It’s the latest weight loss scheme to get Brits chirping: an oral pill that expands into a gastric balloon when ingested, to make patients feel fuller faster.
Launched to much buzz in the U.K. this week, the Obalon balloon has been garnering headlines for serving as a non-invasive, 15-minute version of traditional gastric balloon treatments which require going under the knife.
Here’s how it works: The vitamin-sized capsule is attached to a slender tube. After swallowing the capsule, gas is used to inflate the balloon through the tube. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114986785812523502052/114986785812523502052/posts
Once inflated, the tube is removed, leaving the balloon in the stomach. No sedation or anesthetic is required, and the whole process is said to take about 15 minutes.
Up to three balloons can be used over the 12-week treatment, which are then removed in a short endoscopic procedure.
The overall outcome is to partially fill the stomach and induce a feeling of fullness so that patients consume less.
According to the U.S. company’s own figures, the Obalon balloon helped clinical participants lose an average of eight percent of their total body weight and 49 percent of their excess body weight.
But if you think the gastric balloons will serve as an eat-free card, think again. On the first day, patients are advised to follow a liquid diet, followed by soft foods until the third day. The program also advises a sensible, healthy eating plan.
The capsule is available for those with a body mass index of 27 or higher and sold privately. The cost of a treatment? About £4,000 ($6,650 USD) for all three balloons.
Side effects can include everything from cramping and abdominal discomfort to nausea and vomiting.
The Obalon is available throughout European countries like Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain. The company is also in talks to enter South Korea.
Meanwhile, another extreme weight loss device that recently made headlines was the AspireAssist Aspiration Therapy System, an at-home stomach pump designed to pump out undigested food out through a hole in the patient’s belly, not unlike a vacuum.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Morning After Pill Doesn't Work in Heavy Women: Study
The European Medicines Agency says it has started a review of emergency contraceptives to see if they work less well in heavy women.
In November, French drug maker HRA Pharma announced its morning-after pill Norvelo was less effective in women weighing more than 75 kilograms (165 pounds) and that it didn't work in women more than 80 kilograms (176 pounds). HRA Pharma changed its labels to warn patients after consulting with European regulators.
In a statement on Friday, the EMA said it would evaluate new data suggesting that a high body weight could compromise the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. https://plus.google.com/b/110558892067998073617/110558892067998073617/posts"
This is an efficacy issue," said Monika Benstetter, an agency spokeswoman. "We need to find out what the association is with (body mass index) and if there is a cut-off threshold for when the medicine becomes less effective."
HRA Pharma's Norlevo contains levonorgestrel, the same active ingredient in other medicines including ellaOne, Levonnelle and Levodonna.
Benstetter said the EMA needed to perform an assessment of all products in the same category as Norlevo to ensure labels across the European Union are consistent. She said there was no timeline on when the review would be completed.
In November, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it was also studying the issue
The morning-after pill can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. It contains a higher dose of the hormone in regular birth control pills and works by preventing ovulation or fertilization of an egg. It has no effect if a woman is already pregnant.
Some doctors have previously advised that heavy women consider alternatives like a copper IUD, a birth control device that can be fitted on the uterus.
In November, French drug maker HRA Pharma announced its morning-after pill Norvelo was less effective in women weighing more than 75 kilograms (165 pounds) and that it didn't work in women more than 80 kilograms (176 pounds). HRA Pharma changed its labels to warn patients after consulting with European regulators.
In a statement on Friday, the EMA said it would evaluate new data suggesting that a high body weight could compromise the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. https://plus.google.com/b/110558892067998073617/110558892067998073617/posts"
This is an efficacy issue," said Monika Benstetter, an agency spokeswoman. "We need to find out what the association is with (body mass index) and if there is a cut-off threshold for when the medicine becomes less effective."
HRA Pharma's Norlevo contains levonorgestrel, the same active ingredient in other medicines including ellaOne, Levonnelle and Levodonna.
Benstetter said the EMA needed to perform an assessment of all products in the same category as Norlevo to ensure labels across the European Union are consistent. She said there was no timeline on when the review would be completed.
In November, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it was also studying the issue
The morning-after pill can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. It contains a higher dose of the hormone in regular birth control pills and works by preventing ovulation or fertilization of an egg. It has no effect if a woman is already pregnant.
Some doctors have previously advised that heavy women consider alternatives like a copper IUD, a birth control device that can be fitted on the uterus.
End of the Stethoscope?
A stethoscope draped across a doctor's chest is as classic an image of medicine as a white coat or a wooden tongue depressor.
But the stethoscope is an old-fashioned device that has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced in the very near future, a pair of prominent New York City cardiologists contends.
Hand-held ultrasound devices are becoming less expensive and soon will offer a viable and preferable alternative to the stethoscope, said Dr. Jagat Narula, associate dean for global affairs at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and editor-in-chief of the journal Global Heart. His editorial outlining the argument was published recently in the journal.
Special: These 5 Things Flush 40 lbs. of Fat Out of Your Body.
Doctors of the future will tote a small ultrasound device around in their pocket and use it to peek at a person's internal organs, rather than listening to the organs with a stethoscope, Narula wrote with his Mount Sinai colleague Dr. Bret Nelson. https://plus.google.com/b/110558892067998073617/110558892067998073617/posts
"We should be able to replace the stethoscope with ultrasound," Narula said. "Basically the time has come that we need to ascend to a new era. We have this technology available to us, and we need to use it not only as an investigational and diagnostic tool but as a basic patient examination tool."
That said, many doctors will not throw away their stethoscopes without a fight.
"I disagree with the author's premise. The stethoscope is as important as it ever has been," said Dr. Charles Cutler, chairman of the American College of Physicians' Board of Regents. "I understand where the author is coming from, and as a world we are going more and more toward technology. But I think in medicine, more is not always better."
The stethoscope dates back to 1816, when it was invented in Paris by the French physician Rene Laennec. Laennec pioneered its use in diagnosing chest conditions, and it has since become a standard piece of equipment in basic patient examinations.
Ultrasound technology came along in the 1950s, and has gotten more portable and more accurate over time, Narula pointed out. Doctors can now purchase a device not much larger than a deck of cards, with the technology and screen of modern smartphones, for between $8,000 and $10,000.
"As competition arises, I believe this will be between $1,000 and $2,000 within a year or two," Narula said. "Once it is at that cost, it will be used much more commonly than it is used today."
Ultrasound allows a doctor to actually see a patient's organs, rather than listening to them for clues of illness, he explained. This will reduce the need for unnecessary testing, he argued, as doctors will be able to see for themselves rather than sending a patient for a follow-up CT scan or MRI.
"You can look at almost everything, right there at the bedside or examination room," Narula said. "Most of the time, the technology takes you away from the patient. By doing this, we will be bringing back the relationship between the doctor and the patient."
But Cutler believes the opposite will occur, and more unnecessary tests will take place because doctors will see many things they can't interpret.
"An ultrasound will turn up things that may not be there," Cutler said, providing the example of a heart valve that looks a little different on an ultrasound, leading the doctor to call for a CT scan. "It may be a false alarm, but now you have ordered the test and you have worried the patient," he explained.
Another expert pointed out another downside with ultrasound technology.
Adopting ultrasound will also place a huge burden on medical students, who will have to learn how to properly read ultrasound results on top of their already packed curriculum, said Dr. Robert Bonow, a cardiologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and a spokesman for the American Heart Association.
But Narula believes ultrasound will become more ubiquitous as medical schools begin teaching use of the technology as a common examination tool.
"I think it has to be a part of culture, and it will become part of culture when we begin using it in medical school," Narula said.
However, cost will be a deciding factor that keeps ultrasound technology from replacing the stethoscope anytime soon, Cutler said.
"A stethoscope costs $25," he said. "Why should the medical system spend millions of dollars on equipment when they don't have to? They could spend a fraction of the cost on stethoscopes."
Bonow shares Cutler's concerns. He likens ultrasound to the hand-held medical device used in "Star Trek" that doctors waved over patients.
"I believe that's not going to be science fiction in 30 to 50 years, but going from here to there is going to take several steps we're going to have to explore," Bonow said. "Maybe we should give 50 percent of the medical students training in this device and see how well they perform relative to the others. But I don't think we're ready to throw away the stethoscope."
But the stethoscope is an old-fashioned device that has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced in the very near future, a pair of prominent New York City cardiologists contends.
Hand-held ultrasound devices are becoming less expensive and soon will offer a viable and preferable alternative to the stethoscope, said Dr. Jagat Narula, associate dean for global affairs at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and editor-in-chief of the journal Global Heart. His editorial outlining the argument was published recently in the journal.
Special: These 5 Things Flush 40 lbs. of Fat Out of Your Body.
Doctors of the future will tote a small ultrasound device around in their pocket and use it to peek at a person's internal organs, rather than listening to the organs with a stethoscope, Narula wrote with his Mount Sinai colleague Dr. Bret Nelson. https://plus.google.com/b/110558892067998073617/110558892067998073617/posts
"We should be able to replace the stethoscope with ultrasound," Narula said. "Basically the time has come that we need to ascend to a new era. We have this technology available to us, and we need to use it not only as an investigational and diagnostic tool but as a basic patient examination tool."
That said, many doctors will not throw away their stethoscopes without a fight.
"I disagree with the author's premise. The stethoscope is as important as it ever has been," said Dr. Charles Cutler, chairman of the American College of Physicians' Board of Regents. "I understand where the author is coming from, and as a world we are going more and more toward technology. But I think in medicine, more is not always better."
The stethoscope dates back to 1816, when it was invented in Paris by the French physician Rene Laennec. Laennec pioneered its use in diagnosing chest conditions, and it has since become a standard piece of equipment in basic patient examinations.
Ultrasound technology came along in the 1950s, and has gotten more portable and more accurate over time, Narula pointed out. Doctors can now purchase a device not much larger than a deck of cards, with the technology and screen of modern smartphones, for between $8,000 and $10,000.
"As competition arises, I believe this will be between $1,000 and $2,000 within a year or two," Narula said. "Once it is at that cost, it will be used much more commonly than it is used today."
Ultrasound allows a doctor to actually see a patient's organs, rather than listening to them for clues of illness, he explained. This will reduce the need for unnecessary testing, he argued, as doctors will be able to see for themselves rather than sending a patient for a follow-up CT scan or MRI.
"You can look at almost everything, right there at the bedside or examination room," Narula said. "Most of the time, the technology takes you away from the patient. By doing this, we will be bringing back the relationship between the doctor and the patient."
But Cutler believes the opposite will occur, and more unnecessary tests will take place because doctors will see many things they can't interpret.
"An ultrasound will turn up things that may not be there," Cutler said, providing the example of a heart valve that looks a little different on an ultrasound, leading the doctor to call for a CT scan. "It may be a false alarm, but now you have ordered the test and you have worried the patient," he explained.
Another expert pointed out another downside with ultrasound technology.
Adopting ultrasound will also place a huge burden on medical students, who will have to learn how to properly read ultrasound results on top of their already packed curriculum, said Dr. Robert Bonow, a cardiologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and a spokesman for the American Heart Association.
But Narula believes ultrasound will become more ubiquitous as medical schools begin teaching use of the technology as a common examination tool.
"I think it has to be a part of culture, and it will become part of culture when we begin using it in medical school," Narula said.
However, cost will be a deciding factor that keeps ultrasound technology from replacing the stethoscope anytime soon, Cutler said.
"A stethoscope costs $25," he said. "Why should the medical system spend millions of dollars on equipment when they don't have to? They could spend a fraction of the cost on stethoscopes."
Bonow shares Cutler's concerns. He likens ultrasound to the hand-held medical device used in "Star Trek" that doctors waved over patients.
"I believe that's not going to be science fiction in 30 to 50 years, but going from here to there is going to take several steps we're going to have to explore," Bonow said. "Maybe we should give 50 percent of the medical students training in this device and see how well they perform relative to the others. But I don't think we're ready to throw away the stethoscope."
Social Media Robs Kids of Sleep: Study
Kids who regularly plugged into social networking sites before bedtime reported sleeping nearly an hour less on school nights than those who rarely connected online, a new study shows.
"Using technology in the bedroom may result in sleep loss, delays in initiating sleep, daytime sleepiness and more," the study's lead author, Teresa Arora, told Reuters Health in an email.
"In turn, this may affect daytime performance, particularly at school," Arora, from Weill Cornell Medical College in Doha, Qatar, said.
The researchers found kids ages 11 to 13 slept significantly less when they frequently communicated on a cell phone, surfed the Internet, played video games, watched television, listened to music and even if they used a computer to study before hitting the sack. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/106965269134143776146/106965269134143776146/posts
Social networking was associated with the biggest loss of sleep. Those who said they usually connected to friends online before getting into bed reported sleeping the least - an average of 8 hours and 10 minutes a night - compared with 9 hours and 2 minutes among those who never connected.
Earlier studies have linked sleep deprivation to obesity, depression, difficulty regulating emotions and lower grades. A Chinese study published last month found staying up late may raise teens' blood pressure.
For the current study, the researchers analyzed surveys on sleep and technology habits completed by 738 students at seven randomly selected schools in the Midlands region of England in 2010.
Kids who frequently viewed TV before bed were four times more likely to report waking up several times during the night than non-viewers, and frequent social networkers were three times more likely to wake up a lot. Kids who regularly played video games or listened to music at bedtime had significantly more difficulty falling asleep, the researchers reported in Sleep Medicine.
Teenagers' sleep schedules naturally tend to shift as a result of feeling alert later at night and having trouble falling asleep. But technology may worsen the tendency to burn the midnight oil, Arora and her colleagues wrote.
The findings came as no surprise to Dr. Nanci Yuan, medical director of the Sleep Center at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital in Palo Alto, California. She was not involved in the new study.
"The advent of technology has made every age group, but especially teenagers, have difficulties with their sleep," Yuan, who also studies sleep disorders at Stanford University, told Reuters Health.
"We're seeing more sleep-deprivation problems in society as a whole, and we're seeing it more in teenagers."
Children from 11 to 13 years old need between 10 and 11 hours of continuous sleep a night for optimal health, she said. She recommended adolescents shut down all electronics, ideally removing them from the bedroom, at least one hour, and preferably two, before turning in.
"We have to make sleep a priority as important as good nutrition and exercise," she said.
Christina Calamaro similarly stressed the need to unplug at least an hour before lights out. She has studied the effect of technology on adolescent sleep at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware but was not involved in the current study.
Calamaro called on healthcare professionals to do more to educate parents about children's need for uninterrupted sleep.
"We need to teach adolescents boundaries with technology," she told Reuters Health. "We need to really drive home that message to parents about modeling sleep behavior in their home."
"Using technology in the bedroom may result in sleep loss, delays in initiating sleep, daytime sleepiness and more," the study's lead author, Teresa Arora, told Reuters Health in an email.
"In turn, this may affect daytime performance, particularly at school," Arora, from Weill Cornell Medical College in Doha, Qatar, said.
The researchers found kids ages 11 to 13 slept significantly less when they frequently communicated on a cell phone, surfed the Internet, played video games, watched television, listened to music and even if they used a computer to study before hitting the sack. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/106965269134143776146/106965269134143776146/posts
Social networking was associated with the biggest loss of sleep. Those who said they usually connected to friends online before getting into bed reported sleeping the least - an average of 8 hours and 10 minutes a night - compared with 9 hours and 2 minutes among those who never connected.
Earlier studies have linked sleep deprivation to obesity, depression, difficulty regulating emotions and lower grades. A Chinese study published last month found staying up late may raise teens' blood pressure.
For the current study, the researchers analyzed surveys on sleep and technology habits completed by 738 students at seven randomly selected schools in the Midlands region of England in 2010.
Kids who frequently viewed TV before bed were four times more likely to report waking up several times during the night than non-viewers, and frequent social networkers were three times more likely to wake up a lot. Kids who regularly played video games or listened to music at bedtime had significantly more difficulty falling asleep, the researchers reported in Sleep Medicine.
Teenagers' sleep schedules naturally tend to shift as a result of feeling alert later at night and having trouble falling asleep. But technology may worsen the tendency to burn the midnight oil, Arora and her colleagues wrote.
The findings came as no surprise to Dr. Nanci Yuan, medical director of the Sleep Center at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital in Palo Alto, California. She was not involved in the new study.
"The advent of technology has made every age group, but especially teenagers, have difficulties with their sleep," Yuan, who also studies sleep disorders at Stanford University, told Reuters Health.
"We're seeing more sleep-deprivation problems in society as a whole, and we're seeing it more in teenagers."
Children from 11 to 13 years old need between 10 and 11 hours of continuous sleep a night for optimal health, she said. She recommended adolescents shut down all electronics, ideally removing them from the bedroom, at least one hour, and preferably two, before turning in.
"We have to make sleep a priority as important as good nutrition and exercise," she said.
Christina Calamaro similarly stressed the need to unplug at least an hour before lights out. She has studied the effect of technology on adolescent sleep at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware but was not involved in the current study.
Calamaro called on healthcare professionals to do more to educate parents about children's need for uninterrupted sleep.
"We need to teach adolescents boundaries with technology," she told Reuters Health. "We need to really drive home that message to parents about modeling sleep behavior in their home."
Glaucoma Blindness Cut in Half
Better eye care seems to have brightened the long-term outlook for people with glaucoma. The likelihood of blindness in glaucoma patients 20 years after diagnosis has fallen by at least half in the last generation, according to a new study.
Researchers analyzed the medical records of all the people 40 and older in Olmsted County, Minn., who were diagnosed with the eye disease between 1981 and 2000. The investigators compared these people to patients diagnosed with glaucoma between 1965 and 1980.
The incidence of glaucoma did not change, but the risk of going blind in at least one eye fell from about 26 percent in the earlier group of patients to less than 14 percent in the newer group. The researchers also found that the annual incidence of glaucoma-caused blindness dropped by more than half.
Special: These 5 Things Flush 40 lbs. of Fat Out of Your Body. https://plus.google.com/b/107702847333617161236/107702847333617161236/posts
The results were published online in the January issue of the journal Ophthalmology.
"This is a testament to the skill and effort of the researchers, physicians and other care providers working in eye care over that period," study senior author Dr. Arthur Sit, a Mayo Clinic ophthalmologist, said in a Mayo news release.
"Our improved understanding of glaucoma, along with better treatment and management of patients seem to have had this impact. Still, much research and public education remains to be performed," said Sit. "A 14 percent blindness rate from a common eye disease is hardly ideal."
Sit said early diagnosis was not a factor in the decreased risk of blindness from glaucoma, noting that the age of first diagnosis did not change.
The only early warning sign of glaucoma is a loss of peripheral vision, but most people fail to notice this change. Regular eye exams are the best way to diagnose the condition, Sit said.
Researchers analyzed the medical records of all the people 40 and older in Olmsted County, Minn., who were diagnosed with the eye disease between 1981 and 2000. The investigators compared these people to patients diagnosed with glaucoma between 1965 and 1980.
The incidence of glaucoma did not change, but the risk of going blind in at least one eye fell from about 26 percent in the earlier group of patients to less than 14 percent in the newer group. The researchers also found that the annual incidence of glaucoma-caused blindness dropped by more than half.
Special: These 5 Things Flush 40 lbs. of Fat Out of Your Body. https://plus.google.com/b/107702847333617161236/107702847333617161236/posts
The results were published online in the January issue of the journal Ophthalmology.
"This is a testament to the skill and effort of the researchers, physicians and other care providers working in eye care over that period," study senior author Dr. Arthur Sit, a Mayo Clinic ophthalmologist, said in a Mayo news release.
"Our improved understanding of glaucoma, along with better treatment and management of patients seem to have had this impact. Still, much research and public education remains to be performed," said Sit. "A 14 percent blindness rate from a common eye disease is hardly ideal."
Sit said early diagnosis was not a factor in the decreased risk of blindness from glaucoma, noting that the age of first diagnosis did not change.
The only early warning sign of glaucoma is a loss of peripheral vision, but most people fail to notice this change. Regular eye exams are the best way to diagnose the condition, Sit said.
Mother Seeks Medical Marijuana for 3-Year-Old Twins
A Maryland mother is working with state lawmakers to clear the way to give her 3-year-old twin boys medical marijuana to help ease their severe seizures, Fox News reports.
Nicolas and Byron Deliyannis were born with a rare disorder called Miller-Dieker syndrome that causes almost daily seizures. Their mother, Shannon Moore, says nothing doctors has helped them.
"The medicines that they're on, in addition to having really negative side effects, have really stopped working for them," she says. https://plus.google.com/104211263857537740470/posts
Special: Chocolate's 700 Year History of Healing
Moore wants to give her kids medical marijuana to help calm their seizures, after learning about the therapy from a news report. But marijuana isn't legal in Maryland.
"Medical marijuana is helping to save lives of children with catastrophic epilepsy in other states where it's legal, and I want it to be legal here," Moore says.
Last year, the state legislature passed a bill making medical marijuana available through academic medical centers, but none has stepped forward to do so.
Now, Moore is working with local and state lawmakers, including Frederick County Delegate Patrick Hogan, to expand on that law. A bill is being introduced next week to make medical marijuana legal in Maryland.
"We took a step as a state last year to move forward with medical marijuana, and I feel like if we're going to do that, then we should make it available to those who can benefit from that," says Hogan.
Nicolas and Byron Deliyannis were born with a rare disorder called Miller-Dieker syndrome that causes almost daily seizures. Their mother, Shannon Moore, says nothing doctors has helped them.
"The medicines that they're on, in addition to having really negative side effects, have really stopped working for them," she says. https://plus.google.com/104211263857537740470/posts
Special: Chocolate's 700 Year History of Healing
Moore wants to give her kids medical marijuana to help calm their seizures, after learning about the therapy from a news report. But marijuana isn't legal in Maryland.
"Medical marijuana is helping to save lives of children with catastrophic epilepsy in other states where it's legal, and I want it to be legal here," Moore says.
Last year, the state legislature passed a bill making medical marijuana available through academic medical centers, but none has stepped forward to do so.
Now, Moore is working with local and state lawmakers, including Frederick County Delegate Patrick Hogan, to expand on that law. A bill is being introduced next week to make medical marijuana legal in Maryland.
"We took a step as a state last year to move forward with medical marijuana, and I feel like if we're going to do that, then we should make it available to those who can benefit from that," says Hogan.
Pill 'Melts Away' Leukemia, Scientists Report
A pill taken twice a day could turn a common and deadly form of leukemia into a manageable disease that is treated as easily as high blood pressure, a new international suggests.
In research published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine, scientists led by Weill Cornell Medical College determined the drug idelalisib can "melt away" chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), allowing patients to avoid having to take debilitating chemotherapy.
Editor's Note: Knowing these 5 cancer-causing signs is crucial to remaining cancer-free for life https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/106965269134143776146/106965269134143776146/posts
CLL is the most common form of the blood cancer, striking 16,000 Americans each year and killing 5,000 annually. Current treatment involves chemotherapy, but it is highly toxic and carries significant side effects.
"The treatment today for CLL can be worse than the disease, leading to a great deal of side effects and death. This study, and others we have conducted on idelalisib, demonstrates that we may no longer need to use chemotherapy in CLL," said lead investigator Richard R. Furman, M.D., a professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an oncologist at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "Even if this cancer remains incurable, it now can be treated as if it was a chronic disease with a pill, in the same way that high blood pressure is treated."
For the study, researchers from 19 medical centers in five countries tested a combination of two targeted drugs — comparing rituximab and idelalisib against rituximab and a placebo pill in 220 patients.
They found that those who received the combination of idelalsib and rituximab fared better than those who received only rituximab. Six months into the study, cancers in 93 percent of participants in the combination therapy group had not worsened, compared to 46 percent of those in the rituximab plus placebo group.
What's more, just 13 percent of patients treated with rituximab alone responded to the therapy, compared to 81 percent of the participants in the idelalisib treatment group. A higher percentage of patients who received both drugs – some 92 percent – were still alive a year after the study began, compared to 80 percent of those who only received rituximab.
"We saw incredible responses in patients who used idelalisib. Their cancer quickly melted away," said Dr. Furman. "These types of responses were even seen in patients who didn't respond to chemotherapy."
In research published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine, scientists led by Weill Cornell Medical College determined the drug idelalisib can "melt away" chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), allowing patients to avoid having to take debilitating chemotherapy.
Editor's Note: Knowing these 5 cancer-causing signs is crucial to remaining cancer-free for life https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/106965269134143776146/106965269134143776146/posts
CLL is the most common form of the blood cancer, striking 16,000 Americans each year and killing 5,000 annually. Current treatment involves chemotherapy, but it is highly toxic and carries significant side effects.
"The treatment today for CLL can be worse than the disease, leading to a great deal of side effects and death. This study, and others we have conducted on idelalisib, demonstrates that we may no longer need to use chemotherapy in CLL," said lead investigator Richard R. Furman, M.D., a professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an oncologist at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "Even if this cancer remains incurable, it now can be treated as if it was a chronic disease with a pill, in the same way that high blood pressure is treated."
For the study, researchers from 19 medical centers in five countries tested a combination of two targeted drugs — comparing rituximab and idelalisib against rituximab and a placebo pill in 220 patients.
They found that those who received the combination of idelalsib and rituximab fared better than those who received only rituximab. Six months into the study, cancers in 93 percent of participants in the combination therapy group had not worsened, compared to 46 percent of those in the rituximab plus placebo group.
What's more, just 13 percent of patients treated with rituximab alone responded to the therapy, compared to 81 percent of the participants in the idelalisib treatment group. A higher percentage of patients who received both drugs – some 92 percent – were still alive a year after the study began, compared to 80 percent of those who only received rituximab.
"We saw incredible responses in patients who used idelalisib. Their cancer quickly melted away," said Dr. Furman. "These types of responses were even seen in patients who didn't respond to chemotherapy."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)