The value of medicine

Drugs

Drug discovery is a long, arduous and expensive process. Is it worth it?

“One minute I was looking at death. The next, I was looking at my whole life in front of me,” said Suzan McNamara, a patient suffering from chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), a nasty form of blood cancer. She had just heard that she would be receiving doses of imatinib, a drug that had shown remarkable recovery among patients of this cancer. Four decades of research was needed to make this drug, and to enable such a moment for a cancer patient. It is Ms McNamara’s story and that of many others like her that could possibly justify billions of dollars and years of efforts put into discovering drugs.

CML causes unregulated growth of white blood cells leading to pain, debilitating illness, and, before imatinib was discovered, all too often, death. The only options for treatment, before the drug therapy became common, were a bone marrow transplant, which is very risky, or daily infusions of interferon, an artificial way of boosting a patient’s immune system that has severe side-effects.

The process of discovering a drug like imatinib, commercially known as Gleevec, is a long one. First pharmacologists pick apart the workings of the disease and find a pathway that can be targeted. Then chemists design molecules or use readymade libraries of molecules to block (or, occasionally, activate) that pathway. Typically, of the 5000 molecules that showed promise at this first step, on average, only five are deemed safe enough to undergo human trials. Then, after three to six years of clinical testing, only one of those five molecules may become a drug. Finding a drug is literally like looking for a needle in a haystack. All considered, the success rate is 0.02% and it requires more than a decade worth of research at an average cost of $1 billion.

But imatinib was worth it. It was the first drug that could precisely target cancerous molecules. The science that underpins the achievement began with a discovery in 1960. Two researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that cancerous cells possessed a particularly small chromosome (number 22 out of the 23 chromosomes that make up human DNA), and this was proposed as the cause of unregulated growth. This was the first time that cancer was linked to a genetic abnormality.

How that abnormality led to cancer remained a mystery until new techniques to visualise segments of this chromosome were found in 1973. Then Janet Rowley, of the University of Chicago, showed that the small size of chromosome 22 was due to an exchange of one of its large segments with a small fragment from chromosome 9. The alien material on chromosome 22 now led to the production of a cancer-causing protein. This rogue protein, an enzyme, was involved in the regulation of cell growth. Dr Rowley postulated that blocking this enzyme should stop cancerous cells.

The charge to find the blocking agent was taken up by medicinal chemist Nicholas Lydon, of Novartis, and oncologist Brian Druker, then of the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute in Boston. They needed to find a molecule that will selectively block the rogue enzyme and leave hundreds of useful ones alone. Following the iterations of the drug discovery process, the team took eight years of efforts to find imatinib. In Phase II clinical trials nearly every patient who took the drug felt surprisingly better in a short period of time, which led to a fast-tracked approval for the molecule from the Food and Drug Administration in 2001.

Imatinib was also approved for treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours and other forms of leukaemia, too. Earlier this year, Dr Rowley, Dr Lydon and Dr Druker received the prestigious $650,000 Japan Prize given for outstanding achievements that advance the frontiers of knowledge. “Their work shocked the world of clinical medicine”, the prize citation said. Times have changed drastically from early 20th century when patients depended on good fortune, as drugs were often only found serendipitously.

Ms McNamara was diagnosed with CML in 1998. By the time she received imatinib through a clinical trial in January 2000, her condition had become quite severe. “I was basically on my last limb,” she recalls. Before imatinib was discovered, only three out of five CML patients survived for more than five years after diagnosis. But a 2011 study showed that even eight years after diagnosis, only 1% of CML-related deaths occur among patients using the wonder drug.

With her health restored to normal, Ms McNamara went on to get a PhD in leukaemia research. Quite early in her studies she realised she may not be the one to cure leukaemia herself, but she said, “I might publish one paper that has one key for the next person to go a step further. That’s important”.

Drug discovery is a long, arduous, and expensive endeavour, but it is a process that is being continuously refined to produce results faster and more cheaply. Researchers consider themselves fortunate if they witness the successful launch of a drug in their lifetime, but extraordinary stories of patients motivate them to keep improving this process and searching for that elusive molecule.

Free image from here.

Stay sharper for longer

Fighting cognitive decline can be simple but needs an early start 

With the advent of old age, incidences of misplaced keys and embarrassing moments of forgotten names occur more often. As you inch closer to becoming a senior citizen, certain cognitive skills start to decline and others improve. But you can still find some 70-year-olds who can beat those at 50 on a memory test. How do they retain such abilities and how can that knowledge be used to our advantage?

Results emerging from a unique study titled “Midlife in the United States” (or Midus) have shown that there might indeed be ways to slow down the inevitable slide. Margie Lachman, psychologist at Brandeis University and principal investigator for Midus, found education to be the most essential element of mental fitness. For middle-agers, a university degree obtained in younger days can slow the brain’s aging process by up to a decade.

Intelligence can be viewed as a composite of cognitive skills. Those skills that decline with age are categorised as fluid intelligence (pattern recognition, working memory and abstract thinking), while those that improve are called crystallised intelligence (verbal ability, inductive reasoning and judgment). Critically, it is fluid intelligence in the younger generation that gives them an advantage over the older.

Midus researchers found a robust correlation between senior citizens with the strongest cognitive skills and those who exercised frequently, engaged in social activities, coped well with stress and felt more in control of their lives. To probe into ways of delaying the decline in fluid intelligence, Dr Lachman and colleagues reviewed results from Midus studies. They were surprised to find that even into middle age and beyond, people could improve their fluid intelligence enough to make up for a lack of formal education.

To understand the factors that enabled this cognitive leap, Dr Lachman tested thousands of Midus participants for memory, calculation and reasoning. It involved reciting 15 common words and then recalling them after a 90-second delay, a check for verbal memory; counting as many digits as possible backwards from 100 in 30 seconds to assess processing speed; and, for numerical reasoning, completing a series of numbers, for instance, determining the next number in the series 1, 4, 9, 16.

Results from this study, that were published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, indicate that being regularly exercising the brain with activities such as reading, writing, attending lectures or completing word puzzles help maintain fluid intelligence to a similar extent as younger people (<40 years of age). Such simple habits seemed to even compensate for the intellectual stimulation offered by formal university education.

A closely related study titled “Whitehall II”, conducted in Britain, indicates that cognitive decline begins at 45 years, which is much earlier than previously thought. The study, which spanned a period of 24 years and involved thousands of civil servants, has brought into question the widely accepted results of two smaller American studies which put the onset of cognitive decline at 55 years. The Whitehall II study began in 1985, and recorded responses from 7500 men and women. Archana Singh-Manoux, lead author of the study and research director at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris, also found that health practices that are good for our heart are good for our brain, too. A lifestyle that reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as regular exercise and balanced diet, seems to also slow down cognitive decline. Well-directed clinical practices and public health policies may enable better cardiovascular care and hope to preserve our fluid intelligence.

Edinburgh University’s Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology has also published a number of studies about factors that can mitigate cognitive decline. One such study published in Psychology and Aging in June this year found that those who were more open to new experiences were more likely to preserve their fluid intelligence.

As the western economies face an increased aging population and signs of cognitive decline appear at an earlier age, continued development from such studies could aid older generations to stay at their peak performance for longer. At an individual level though, starting to incorporate simple habits today could turn misplaced keys and forgotten names into distant memories.

This article was first published in the Autumn 2012 issue of eu:sci, Edinburgh University’s science magazine.

References:

  1. Lachman et al., American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2010
  2. Whitehall II study
  3. Hogan et al., Psychology and Aging, 2012

Free image from sxc.hu

Grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email to this blog.

The magical role of the doormen

Half of all pharmaceuticals work because of a family of proteins that sit on the boundary of cells in the human body. This year’s Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka for their work on a family proteins called G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Nearly every function of the human body from smell and sight to heart rate modification is dependent on GPCRs. Dr Lefkowitz and Dr Kobilka have helped us understand their chemical structure and mode of action to help create better means of manipulating them to our advantage.

Embedded in the fatty membranes of cells, GPCRs act as doormen to a mansion. They detect chemical signals that reach the cell and convey messages through creation of G proteins inside the cell. These G proteins that take on the role of maid servants then act on the message by activating the necessary response.

But this was not known until the 1960s. All that was known then was that hormones communicated with cells in someway but no one knew how. Dr Lefkowitz started probing these hormones by attaching radioactive isotope Iodine on to them. This revealed that the cell membrane had special proteins that acted as telegraph operators relaying information from one side to the other. He was able to identify one class of these proteins called beta-2 adrenergic receptors. These are interesting because they are now implicated in responding to the neurotransmitter adrenaline known to control the fight-or-flight response.

In 1984 when Dr Kobilka arrived in Dr Lefkowitz’s lab, the lab was working on duplicating the gene sequence that made beta-2 adernergic receptors. If they could, then it would enable them to know more about the role of these proteins and how they work. When they eventually managed to do it, after a lot of failed attempts, they realised that this protein was very similar to rhodopsin, a protein that sits in the retina and is responsible our perception of light. Rhodopsin was known to activate G-proteins in the cell and that is it was thought that these could be a class of proteins, now known as GPCRs.

We now know that human body has about 800 GPCRs splayed across different cells performing some of the most critical functions. About half of these are predicted to be pharmaceutically useful, but less than 10% of that have drugs targeting them today. A major hurdle in creating pharmaceuticals for them is because little is known about the chemical structure of these proteins.

A way to shine light on the chemical nature of proteins is by using X-ray crystallography. To do that though, a protein first needs to be crystallised (lots of molecules arranged in a regular fashion in a tiny space). Proteins, in general, and GPCRs, particularly, are notoriously difficult at doing that. Of the 63 million proteins registered in the database of the Chemical Abstracts Service, only 600 have comprehensive structural data available for them. But in 2007 after decades of work Dr Kobilka managed to tame the beta-2 adrenergic receptors and published its structure in Nature.

The pharmaceutical industry has only started scratching the surface when it comes to designing drugs that affect GPCRs. And that has been the result of many decades of efforts by structural biologists and medicinal chemists in academia and industry. The work of Dr Lefkowitz and Dr Kobilka has opened the possibility of better understanding what one scientist calls cell biology—an alien world that has the most profound impact on humanity.

Main references:
  1. Rasmussen et al, Nature, 2007
  2. Buchen, Nature, 2011
  3. Sansom, Chemistry World, 2010
Image from here.