Category Archives: Genetics

Study Probes Interaction of Genetics and Neural Wiring in ADHD – PsychCentral.com

A new study comparing genetics and the neural wiring of the brain suggests a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) results from a combination of factors. Investigators discovered that it takes many common genetic variations combining together in one individual to increase risk substantially.

At the same time, neuroimaging (MRI) experts have found differences in how the brains of people diagnosed with ADHD are functionally connected. However, its unclear how genetic risk might be directly related to altered brain circuitry in individuals diagnosed with ADHD.

In the new study, researchers focused their imaging analyses on selected brain regions, looking specifically at the communication between those regions and the rest of the brain in children with the diagnosis.

They discovered that one brain regions connectivity was linked to a higher risk of ADHD. However, a second, different part of the brain seemed to compensate for genetic effects and reduce the chances of an ADHD diagnosis.

The authors believe this research will lead to a better understanding of how genetic risk factors alter different parts of the brain to change behaviors and why some people at higher genetic risk do not exhibit ADHD symptoms.

The study appears in Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging.

We are now in a phase with enough data to answer some questions about the underlying genetics of a disorder that in the past have been difficult to elucidate, said senior author Damien Fair, Ph.D.

Previous imaging studies had shown different functional connectivity, and we assume those have a genetic basis.

ADHD is a neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorder that affects about 5 percent of children and adolescents and 2.5 percent of adults worldwide. The disorder is characterized by inattentive or hyperactive symptoms with many variations.

The paper focuses on 315 children between the ages of 8 and 12 who participated in a longitudinal ADHD study that began in 2008 at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. Fair, a neuroscientist and imaging researcher, and co-author Joel Nigg, Ph.D., a pediatric psychologist participated in the study. Robert Hermosillo, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in Fairs lab, led the study.

The research team selected three areas of the brain based on a brain tissue database that showed where ADHD risk genes were likely to alter brain activity. To measure the brain communication to-and-from these regions on each side of the brain, the researchers used resting-state non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.

To begin to bridge genetic and neuroimaging studies of ADHD, researchers used MRI to scan the brains of children. Two regions previously associated with ADHD stood out. In one, a higher ADHD genetic risk correlated with a more active brain circuit anchored by the nucleus accumbens (orange arrow). Interestingly a weaker connection anchored by the caudate nucleus (blue arrow) seemed to protect children at high genetic risk from ADHD behaviors.

Next, they calculated a cumulative ADHD genetic risk score in the children, based on recent genome-wide studies, including a dozen higher-risk genetic regions reported two years ago by a large international collaboration called the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium.

In one brain region anchored by the nucleus accumbens, they found a direct correlation with genetics. Increased genetic risk means stronger communication between the visual areas and the reward centers, explained Hermosillo.

Another brain region anchored by the caudate yielded more puzzling results until the researchers tested its role as a mediator between genetics and behavior.

The less these two regions talk to each other, the higher the genetic risk for ADHD, said Hermosillo. It seems to provide a certain resiliency against the genetic effects of ADHD. Even among those with high risk for ADHD, if these two brain regions are communicating very little, a child is unlikely to end up with that diagnosis.

A third region, the amygdala, showed no correlation between connectivity to the other brain regions and the genetics.

According to the authors, the findings suggest that a genetic score alone will not be enough to predict ADHD risk in individuals because the results show both a genetic and neural contribution toward an ADHD diagnosis.

A future diagnostic tool will likely need to combine genetics and brain functional measures. The brain is not at the mercy of genes, added Hermosillo. Its a dynamic system not preprogrammed for disorders. It has the capacity to change.

Source: Elsevier

Related Articles

Visit link:
Study Probes Interaction of Genetics and Neural Wiring in ADHD - PsychCentral.com

Yann Joly on the fight against genetic discrimination – McGill Reporter

Yann Joly, Research Director of the Centre of Genomics and Policy

Research Director of the Centre of Genomics and Policy and Associate Professor at the Department of Human Genetics, Yann Joly is a Lawyer Emeritus from the Quebec Bar and a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. He is currently a member of the Quebec task force on theCOVID-19 Biobank.

Last week, Joly and his collaborators from 16 countries announced the establishment of the international Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO). A world first, the GDO is an online platform committed to preventing the misuse of a patients genetic information. This is particularly important within the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic when researchers are collecting samples and data from patients in order to better understand this new disease and develop effective vaccines or therapeutics.

In this Q&A, Joly gives readers more information on genetic discrimination and what is being done to combat it.

Genetic discrimination (GD) means treating people differently from the rest of the population or unfairly profiling them based on actual or presumed genomic and other predictive medical data. The genetic information contained in an individuals DNA can uniquely identify or provide some information about a person, including future probabilities that this individual will develop diseases. Other predictive health information, such as biomarkers, can also be used to discriminate and should also be considered under the GD heading.

This information can be of interest to third parties like insurers, employers, or government officials. Like sexual, ethnic or disability-based discrimination, genetic discrimination is a source of exclusion and can limit the social and professional opportunities of a person thus becoming a source of psychological distress.

There are documented cases of GD reported in studies carried out in a limited number of countries based on predictive test results and family history for a handful of severe single-gene conditions in the context of life insurance or employment. The available evidence is fragmentary, and the methodology used in many studies is inconsistent.

The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (hereinafter S-201) was passed in April 2017 and is currently applicable in Canada. While it does not solve all the challenges posed by genetic discrimination, it is an important first step. The Act generally makes it a criminal offense to require a person to undergo a genetic test or to report the results as a condition precedent to the provision of goods and services. However, the Quebec Court of Appeal recently declared that the core elements of S-201 were not constitutionally valid.

This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and we are currently waiting for their decision on the matter. In the meantime, S-201 continue to be applied. If the Supreme Court is of a similar opinion to that of the Court of Appeal, it could be invalidated.

In addition to the protection provided by S-201, Canadian privacy laws would fully apply to genetic data, which is considered personal information.

Genetic information is increasingly shared across national borders or transcending them, thus limiting the effectiveness of protections built solely around national approaches. Strictly legal solutions, because they tend to be static, are also challenged to keep pace with rapidly evolving science such as genetics.

At its core discrimination is a social phenomenon that needs to be addressed collaboratively and internationally by all stakeholders. The GDO will provide the platform to undertake this important work, which will include documenting instances of genetic discrimination, identifying most effective preventing measures and conveying information, tools and good practices to all stakeholders including the public.

COVID-19 presents Quebecers with an unprecedented health threat that requires us to stand together as a society and take action to protect one another and help find medical solutions to the disease. The COVID-19 Biobank provides us a unique opportunity to learn more about the biological foundations of the disease, individuals at risk and preventive solutions.

The risk of discrimination associated with providing a biological sample and medical information to the Biobank is very small. The data provided is research information that is not clinically validated and should be of no interest to most third parties. Moreover, the collected information is coded, and protected by confidentiality laws and robust security measures. Furthermore, data access will be subject to ethics approval and in some cases controlled access measures.

See the rest here:
Yann Joly on the fight against genetic discrimination - McGill Reporter

Seattle Genetics Announces Potential Accelerated Approval Pathway in the US for PADCEV (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) in Combination with Immune Therapy…

BOTHELL, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Seattle Genetics, Inc.. (Nasdaq:SGEN) today provided an update on the phase 1b/2 multicohort EV-103 trial (also known as KEYNOTE-869) of PADCEVTM (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who are unable to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting. Based on recent discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), data from the randomized cohort K, along with other data from the EV-103 trial evaluating PADCEV combined with pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients, could potentially support registration under accelerated approval regulations in the United States. PADCEV is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that is directed against Nectin-4, a protein located on the surface of cells and highly expressed in bladder cancer.1

We are excited that EV-103 provides PADCEV with a potential pathway for U.S. accelerated approval in first-line metastatic urothelial cancer, said Roger Dansey, M.D., Chief Medical Officer at Seattle Genetics. Our initial data on the combination of PADCEV and pembrolizumab in previously untreated patients who could not receive cisplatin are encouraging.

EV-103 is a multi-cohort, open-label, multicenter phase 1b/2 trial of PADCEV alone or in combination, evaluating safety, tolerability and efficacy in muscle invasive urothelial cancer, and in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer in first- or second-line settings. Cohort K from EV-103 is intended to enroll 150 patients randomized 1:1 to PADCEV monotherapy or PADCEV in combination with pembrolizumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients who are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure is objective response rate (ORR) per blinded independent central review (BICR) using RECIST 1.1 and duration of response (DoR).

In addition to EV-103, the recently initiated EV-302 phase 3 randomized clinical trial is intended to support global registrations and potentially serve as a confirmatory trial if accelerated approval is granted based on EV-103. The EV-302 trial is evaluating the combination of PADCEV and pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. Importantly, EV-302 includes metastatic urothelial cancer patients that are either eligible or ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The trial is expected to enroll 1,095 patients and has dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival. Both the EV-103 and EV-302 trials are being conducted in collaboration with Astellas and Merck.

FDA recently granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for PADCEV in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who are unable to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting based on initial results from the EV-103 trial.

PADCEV (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) was approved by the FDA in December 2019 and is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who have previously received a programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor and a platinum-containing chemotherapy before (neoadjuvant) or after (adjuvant) surgery or in a locally advanced or metastatic setting. PADCEV was approved under the FDAs Accelerated Approval Program based on tumor response rate. Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.2

About Bladder and Urothelial Cancer

It is estimated that approximately 81,000 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2020.3 Urothelial cancer accounts for 90 percent of all bladder cancers and can also be found in the renal pelvis, ureter and urethra.4 Globally, approximately 549,000 people were diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2018, and there were approximately 200,000 deaths worldwide.5

About PADCEV

PADCEV is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that is directed against Nectin-4, a protein located on the surface of cells and highly expressed in bladder cancer.6,7 Nonclinical data suggest the anticancer activity of PADCEV is due to its binding to Nectin-4 expressing cells followed by the internalization and release of the anti-tumor agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) into the cell, which result in the cell not reproducing (cell cycle arrest) and in programmed cell death (apoptosis).8 PADCEV is co-developed by Astellas and Seattle Genetics.

Important Safety Information

Warnings and Precautions

Adverse Reactions

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients treated with PADCEV. The most common serious adverse reactions (3%) were urinary tract infection (6%), cellulitis (5%), febrile neutropenia (4%), diarrhea (4%), sepsis (3%), acute kidney injury (3%), dyspnea (3%), and rash (3%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 3.2% of patients, including acute respiratory failure, aspiration pneumonia, cardiac disorder, and sepsis (each 0.8%).

Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation occurred in 16% of patients; the most common adverse reaction leading to discontinuation was peripheral neuropathy (6%). Adverse reactions leading to dose interruption occurred in 64% of patients; the most common adverse reactions leading to dose interruption were peripheral neuropathy (18%), rash (9%) and fatigue (6%). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction occurred in 34% of patients; the most common adverse reactions leading to dose reduction were peripheral neuropathy (12%), rash (6%) and fatigue (4%).

The most common adverse reactions (20%) were fatigue (56%), peripheral neuropathy (56%), decreased appetite (52%), rash (52%), alopecia (50%), nausea (45%), dysgeusia (42%), diarrhea (42%), dry eye (40%), pruritus (26%) and dry skin (26%). The most common Grade 3 adverse reactions (5%) were rash (13%), diarrhea (6%) and fatigue (6%).

Lab Abnormalities

In one clinical trial, Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities reported in 5% were: lymphocytes decreased, hemoglobin decreased, phosphate decreased, lipase increased, sodium decreased, glucose increased, urate increased, neutrophils decreased.

Drug Interactions

Specific Populations

For more information, please see the full Prescribing Information for PADCEV here.

About Seattle Genetics

Seattle Genetics, Inc. is a global biotechnology company that discovers, develops and commercializes transformative medicines targeting cancer to make a meaningful difference in peoples lives. The company is headquartered in Bothell, Washington, and has offices in California, Switzerland and the European Union. For more information on our robust pipeline, visit https://www.seattlegenetics.com and follow @SeattleGenetics on Twitter. For information on our response to the COVID-19 pandemic, please visit our website.

About the Astellas and Seattle Genetics Collaboration

Seattle Genetics and Astellas are co-developing PADCEV under a collaboration that was entered into in 2007 and expanded in 2009. Under the collaboration, the companies are sharing costs and profits on a 50:50 basis worldwide.

About the Seattle Genetics, Astellas and Merck Collaboration

Seattle Genetics and Astellas entered a clinical collaboration agreement with Merck to evaluate the combination of Seattle Genetics and Astellas PADCEV and Mercks KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab), in patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial cancer. KEYTRUDA is a registered trademark of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Seattle Genetics Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made in this press release are forward looking, such as those, among others, relating to the potential of data from the EV-103 clinical trial to support accelerated approval in the U.S. of PADCEV in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who are unable to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting; the possibility of using data from the EV-302 clinical trial to obtain global regulatory approval or confirm accelerated approval of PADCEV in the referenced first line setting; clinical development plans relating to PADCEV; the therapeutic potential of PADCEV; and its possible safety, efficacy, and therapeutic uses, including in the first-line setting. Actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected or implied in these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such a difference include the possibility that ongoing and subsequent clinical trials of PADCEV may fail to produce data sufficient to support regulatory approvals; the fact that FDA has not made a final determination regarding whether the data from the EV-103 clinical trial will be sufficient to support accelerated approval in the U.S.; the risk that the COVID-19 pandemic could delay our ability to conduct the EV-103 clinical trial and delay FDAs regulatory timelines, including with respect to any potential accelerated approval; the fact that adverse events or safety signals may occur and that adverse regulatory actions or other setbacks could occur as PADCEV advances in clinical trials even after promising results in earlier clinical trials. More information about the risks and uncertainties faced by Seattle Genetics is contained under the caption Risk Factors included in the companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Seattle Genetics disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

1Challita-Eid P, Satpayev D, Yang P, et al. Enfortumab Vedotin Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targeting Nectin-4 Is a Highly Potent Therapeutic Agent in Multiple Preclinical Cancer Models. Cancer Res 2016;76(10):3003-13.2 PADCEV [package insert]. Northbrook, IL: Astellas, Inc.3 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2020. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2020/cancer-facts-and-figures-2020.pdf. Accessed 02-20-2020.4 American Society of Clinical Oncology. Bladder cancer: introduction (10-2017). https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/bladder-cancer/introduction. Accessed 05-09-2019.5 International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer Tomorrow: Bladder. http://gco.iarc.fr/tomorrow.6 Challita-Eid P, Satpayev D, Yang P, et al. Enfortumab Vedotin Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targeting Nectin-4 Is a Highly Potent Therapeutic Agent in Multiple Preclinical Cancer Models. Cancer Res 2016;76(10):3003-13.7 PADCEV [package insert]. Northbrook, IL: Astellas, Inc.8 PADCEV [package insert]. Northbrook, IL: Astellas, Inc.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200402005249/en/

Read the original:
Seattle Genetics Announces Potential Accelerated Approval Pathway in the US for PADCEV (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) in Combination with Immune Therapy...

Her genetic test revealed a microscopic problem and a jumbo price tag – Rome News-Tribune

Michelle Kuppersmith, 32, feels great, works full time and exercises three to four times a week. So she was surprised when a routine blood test found that her body was making too many platelets, which help control bleeding. Kuppersmiths doctor suspected she had a rare blood disorder called essential thrombocythemia, which can lead to blood clots, strokes and, in rare cases, leukemia.

Her doctor suggested a bone marrow biopsy, in which a large needle is used to suck out a sample of the spongy tissue at the center of the patients hip bone. Doctors examine the bone marrow under a microscope and analyze the DNA. The procedure allows doctors to judge a patients prognosis and select treatment, if needed. Kuppersmith had heard the procedure can be intensely painful, so she put it off for months.

The biopsy performed by a provider in her insurance network, at a hospital in her network lasted only a few minutes, and Kuppersmith received relatively good news. While a genetic analysis of her bone marrow confirmed her doctors suspicions, it showed that the only treatment she needs, for now, is a daily, low-dose aspirin. She will check in with her doctor every three to four months to make sure the disease isnt getting worse.

All in all, Kuppersmith felt relieved.

Then she got a notice saying her insurer refused to pay for the genetic analysis, leaving her responsible for a $2,400 payment.

The Patient: New York resident Michelle Kuppersmith, 32, who is insured by Maryland-based CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. She works as director of special projects at a Washington-based, nonpartisan watchdog group. Because she was treated in New York, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield which covers that region handled part of her claim.

Total Amount Owed: $2,400 for out-of-network genetic profiling

The Providers: Kuppersmith had her bone marrow removed at the Mount Sinai Ruttenberg Treatment Center in New York City, which sent her biopsy sample to a California lab, Genoptix, for testing.

Medical Services: Bone marrow biopsy and molecular profiling, which involves looking for genetic mutations

What Gives: The field of molecular diagnostics, which includes a variety of gene-based testing, is undergoing explosive growth, said Gillian Hooker, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and vice president of clinical development for Concert Genetics, a health IT company in Nashville, Tennessee.

A Concert Genetics report found there are more than 140,000 molecular diagnostic products on the market, with 10 to 15 added each day.

The field is growing so quickly that even doctors are struggling to develop a common vocabulary, Hooker said.

Kuppersmith underwent a type of testing known as molecular profiling, which looks for DNA biomarkers to predict whether patients will benefit from new, targeted therapies. These mutations arent inherited; they develop over the course of a patients life, Hooker said.

Medicare spending on molecular diagnostics more than doubled from 2016 to 2018, increasing from $493 million to $1.1 billion, according to Laboratory Economics, a lab industry newsletter.

Charges range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on how many genes are involved and which billing codes insurers use, Hooker said.

Based on Medicare data, at least 1,500 independent labs perform molecular testing, along with more than 500 hospital-based labs, said Jondavid Klipp, the newsletters publisher.

In a fast-evolving field with lots of money at stake, tests that a doctor or lab may regard as state-of-the-art an insurer might view as experimental.

Worse still, many of the commercial labs that perform the novel tests are out-of-network, as was Genoptix.

Stephanie Bywater, chief compliance officer at NeoGenomics Laboratories, which owns Genoptix, said that insurance policies governing approval have not kept up with the rapid pace of scientific advances. Kuppersmiths doctor ordered a test that has been available since 2014 and was updated in 2017, Bywater said.

Although experts agree that molecular diagnostics is an essential part of care for patients like Kuppersmith, doctors and insurance companies may not agree on which specific test is best, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Tests can be performed a number of different ways by a number of different laboratories who charge different amounts, Nichols said.

Insurance plans are much more likely to refuse to pay for molecular diagnostics than other lab tests. Laboratory Economics found Medicare contractors denied almost half of all molecular diagnostics claims over the past five years, compared with 5-10% of routine lab tests.

With so many insurance plans, so many new tests and so many new companies, it is difficult for a doctor to know which labs are in a patients network and which specific tests are covered, Nichols said.

Different providers have contracts with different diagnostic companies, which can affect a patients out-of-pocket costs, Nichols said. It is incredibly complex and really difficult to determine the best, least expensive path.

Kuppersmith said she has always been careful to check that her doctors accept her insurance. She made sure Mount Sinai was in her insurance network, too. But it never occurred to her that the biopsy would be sent to an outside lab ? or that it would undergo genetic analysis.

She added: The looming threat of a $2,400 bill has caused me, in many ways, more anxiety than the illness ever has.

The Resolution: Despite making dozens of phone calls, Kuppersmith got nothing but confusing and contradictory answers when she tried to sort out the unexpected charge.

An agent for her insurer told her that her doctor hadnt gotten preauthorization for the testing. But in an email to Kuppersmith, a Genoptix employee told her the insurance company had denied the claim because molecular profiling was viewed as experimental.

A spokesperson for New York-based Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, which handled part of Kuppersmiths claim, said her health plan covers medically necessary genetic testing.

New York, one of 28 states with laws against surprise billing, requires hospitals to inform patients in writing if their care may include out-of-network providers, said attorney Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives at the Community Service Society, which provides free help with insurance problems.

A spokesperson for Mount Sinai said the hospital complies with that law, noting that Kuppersmith was given such a document in 2018 nearly one year before her bone marrow biopsy and signed it.

Benjamin said thats not OK, explaining: I think a 1-year-old, vague form like the one she signed would not comply with the state law and certainly not the spirit of it.

Instead of sending Kuppersmith a bill, Genoptix offered to help her appeal the denied coverage to CareFirst. At first, Genoptix asked Kuppersmith to designate the company as her personal health care representative. She was uncomfortable signing over what sounded like sweeping legal rights to strangers. Instead, she wrote an email granting the company permission to negotiate on her behalf. It was sufficient.

A few days after being contacted by KHN, Kuppersmiths insurer said it would pay Genoptix at the in-network rate, covering $1,200 of the $2,400 charge. Genoptix said it has no plans to bill Kuppersmith for the other half of the charge.

The Takeaway: Kuppersmith is relieved her insurer changed its mind about her bill. But, she said: Im a relatively young, savvy person with a college degree. There are a lot of people who dont have the time or wherewithal to do this kind of fighting.

Patients should ask their health care providers if any outside contractors will be involved in their care, including pathologists, anesthesiologists, clinical labs or radiologists, experts said. And check if those involved are in-network.

Try your best to ask in advance, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University. Ask, Do I have a choice about where (a blood or tissue sample) is sent?

Ask, too, if the sample will undergo molecular diagnostics. Since the testing is still relatively new and expensive ? most insurers require patients to obtain prior authorization, or special permission, said Dr. Debra Regier, a medical geneticist at Childrens National Hospital in Washington and an associate with NORD, the National Organization of Rare Diseases. Getting this permission in advance can prevent many headaches.

Finally, be wary of signing blanket consent forms telling you that some components of your care may be out-of-network. Tell your provider that you want to be informed on a case-by-case basis when an out-of-network provider is involved and to consent to their participation.

2020 Kaiser Health News

Visit Kaiser Health News at http://www.khn.org

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194)

Read more from the original source:
Her genetic test revealed a microscopic problem and a jumbo price tag - Rome News-Tribune

Bill Of The Month: Pricey Genetic Test For Essential Thrombocythemia : Shots – Health News – NPR

Michelle Kuppersmith's doctor recommended a bone marrow biopsy after suspecting she had a rare blood disorder. Though the biopsy was done by an in-network provider at an in-network hospital, Kuppersmith learned she was on the hook for $2,400 for out-of-network genetic profiling. Shelby Knowles for KHN hide caption

Michelle Kuppersmith's doctor recommended a bone marrow biopsy after suspecting she had a rare blood disorder. Though the biopsy was done by an in-network provider at an in-network hospital, Kuppersmith learned she was on the hook for $2,400 for out-of-network genetic profiling.

Michelle Kuppersmith feels great, works full time and exercises three to four times a week. So she was surprised when a routine blood test found that her body was making too many platelets, which help control bleeding.

Kuppersmith's doctor suspected the 32-year-old Manhattanite had a rare blood disorder called essential thrombocythemia, which can lead to blood clots, strokes and, in rare cases, leukemia.

Her doctor suggested a bone marrow biopsy, in which a large needle is used to suck out a sample of the spongy tissue at the center of the patient's hip bone.

Doctors examine the bone marrow under a microscope and analyze the DNA. The procedure allows doctors to judge a patient's prognosis and select treatment, if needed. Kuppersmith had heard the procedure can be intensely painful, so she put it off for months.

The biopsy performed by a provider in her insurance network, at a hospital in her network lasted only a few minutes, and Kuppersmith received relatively good news.

While a genetic analysis of her bone marrow confirmed her doctor's suspicions, it showed that the only treatment she needs, for now, is a daily, low-dose aspirin. She will check in with her doctor every three to four months to make sure the disease isn't getting worse.

All in all, Kuppersmith felt relieved.

Then she got a notice saying her insurer refused to pay for the genetic analysis, leaving her responsible for a $2,400 payment.

The patient: New York resident Michelle Kuppersmith, 32, who is insured by Maryland-based CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. She works as director of special projects at a Washington-based watchdog group. Because she was treated in New York, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield which covers that region handled part of her claim.

Total amount owed: $2,400 for out-of-network genetic profiling

The providers: Kuppersmith had her bone marrow removed at the Mount Sinai Ruttenberg Treatment Center in New York City, which sent her biopsy sample to a California lab, Genoptix, for testing.

Medical services: Bone marrow biopsy and molecular profiling, which involves looking for genetic mutations

What gives: The field of molecular diagnostics, which includes a variety of gene-based testing, is undergoing explosive growth, said Gillian Hooker, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and vice president of clinical development for Concert Genetics, a health IT company in Nashville, Tennessee.

A report from Concert Genetics, a company that helps clients manage genetic testing, found there are more than 140,000 molecular diagnostic products on the market, with 10 to 15 added each day.

The field is growing so quickly that even doctors are struggling to develop a common vocabulary, Hooker said.

Kuppersmith underwent a type of testing known as molecular profiling, which looks for DNA biomarkers to predict whether patients will benefit from new, targeted therapies. These mutations aren't inherited; they develop over the course of a patient's life, Hooker said.

Medicare spending on molecular diagnostics more than doubled from 2016 to 2018, increasing from $493 million to $1.1 billion, according to Laboratory Economics, a lab industry newsletter.

Charges range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on how many genes are involved and which billing codes insurers use, Hooker said.

Based on Medicare data, at least 1,500 independent labs perform molecular testing, along with more than 500 hospital-based labs, said Jondavid Klipp, the newsletter's publisher.

In a fast-evolving field with lots of money at stake, tests that a doctor or lab may regard as state-of-the-art an insurer might view as experimental.

Worse still, many of the commercial labs that perform the novel tests are out-of-network, as was Genoptix.

Stephanie Bywater, chief compliance officer at NeoGenomics Laboratories, which owns Genoptix, said that insurance policies governing approval have not kept up with the rapid pace of scientific advances. Kuppersmith's doctor ordered a test that has been available since 2014 and was updated in 2017, Bywater said.

Although experts agree that molecular diagnostics is an essential part of care for patients like Kuppersmith, doctors and insurance companies may not agree on which specific test is best, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Tests "can be performed a number of different ways by a number of different laboratories who charge different amounts," Nichols said.

Insurance plans are much more likely to refuse to pay for molecular diagnostics than other lab tests. Laboratory Economics found Medicare contractors denied almost half of all molecular diagnostics claims over the past five years, compared with 5-10% of routine lab tests.

With so many insurance plans, so many new tests and so many new companies, it is difficult for a doctor to know which labs are in a patient's network and which specific tests are covered, Nichols said.

"Different providers have contracts with different diagnostic companies," which can affect a patient's out-of-pocket costs, Nichols said. "It is incredibly complex and really difficult to determine the best, least expensive path."

Kuppersmith said she has always been careful to check that her doctors accept her insurance. She made sure Mount Sinai was in her insurance network, too. But it never occurred to her that the biopsy would be sent to an outside lab or that it would undergo genetic analysis.

She added: "The looming threat of a $2,400 bill has caused me, in many ways, more anxiety than the illness ever has."

The resolution: Despite making dozens of phone calls, Kuppersmith got nothing but confusing and contradictory answers when she tried to sort out the unexpected charge.

An agent for her insurer told her that her doctor hadn't gotten preauthorization for the testing. But in an email to Kuppersmith, a Genoptix employee told her the insurance company had denied the claim because molecular profiling was viewed as experimental.

A spokesperson for New York-based Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, which handled part of Kuppersmith's claim, said her health plan "covers medically necessary genetic testing."

New York, one of 28 states with laws against surprise billing, requires hospitals to inform patients in writing if their care may include out-of-network providers, said attorney Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives at the Community Service Society, which provides free help with insurance problems.

A spokesperson for Mount Sinai said the hospital complies with that law, noting that Kuppersmith was given such a document in 2018 nearly one year before her bone marrow biopsy and signed it.

Benjamin said that's not OK, explaining: "I think a one-year-old, vague form like the one she signed would not comply with the state law and certainly not the spirit of it."

Instead of sending Kuppersmith a bill, Genoptix offered to help her appeal the denied coverage to CareFirst. At first, Genoptix asked Kuppersmith to designate the company as her personal health care representative. She was uncomfortable signing over what sounded like sweeping legal rights to strangers. Instead, she wrote an email granting the company permission to negotiate on her behalf. It was sufficient.

A few days after being contacted by KHN, Kuppersmith's insurer said it would pay Genoptix at the in-network rate, covering $1,200 of the $2,400 charge. Genoptix said it has no plans to bill Kuppersmith for the other half of the charge.

The takeaway: Kuppersmith is relieved her insurer changed its mind about her bill. But, she said: "I'm a relatively young, savvy person with a college degree. There are a lot of people who don't have the time or wherewithal to do this kind of fighting."

Patients should ask their health care providers if any outside contractors will be involved in their care, including pathologists, anesthesiologists, clinical labs or radiologists, experts said. And check if those involved are in-network.

"Try your best to ask in advance," said Jack Hoadley, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University. "Ask, 'Do I have a choice about where [a blood or tissue sample] is sent?'"

Ask, too, if the sample will undergo molecular diagnostics. Since the testing is still relatively new and expensive most insurers require patients to obtain "prior authorization," or special permission, said Dr. Debra Regier, a medical geneticist at Children's National Hospital in Washington and an associate with NORD, the National Organization of Rare Diseases. Getting this permission in advance can prevent many headaches.

Finally, be wary of signing blanket consent forms telling you that some components of your care may be out-of-network. Tell your provider that you want to be informed on a case-by-case basis when an out-of-network provider is involved and to consent to their participation.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Kaiser Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have a perplexing medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it here.

Read the rest here:
Bill Of The Month: Pricey Genetic Test For Essential Thrombocythemia : Shots - Health News - NPR

Science to the rescue? How modern genetics could help save the world from coronavirus – Alliance for Science – Alliance for Science

Humanity really has only two options to confront the coronavirus pandemic currently sweeping the planet. The first is to mount a rolling program of lockdowns and other drastic social distancing strategies to restrain the pace of the virus epidemic, with a view to gradually building up natural herd immunity among the human population.

That strategy, especially if combined with successful anti-viral drug treatments and a massively upscaled testing effort, should give some relief. But it would come at the likely cost of many millions of deaths and incalculable worldwide economic damage, hitting especially hard in countries with little resilience and limited healthcare infrastructure.

The second approach is to develop a vaccine, and to do so as rapidly as possible. A fully effective vaccine would not just tame COVID-19 but possibly eradicate it altogether as the world successfully did with smallpox and is on the verge of doing with polio (both also viral diseases).

These two approaches will most likely be concurrent: the first will buy us time, while the second provides an exit strategy from a constant pattern of repeating lockdowns and travel restrictions that could otherwise go on for years.

With the current total of confirmed cases rapidly closing in on one million worldwide, the true picture is most likely that many tens of millions of people have already caught COVID-19. Humanitys most desperate challenge, therefore, is to find an effective vaccine.

Fortunately, science is already stepping up. History was made on March 16, when the first clinical trial volunteer was injected with an investigational vaccine for coronavirus at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.

The volunteer was mother-of-two Jennifer Haller, a 43-year-old Seattle resident who told National Public Radio that she wanted to do something because theres so many Americans that dont have the same privileges that Ive been given.

The vaccination was produced by Moderna, with the first batch being delivered to the US National Institutes of Health a remarkable 42 days after the viral genome was first sequenced in China.

This Phase 1 trial does not yet test the efficacy of the vaccine against COVID-19. Carried out over six weeks among a group of 45 healthy adult volunteers aged between 18 and 55, it will test the basic safety of the proposed vaccine and its ability to stimulate an immune response in the human body.

Although the Phase 1 trial will continue with the Seattle-area recruits being monitored for a whole year, the urgency of the global situation means that the collaborators will likely rush to Phase 2 at the same time, testing the ability of the vaccine to prevent infection by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19.

The Moderna vaccine trial is a world first not just for the particular disease target but because it is one of a whole new potential class of vaccines that employ messenger RNA (mRNA) to program human cells to produce the viral proteins that trigger an immune response, rather than injecting proteins or viral particles directly, as have most previous vaccines.

This natural role of mRNA is why Modernas approach is so quick. Normal vaccines have to be produced from actual viruses, which are grown within chicken eggs and then refined into sufficient quantities to be directly injected once weakened or killed into the human body. This takes months, at a minimum, and is difficult to scale quickly.

For the mRNA approach, all that was needed was the correct viral genetic sequence, which in the case of SARS-CoV-2 encodes for the spike proteins that enable the virus to gain entry into human respiratory cells. This genetic sequence for the viral protein can then be encoded into mRNA synthetically generated in a lab a rapid process that is easy to scale.

Thats the good news. The bad news is that the mRNA approach, while undoubtedly quick and versatile, is so new that it has yet to be fully proven in any vaccine in either humans or animals. Some tests have shown efficacy against rabies, for example, but others have shown little lasting immune response.

The mRNA approach is therefore a moon-shot rather than a marathon. Even so, Moderna is optimistic enough to already be making plans to produce millions of doses intended for health workers initially as early as this fall.

Other companies and partnerships are also racing to develop a vaccine using the same mRNA approach. One of these, the German firm CureVac, generated so much interest that President Trump reportedly tried to acquire it in order to ensure any potential vaccine would be available to Americans first.

Like Moderna, CureVacs efforts are supported financially by CEPI the international Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which has raised over $700 million from governments around the world and philanthropic foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which also supports the Cornell Alliance for Science) and Wellcome.

While Moderna has been able to restart vaccine projects originally intended for MERS and SARS, CureVac has already achieved some success with an mRNA vaccine against rabies virus in humans. In a Phase 1 trial doses as low as a millionth of a gram of mRNA vaccine were sufficient to fully protect humans against rabies, it reported in January.

Such small doses offer major promise for immunizing huge numbers of people if CureVac is able to achieve the same success with SARS-CoV-2 as it has with rabies and move rapidly into Phase 2 trials to further demonstrate real efficacy.

Also in Germany, BioNTech and Pfizer are racing to shift their mRNA vaccine work from influenza to SARS-CoV-2, and are aiming to start clinical trials as soon as April. As part of a broader collaboration, BioNTech has already demonstrated that an mRNA vaccine protected mice and non-human primates against Zika virus, raising hopes for similar effectiveness against COVID-19.

RNAs double-stranded cousin, DNA, is also being deployed in a novel but equally promising vaccine system against the coronavirus. The approach is related, but rather than injecting mRNA directly into cells so that it can produce viral proteins, DNA is inserted, which in turn produces mRNA inside cells to do the same job.

This DNA is not intended to integrate into the genome of the target cell in humans indeed if this happens, damaging mutations might occur. Instead, DNA is formed into circular plasmids which operate separately to the integral genetic material inside a cells nucleus. Like genomic DNA however, these plasmids are read and transcribed via mRNA into viral proteins which can then prime the bodys immune system against a later invasion by the real virus.

The US-based Inovio Pharmaceuticals announced on 12 March that it had received a grant of $5 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to accelerate the testing of a DNA vaccine for COVID-19, with a view to starting Phase 1 clinical trials in April.

Inovio has another advantage: its DNA vaccine INO-4700 was the only vaccine candidate against MERS to progress to Phase 2 trials demonstrating, at least initially, the potential feasibility of the DNA approach. The US Department of Defense with an eye to protecting its military personnel all over the world against COVID-19 has pumped another $11.9 million into INO-4800. The company has also demonstrated protection in early trials using its DNA vaccine against Chikungunya, Zika and influenza viruses.

CEPI is not putting all its eggs in one basket, however. As well as DNA and RNA systems, another promising approach for a COVID-19 vaccine is to use a genetically engineered measles vaccine a strategy supported by a $5 million CEPI grant split between collaborating institutions Themis in Vienna, Institut Pasteur in France and the University of Pittsburghs Center for Vaccine Research.

This takes the live attenuated measles virus vaccine a vaccine with a long history of safe use, having been used to immunize billions of children over the last 40 years and uses reverse genetics technology to insert new genes coding for proteins expressed by other viruses. These then induce an immune response against the new virus whose genetic material has been introduced.

The research team aims to have a COVID-19 candidate vaccine ready for animal testing as soon as April, with wider tests in human volunteers by the end of the year.

Measles virus is not the only candidate for the vector approach. Chinese scientists have reported that they are about to proceed to Phase I human trials with a vaccine candidate starting at the pandemics epicenter in Wuhan. The scientists have genetically engineered a replication-defective adenovirus type 5 (Ad5) as a vector to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, with the resulting vaccine candidate named Ad5-nCoV.

This is perhaps the easiest approach, as all that has to happen is for the engineered harmless adenovirus to infect patients in order to trigger the production of antibodies which should be effective against invading novel coronavirus too. The Chinese company CanSion Biologics has successfully demonstrated this approach with another fully completed vaccine against Ebola, Ad5-EBOV, which is already on the market in China.

A more tried-and-tested approach already widely used to produce flu vaccines is to grow viral proteins directly: these are then injected as a vaccine into human patients so that the immune system is already primed against the real pathogen when it attempts to infect the body. Usually chicken eggs are used, but to speed things up insect cell lines are becoming the preferred option for the coronavirus pandemic.

Here genetics is again an important component: the company Novavax uses a baculovirus vector to genetically engineer an insect cell line originally isolated decades ago from the ovaries of the fall armyworm. The baculovirus transports genes into the insect cells, which program them to manufacture viral proteins that are correctly folded and biologically active, more reliably enabling the human immune system to produce antibodies against them.

According to Novavax, its resulting recombinant protein nanoparticles then self-assemble into a structure that approximates the actual virus, helping enhance the immune response. It claims to have already tested this system in RSV virus, a recalcitrant pathogen that has so far resisted attempts at a vaccine. This approach looks promising enough that CEPI has pumped $4 million in so far with a view to launching Phase I trials by late spring 2020.

In a similar way, the company Sanofi is taking a snippet of genetic code from SARS-CoV-2 and splicing it also via baculovirus into insect cell lines. Its advantage, made in a pitch to the US government that resulted in a big cash injection, is that it already has an FDA-approved facility that could make 600 million doses a year of any resulting vaccine.

Plants can also be engineered to produce viral proteins. The company Medicago is working with genetically modified tobacco plants with this aim in mind. To speed things up, instead of adding new genes to the nucleus of cells and regenerating entire plants from these single cells (as happens with conventional plant genetic engineering), it uses the Agrobacterium vector in a vacuum to transfer recombinant DNA directly into the nucleus of fully-grown leaf cells. This DNA enables the production of the desired viral proteins without ever being integrated into the genome, enabling proteins to be harvested from transformed leaves within a matter of days.

Using this system, Medicago claims to have produced a virus-like particle of the coronavirus within just 20 daysof the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence becoming available. The government of Canada quickly put millions of dollars behind the effort as a result.

Astonishingly, given that the coronavirus pandemic is now threatening to devastate societies and economies around the planet on a scale second only to a world war, this effort is still short of cash. CEPI has issued an urgent call for funding, seeking to raise $2 billion: it says just $375 billion by the end of March would enable four-to-six vaccine candidates to move rapidly towards phase 2/3 trials.

Scientists are also hoping desperately that SARS-CoV-2 does not rapidly mutate as influenza viruses tend to do, which would likely reduce the effectiveness of any single vaccine. So far, according to researchers studying 1,000 samples of the virus from around the world, this seems not to be the case.

This means that the race to find a vaccine, and to do so in sufficient time to salvage the situation before the world tips into an economic depression and millions of people die, has a decent chance of success and that any successful vaccine would likely confer lasting immunity.

Meanwhile, all of humanity is waiting. And if the scientists do succeed in this urgent challenge, it will very likely be due to modern genetics. Though genetic engineering was once a dirty word, it now could literally help save the world.

View post:
Science to the rescue? How modern genetics could help save the world from coronavirus - Alliance for Science - Alliance for Science

NeuBase Therapeutics Announces Positive, Preclinical Data Validating its Novel Genetic Therapy PATrOL Platform – Yahoo Finance

Demonstrates broad biodistribution, including across the blood-brain barrier into the central nervous system, and into skeletal muscle, in non-human primates (NHPs) after systemic administration

Durable and therapeutically relevant drug concentrations achieved in NHPs after single intravenous dose

Potent cell-based activity and allele-specific enrichment in patient-derived cell lines

Platform validation data supports expansion of the therapeutic pipeline into new organ systems previously unreachable with first-generation antisense oligonucleotide technology

Management to hold a conference call today at 8 a.m. ET

PITTSBURGH, March 31, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:NBSE) (NeuBase or the Company), a biotechnology company developing next-generation antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) therapies to address genetic diseases, today announced positive preclinical data from its pharmacokinetics studies in non-human primates (NHPs) and in vitro pharmacodynamics data in patient-derived cell lines. NeuBase believes these data validate the key advantages of the proprietary NeuBase peptide-nucleic acid (PNA) antisense oligonucleotide (PATrOL) platform and support the Companys decision to advance the development of its Huntingtons disease (HD) and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) programs, as well as the potential expansion of its therapeutic pipeline into other indications.

Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and member of the National Academy of Sciences, stated, Given the activity and broad biodistribution observed in these studies and the potential for easier target definition, I believe the PATrOL technology may have a potent impact on the future of drug development and treatment of genetic diseases.

Non-Human Primate Pharmacokinetic Study

Quantitative whole-body autoradiography was performed on NHPs.A PATrOL-enabled compound was radio-labeled, and theresulting material was injected into NHPs at 5 mg/kg via a bolus tail vein injection. At four hours, twelve hours, and seven days post-dosing, NHPs were sacrificed andsectioned into 40 m slices.Slices were exposed to autoradiography imaging plates alongside a dilution series of radioactive PNA in whole blood.Upon imaging, the dilution series enabled an analysis of the amount of compound in each of the tissues. In addition, prior to sacrifice, whole blood, urine, and feces were collected from the NHPs at specified timepoints.The major conclusions from this study include:

Story continues

Rapid uptake of compound out of the bodys circulation after systemic intravenous administration, with a half-life in circulation of approximately 1.5 hours;

Compound penetrates every organ system studied, including the central nervous system and skeletal muscle;

Compound crosses the blood-brain barrier and into the key deep brain structures, including the caudate, supporting a key capability for the development of the Companys lead program in HD; Delivery of the compound to skeletal muscle, the primary organ system that is affected in DM1;Because both HD and DM1 have manifestations outside of the primary affected organ, the broad biodistribution of the compounds may enable a potential whole-body therapeutic solution in both indications.

96% of administered compound remained in vivo after a one-week period (latest timepoint tested);Redistribution over one week after administration between organ systems enriches concentrations in key brain regions up to two-fold, including in those deep brain structures most relevant for HD;Retention of ~90% of compound concentrations achieved in skeletal muscle over the course of one-week post-single-dose administration; and

Patient-Derived Huntingtons Cell Line Pharmacodynamic Studies

Multiple Huntingtons disease candidate compounds were incubated with HD-derived cells and assayed for their toxicity and their ability to selectively knock down mutant huntingtin protein (mHTT) expression by engaging with the CAG repeat expansion in the huntingtin (HTT) gene transcript. Multi-well plates were seeded with cells and candidates were added to the culture at various concentrations.Cells were grown for three days and thereafter assayed for cell death.Cell pellets were also collected, lysed, and run on gradient SDS-PAGE gels.Following the transfer of the proteins to a membrane, the membrane was probed with anti-huntingtin and anti-beta-actin antibodies.Secondary antibodies were used to image the immunoblots.The beta-actin bands were used to normalize the amount of protein across the wells.The amounts of mutant and wild type huntingtin protein in treated cells were compared to untreated cells to determine the level of knockdown.The major conclusions from this study include:

Activity in engaging target disease-causing transcripts and knocking-down resultant malfunctioning mHTT protein levels preferentially over normal HTT protein knock-down; and

Dose limiting toxicities were not observed relative to a control either at or above the doses demonstrating activity in human cells in vitro.

In addition, PATrOL enabled compounds were generally well-tolerated in vivo after systemic administration, both after single dose administration in NHPs and multi dose administration in mice for over a month.

We believe the PATrOL platform has the potential to create drugs that are easy for patients to take at infrequent intervals after they have tested positive for a genetic disease but before symptoms emerge, said Dietrich Stephan, Ph.D., chief executive officer of NeuBase. We believe the best way to effectively manage degenerative genetic diseases is to get ahead of the disease process, and we believe that can only be achieved with early diagnosis coupled with well-tolerated, effective, and easily administered therapies.

Dr. Robert Friedlander, chief medical officer of NeuBase and member of the National Academy of Medicine, stated, An allele specific approach that can be systemically administered and cross the blood brain barrier would be an ideal drug profile for many untreatablegenetic diseases.I believe that NeuBase is moving towards realizing this goal.

The intersection of the NHP pharmacokinetic data and the in vitro patient-derived pharmacodynamic data provides a roadmap to create a pipeline of therapeutic candidates which can reach target tissues of interest after systemic administration and achieve the desired activity at that dose. NeuBase believes the data from these studies support the advancement of the Companys HD and DM1 programs into lead optimization and subsequent IND-enabling studies, as well as provide a roadmap for the future expansion of the Companys therapeutic pipeline into other indications, including oncology.

Dr. Sam Broder, former Director of the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and member of the National Academy of Sciences, stated, I believe that the NeuBase strategy of targeting transcripts before they become dangerous mutant proteins has the potential to deliver a dramatic improvement in our collective capabilities to effectively treat a wide range of genetic diseases, including some of the most deadly cancers, by targeting driver mutations and accelerating immunotherapy capabilities.

Conference Call

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. will discuss these data and next steps for development during a webcasted conference call with slides today, March 31, 2020, at 8:00 a.m. ET. The live and archived webcast of this presentation can be accessed through the IR Calendar page on the Investors section of the Companys website, http://www.neubasetherapeutics.com. The dial-in details for the call are 877-451-6152 (domestic) or +1-201-389-0879 (international), and conference ID: 13701118. The archived webcasts will be available for approximately 30 days following the presentation date.

About NeuBase Therapeutics

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is developing the next generation of gene silencing therapies with its flexible, highly specific synthetic antisense oligonucleotides. The proprietary NeuBase peptide-nucleic acid (PNA) antisense oligonucleotide (PATrOL) platform is designed to permit the rapid development of targeted drugs, thereby potentially increasing the treatment opportunities for the hundreds of millions of people affected by rare genetic diseases, including those that can only be treated through accessing of secondary RNA structures. Using PATrOL technology, NeuBase aims to first tackle rare, genetic neurological disorders.

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements regarding the Companys goals and plans and the Companys pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies. These forward-looking statements are distinguished by use of words such as will, would, anticipate, expect, believe, designed, plan, or intend, the negative of these terms, and similar references to future periods. These views involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and, accordingly, our actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date of this press release. Factors or events that we cannot predict, including those described in the risk factors contained in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, may cause our actual results to differ from those expressed in forward-looking statements. The Company may not actually achieve the plans, carry out the intentions or meet the expectations or projections disclosed in the forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Because such statements deal with future events and are based on the Companys current expectations, they are subject to various risks and uncertainties and actual results, performance or achievements of the Company could differ materially from those described in or implied by the statements in this press release, including: the Companys plans to develop and commercialize its product candidates; the Companys plans to commence clinical trials in Huntingtons disease and myotonic dystrophy type 1 and to potentially expand the pipeline into other indications; the utility of the preclinical data generated in existing studies performed by the Company in determining the results of potential future clinical trials and of the potential benefits of the PATrOL platform technology; the timing of initiation of the Companys planned clinical trials; the timing of the availability of data from the Companys clinical trials; the timing of any planned investigational new drug application or new drug application; the Companys plans to research, develop and commercialize its current and potential future product candidates; the clinical utility, potential benefits and market acceptance of the Companys current and potential future product candidates; the Companys commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy; the Companys ability to protect its intellectual property position; and the requirement for additional capital to continue to advance these product candidates, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all, as well as those risk factors in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as otherwise required by law, the Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof, whether as a result of new information, future events or circumstances or otherwise.

NeuBase Investor Contact:Dan FerryManaging DirectorLifeSci Advisors, LLCDaniel@lifesciadvisors.comOP: (617) 535-7746

NeuBase Media Contact:Travis Kruse, Ph.D.Russo Partners, LLCtravis.kruse@russopartnersllc.comOP: (212) 845-4272

Read more:
NeuBase Therapeutics Announces Positive, Preclinical Data Validating its Novel Genetic Therapy PATrOL Platform - Yahoo Finance

BRIEF-Cancer Genetics To Delay Filing Of Its Annual Report – Reuters

March 30 (Reuters) - Cancer Genetics Inc:

* TO DELAY FILING OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO COVID-19

* COULD DELAY FUTURE PROJECTS FROM COMMENCING DUE TO COVID-19 RELATED IMPACTS ON THE DEMAND FOR OUR SERVICES

* IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME TO ESTIMATE THE IMPACT THAT COVID-19 COULD HAVE ON OUR BUSINESS

* MAY CONTINUE TO HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON GLOBAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH COULD HAVE ADVERSE EFFECT ON BUSINESS & FINANCIAL CONDITION Source text: bit.ly/3ax0maj Further company coverage:

Read the original here:
BRIEF-Cancer Genetics To Delay Filing Of Its Annual Report - Reuters

Her Genetic Test Revealed A Microscopic Problem And A Jumbo Price Tag – Bryan-College Station Eagle

Michelle Kuppersmith, 32, feels great, works full time and exercises three to four times a week. So she was surprised when a routine blood test found that her body was making too many platelets, which help control bleeding. Kuppersmiths doctor suspected she had a rare blood disorder called essential thrombocythemia, which can lead to blood clots, strokes and, in rare cases, leukemia.

[khnslabs slabs="813866"]

Her doctor suggested a bone marrow biopsy, in which a large needle is used to suck out a sample of the spongy tissue at the center of the patients hip bone. Doctors examine the bone marrow under a microscope and analyze the DNA. The procedure allows doctors to judge a patients prognosis and select treatment, if needed. Kuppersmith had heard the procedure can be intensely painful, so she put it off for months.

The biopsy performed by a provider in her insurance network, at a hospital in her network lasted only a few minutes, and Kuppersmith received relatively good news. While a genetic analysis of her bone marrow confirmed her doctors suspicions, it showed that the only treatment she needs, for now, is a daily, low-dose aspirin. She will check in with her doctor every three to four months to make sure the disease isnt getting worse.

All in all, Kuppersmith felt relieved.

Then she got a notice saying her insurer refused to pay for the genetic analysis, leaving her responsible for a $2,400 payment.

The Patient: New York resident Michelle Kuppersmith, 32, who is insured by Maryland-based CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. She works as director of special projects at a Washington-based, nonpartisan watchdog group. Because she was treated in New York, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield which covers that region handled part of her claim.

Total Amount Owed: $2,400 for out-of-network genetic profiling

[khnslabs slabs="790331" view="inline" /]

The Providers: Kuppersmith had her bone marrow removed at the Mount Sinai Ruttenberg Treatment Center in New York City, which sent her biopsy sample to a California lab, Genoptix, for testing.

Medical Services: Bone marrow biopsy and molecular profiling, which involves looking for genetic mutations

What Gives: The field of molecular diagnostics, which includes a variety of gene-based testing, is undergoing explosive growth, said Gillian Hooker, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and vice president of clinical development for Concert Genetics, a health IT company in Nashville, Tennessee.

A Concert Genetics report found there are more than 140,000 molecular diagnostic products on the market, with 10 to 15 added each day.

The field is growing so quickly that even doctors are struggling to develop a common vocabulary, Hooker said.

Kuppersmith underwent a type of testing known as molecular profiling, which looks for DNA biomarkers to predict whether patients will benefit from new, targeted therapies. These mutations arent inherited; they develop over the course of a patients life, Hooker said.

[documentcloud url="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6815388-BOTM-March2020.html" responsive=true]

Medicare spending on molecular diagnostics more than doubled from 2016 to 2018, increasing from $493 million to $1.1 billion, according to Laboratory Economics, a lab industry newsletter.

Charges range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on how many genes are involved and which billing codes laboratories use, Hooker said.

Based on Medicare data, at least 1,500 independent labs perform molecular testing, along with more than 500 hospital-based labs, said Jondavid Klipp, the newsletters publisher.

In a fast-evolving field with lots of money at stake, tests that a doctor or lab may regard as state-of-the-art an insurer might view as experimental.

Worse still, many of the commercial labs that perform the novel tests are out-of-network, as was Genoptix.

After lining up an in-network provider at an in-network hospital, Kuppersmith pushed back when she got a $2,400 charge for an out-of-network lab. She appealed and won but says, There are a lot of people who dont have the time or wherewithal to do this kind of fighting.

Stephanie Bywater, chief compliance officer at NeoGenomics Laboratories, which owns Genoptix, said that insurance policies governing approval have not kept up with the rapid pace of scientific advances. Kuppersmiths doctor ordered a test that has been available since 2014 and was updated in 2017, Bywater said.

Although experts agree that molecular diagnostics is an essential part of care for patients like Kuppersmith, doctors and insurance companies may not agree on which specific test is best, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Tests can be performed a number of different ways by a number of different laboratories who charge different amounts, Nichols said.

Insurance plans are much more likely to refuse to pay for molecular diagnostics than other lab tests. Laboratory Economics found Medicare contractors denied almost half of all molecular diagnostics claims over the past five years, compared with 5-10% of routine lab tests.

With so many insurance plans, so many new tests and so many new companies, it is difficult for a doctor to know which labs are in a patients network and which specific tests are covered, Nichols said.

Different providers have contracts with different diagnostic companies, which can affect a patients out-of-pocket costs, Nichols said. It is incredibly complex and really difficult to determine the best, least expensive path.

Kuppersmith said she has always been careful to check that her doctors accept her insurance. She made sure Mount Sinai was in her insurance network, too. But it never occurred to her that the biopsy would be sent to an outside lab or that it would undergo genetic analysis.

She added: The looming threat of a $2,400 bill has caused me, in many ways, more anxiety than the illness ever has.

Kuppersmiths doctor recommended a bone marrow biopsy after suspecting she had a rare blood disorder. Though the biopsy was done by an in-network provider at an in-network hospital, Kuppersmith learned she was on the hook for $2,400 for out-of-network genetic profiling.

The Resolution: Despite making dozens of phone calls, Kuppersmith got nothing but confusing and contradictory answers when she tried to sort out the unexpected charge.

An agent for her insurer told her that her doctor hadnt gotten preauthorization for the testing. But in an email to Kuppersmith, a Genoptix employee told her the insurance company had denied the claim because molecular profiling was viewed as experimental.

[khnslabs slabs="822742"]

A spokesperson for New York-based Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, which handled part of Kuppersmiths claim, said her health plan covers medically necessary genetic testing.

New York, one of 28 states with laws against surprise billing, requires hospitals to inform patients in writing if their care may include out-of-network providers, said attorney Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives at the Community Service Society, which provides free help with insurance problems.

A spokesperson for Mount Sinai said the hospital complies with that law, noting that Kuppersmith was given such a document in 2018 nearly one year before her bone marrow biopsy and signed it.

Benjamin said thats not OK, explaining: I think a one-year-old, vague form like the one she signed would not comply with the state law and certainly not the spirit of it.

Instead of sending Kuppersmith a bill, Genoptix offered to help her appeal the denied coverage to CareFirst. At first, Genoptix asked Kuppersmith to designate the company as her personal health care representative. She was uncomfortable signing over what sounded like sweeping legal rights to strangers. Instead, she wrote an email granting the company permission to negotiate on her behalf. It was sufficient.

A few days after being contacted by KHN, Kuppersmiths insurer said it would pay Genoptix at the in-network rate, covering $1,200 of the $2,400 charge. Genoptix said it has no plans to bill Kuppersmith for the other half of the charge.

The Takeaway: Kuppersmith is relieved her insurer changed its mind about her bill. But, she said: Im a relatively young, savvy person with a college degree. There are a lot of people who dont have the time or wherewithal to do this kind of fighting.

[khnslabs slabs="975218"]

Patients should ask their health care providers if any outside contractors will be involved in their care, including pathologists, anesthesiologists, clinical labs or radiologists, experts said. And check if those involved are in-network.

Try your best to ask in advance, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University. Ask, Do I have a choice about where [a blood or tissue sample] is sent?

Ask, too, if the sample will undergo molecular diagnostics. Since the testing is still relatively new and expensive most insurers require patients to obtain prior authorization, or special permission, said Dr. Debra Regier, a medical geneticist at Childrens National Hospital in Washington and an associate with NORD, the National Organization of Rare Diseases. Getting this permission in advance can prevent many headaches.

Finally, be wary of signing blanket consent forms telling you that some components of your care may be out-of-network. Tell your provider that you want to be informed on a case-by-case basis when an out-of-network provider is involved and to consent to their participation.

More:
Her Genetic Test Revealed A Microscopic Problem And A Jumbo Price Tag - Bryan-College Station Eagle

Global Animal Genetics Market Analysis to 2024 – A Look at the Major Challenges Inhibiting the Growth of the Market – Yahoo Finance

DUBLIN, March 30, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Global Animal Genetics Market: Focus on Solutions, Product Type, Industry Analysis and Forecast, 2019-2024" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This report covers the market dynamics and competitive landscape, along with the detailed financial and product contributions of the key players operating in the market. The animal genetics study is a compilation of different segments including market breakdown by product type, solution type, and region.

Increasing consumption of animal-derived protein, a growing population, rapid urbanization, and extensive adoption of genetic services to overcome genetic diseases in animals, coupled with increased adoption of genetic technologies, are some of the factors driving the growth of the animal genetics market.

Key Questions Answered in this Report:

What is the global animal genetics market size in terms of revenue, and what is the expected growth rate during the forecast period 2019-2024?

What are the traditional and emerging technologies in the animal genetics market?

What does the industry profitability by region in the animal genetics market signify?

What is the supply chain analysis of the animal genetics market?

What is the expected growth and market size for the animal genetics market based on different solutions?

What is the revenue generated by animal genetics in different product types such as live animals and genetic materials at a global and regional level?

What is the market size and opportunities of the animal genetics market across different regions?

What are the major forces that are expected to increase the demand for the global animal genetics market during the forecast period?

What are the key trends and opportunities in the market pertaining to global animal genetics?

What are the major challenges inhibiting the growth of the global animal genetics market?

What is the competitive strength of the key players in the animal genetics market on the basis of the analysis of their recent developments, product offerings, and regional presence?

Market Segmentation

The animal genetics market (on the basis of solution type) has been segmented into products and services. The product segment dominated the global animal genetics market in 2018 and is anticipated to maintain its dominance throughout the forecast period (2019-2024).

The animal genetics market, on the basis of product type, is segmented into live animals and genetic material. The genetic material segment dominated the global animal genetics market in 2018 and is anticipated to maintain its dominance throughout the forecast period.

The animal genetics market by region is segregated under four major sections, namely North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Rest-of-the-World. Data for each of these regions is provided on the basis of solutions and country-wise segmentations.

Story continues

Key Topics Covered:

Executive Summary

1 Market Dynamics1.1 Market Drivers1.1.1 Rising Demand for Animals with Uniform Traits1.1.2 Increasing Need for Global Food Security1.1.3 Requirement of Advanced Technologies to Ease Animal Agriculture1.2 Market Restraints1.2.1 Consolidating Genetics Industry Limiting the Potential of Small Business Operations1.2.2 Reducing Livestock Biodiversity Hampering the Growth of Livestock Genetics1.3 Market Opportunities1.3.1 Scope of Expansion in Developing Regions1.3.2 Exploring Market Potential for Innovative Phenotypes1.3.3 Integrating Big Data Tools and Infrastructure for Animal Agriculture

2 Competitive Landscape2.1 Key Market Developments and Strategies2.1.1 Business Expansion and Contracts2.1.2 Partnerships, Collaborations, and Joint Ventures2.1.3 Product Launches and Developments2.1.4 Mergers and Acquisitions2.1.5 Others (Awards and Recognitions)2.2 Leading Player Analysis of Global Animal Genetics Market

3 Industry Analysis3.1 Existing Technologies in the Animal Genetics Industry3.2 Emerging Technologies in the Animal Genetics Industry3.3 Supply Chain Analysis3.4 Industry Profitability of Animal Genetics (by Region)3.5 Regulatory Framework Surrounding the Animal Genetics Industry3.6 Traits Focused on Animal Genetics Industry

4 Global Animal Genetics Market (by Solution Type)4.1 Assumptions and Limitations for Analysis and Forecast of the Global Animal Genetics Market4.2 Market Overview4.3 Products4.4 Services

5 Global Animal Genetics Market (by Product Type)5.1 Market Overview5.2 Live Animals5.3 Genetic Materials5.3.1 Semen5.3.2 Embryo

6 Global Animal Genetics Market (by Region)6.1 North America6.3 Asia-Pacific6.4 Rest-of-the-World (RoW)

7 Company Profiles

8 Report Scope and Methodology

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/kcc0lt

About ResearchAndMarkets.comResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends.

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager press@researchandmarkets.com

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-animal-genetics-market-analysis-to-2024---a-look-at-the-major-challenges-inhibiting-the-growth-of-the-market-301031777.html

SOURCE Research and Markets

Visit link:
Global Animal Genetics Market Analysis to 2024 - A Look at the Major Challenges Inhibiting the Growth of the Market - Yahoo Finance