA as the strategic targeting of facilities that had a certain risk score based on past inspections. Furthermore, FDA's agreements with EU counterparts ensure there is no duplication of work. However, the agreement does not cover India and China.

2. Production of substandard active ingredients: In May 2017, an FDA inspector pointed out the production of substandard active ingredients at the Linhai (China) factory of Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, a supplier of active ingredients to big pharma and generic pharmaceuticals (e.g. Teva). These active ingredients did not meet FDA's criteria.

3. Malpractice by manufacturer: The manufacturer had obtained results showing that some batches did not meet the FDA's criteria and contained unknown contaminants. Their responses were to ignore the results, omit the results from the official records, and record falsified data that indicated the products meeting FDA's criteria. Regarding the contaminants, they are supposed to attempt at identifying and rectifying these and communicate the presence of such contaminants to the FDA. The FDA inspector discovered these faux pas and noted that this was not the first time they did so. Furthermore, in 2016, Chinese regulators directed Zhejiang Huahai to withdraw applications for selling new drugs, should the application be based on false or incomplete data. Consequently, Zhejiang Huahai withdrew its applications for epilepsy, blood pressure, and depression generics and blamed flawed testing by a local contract research organisation.

4. Questionable decisions by FDA: The FDA inspector recommended penalising the manufacturer by making the approval of the sale of new drugs/active ingredients in the US contingent on the inspected products and manufacturing facility addressing the shortcomings or meeting quality criteria. However, FDA managers decided not to follow the recommendations of the FDA inspector, claiming that previous inspections of the facility came up with nought.

The end result of these manufacturing and regulatory pitfalls is the consumption of contaminated medicines by patients for at least four years. No one would have been any wiser had not a company who purchased valsartan from Zhejiang Huahai spotted the contamination.

My next post will disentangle the implications of such manufacturing and regulatory pitfalls.

References:
All of Bloomberg's investigative pieces listed below:-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/tainted-generic-drugs-force-fda-to-tighten-safety-regulations
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/third-potential-carcinogen-found-in-blood-pressure-drugs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-31/culture-of-bending-rules-in-india-challenges-u-s-drug-agency
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-30/chinese-heart-drug-valsartan-recall-shows-fda-inspection-limits
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-29/america-s-love-affair-with-cheap-drugs-has-a-hidden-cost
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-09/red-flags-raised-at-chinese-heart-drug-maker-year-before-recall

Image source: Shutterstock

Setting the scene: Pharma manufacturers and the FDA (part 2 of the Recall of -sartans series)

Since my previous post on the recall of -sartans, Torrent Pharmaceuticals recalled 36 additional lots of losartan potassium and losartan potassium/hydrochlorothiazide. Over the next few weeks, I will be covering various aspects of the global drug production industry as most of us, at some point or the other, would have had utilised its outputs. And we would have done so under the impression that the product we paid for (or were administered) should work, with as little side effects as possible. For the product to work, it should comprise of a precise amount of active ingredient(s), having either no contaminants or below maximum permitted limits. Tweak this formula a bit and we are looking not only at a potential placebo, but one with side effects (some of which can be dangerous). In the recent recall of -sartans, the tweaking is mainly associated with generics.


Brand-names & generics
What are generics? Drug development and manufacturing is an extensive and expensive process, requiring capital, time, and resources. This also entails extensive research and testing of a potential drug to check its efficacy, quality, and safety. Thus, very often, this is carried out by big pharmaceutical companies (e.g. Novartis, Roche), with the outputs being patented and the patent being protected for a certain duration. Given the costs involved in this process (from formulating an idea to the product being stocked in pharmacies), drugs or active ingredients manufactured by the big pharmaceutical companies (a.k.a. brand-name drugs) tend to be priced high. When the patent protection runs out after some years, other pharmaceutical companies can avail of the patent and replicate the brand-name drugs/active ingredients - these are the generics. These are significantly cheaper than the brand-name drugs for mainly three reasons:
  • Firstly, the unprotected patents can be used by anyone, leading to multiple manufacturers of generics. As there is more competition, the price of the drug decreases.
  • Secondly, these new manufacturers need not spend substantial capital, time, and resources (as essentially most of the work has been done by the big pharma), apart from proving that their generic works as a good copy of the original (e.g. Novartis's brand-name Diovan and the respective generic Valsartan). 
  • Thirdly, most manufacturers of the generics (drugs or active ingredients) are located in countries where the production costs are lower (e.g. China and India). 

The result is that generics are widely used.

Recalls & the US FDA
The recalls of -sartans led to more than a ripple in the global pharmaceutical industry as this was highlighted by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA). One of the stated aims of the FDA is to ensure that drugs/active ingredients sold in the US comply with their standards for quality, safety, and efficacy. Obtaining FDA's approval involves several components, often including visits by FDA's inspectors and evaluation of data maintained by the manufacturer:

  • verification that the production process/factory follows good manufacturing practices (GMP)
  • verification of the properties relating to the active ingredient
  • verification of the presence/absence of any contaminants

The past years have witnessed a high approval of generics in the US, with around 80% of active ingredients being sourced from non-US facilities. This high rate was for meeting the promise of Trump administration on lowering the costs for medicines.

Whilst the election promise and the FDA inspection are aimed at the ensuring the US population have access to affordable and safe drugs, my blog post next week will list the problems associated with the verification process.

Image by Remaztered Studio from Pixabay 

The recall of -sartans (part 1)

The past few months witnessed the recall of several medicines (notably in the US) as these contained amounts of nitrosamines (specifically, N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), N-Nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)), all suspected of being carcinogens according to International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). These nitrosamines were detected in certain angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs; prescribed for multiple conditions such as hypertension and heart failure) having the "-sartan" active ingredient, viz., irbesartan, losartan, and valsartan. The contamination had occurred during the production processes (the first was seen in products from Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd) (this will be elaborated in my post next week). The presence of the nitrosamines led to the recall of the -sartans and patients resorted to replacements... until last week.

Last Thursday, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), via FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Janet Woodcock (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research), identified 40 generics that are free of nitrosamines and, thus, safe for ingestion. At the same time, they also urged patients to take the impure batches of losartan. Their reasoning is as follows:
1. The recall of impure medicines led to the shortage of pure medicines as the manufacturers struggled to keep up with the demand
2. For a patient having no access to the pure medicines and not taking any medicine for their condition, the risk from other health complications (such as stroke or heart failures) cannot be ignored
3. The impure batches of losartan have negligible amounts of nitrosamines that may not increase the risk for cancer if taken for a short time

Therefore, in their opinion, it is in the best interests of patients to take the impure losartans until the shortage is resolved in approximately six months. The pros (regulating blood pressure and decreasing the probabilities of heart failures or strokes) outweigh the cons (cancer risk).

FDA's list of pure generics and their recommendation to take impure losartan are not without flaws. Regarding the list, the onus is in on the doctors and pharmacies to ensure that the prescribed (and dispensed) medicine is one of those. At the same time, it would be in the best interests of the patients (or their families) to check the prescription against the list. Regarding the temporary use of impure losartan, whilst this would make sense given the cons, what would be the outcome in vulnerable patients? Furthermore, what would be the outcome if the patient has been taking impure -sartans for several years? For a patient recently prescribed -sartans, the carcinogenic risk might be low; this would not hold for someone having taken the impure -sartans for years. These are arguments that both doctors and the FDA ought to consider.

Nonetheless, for any patients taking a -sartan based medicine, the first port of call ought to be their doctor and asking for a replacement. And, regardless of what the doctor prescribes and what the pharmacy delivers, it is imperative to check against FDA's acceptable list of nitrosamine-free ARBs.

Predictive biomarkers of drug response in Triple negative breast cancer


Triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs) lack Estrogen receptor, Progesterone receptor and Epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and accounts for approximately 10-20% of breast cancers. They are common in women under 40 and black women and are characterized by poor prognosis. The current treatment remains surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, but is associated with high relapse risk. This necessitates the need for novel therapeutic approaches 1.

A large proportion (50-75%) of TNBCs express Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR). However, clinical trials with EGFR targeting studies have not been promising. A recent study by Foidart et al2, uncovers an interesting loop involving three genes - EGFR, membrane-type-4 matrix metalloproteinase (MT4-MMP), and retinoblastoma protein (RB) in TNBCs which could be therapeutically exploited in the management of the disease. Their studies which were conducted in in human breast tumour specimens, xenografts, and  patient derived TNBCs (PDX-TNBC) xenografts  reveal that approximately half of all TNBC and PDX-TNBC express the three genes. More than 70% of TNBC samples and PDX-TNBC co-express EGFR and MT4-MMP, and approximately 60% express RB.

Experiments on TNB cells coexpressing EGFR and MT4-MMP show that single erlotinib and palbociclib treatments radically reduce proliferation when compared with control cells. In the xenografts, those coexpressing MT4-MMP, EGFR, and RB show sensitivity to erlotinib and palbociclib individually, and display an additive effect when administered together. This phenomenon is not seen  in xenografts that lack Rb.

This study crucially demonstrates the efficacy of erlotinib–palbociclib combination in MT4-MMP/EGFR/RB tumors that represent 50% of TNBC patients, and shows that a subgroup of patients who could be successfully treated with EGFR and CDK4/6 inhibitors can be identified by profiling the tumours for the three biomarkers which allows for effective patient selection and targeted therapy.

References:


2.http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/25/6/1838