US FDA approves Amgen's Uplizna as first treatment for rare immune disorder
The drug, also known as inebilizumab, has now become the first FDA-approved treatment for Immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD), a rare condition in which an overactive immune system can lead to inflammation and scarring in various organs, including the pancreas, liver and kidneys.
Keep up with the latest medical breakthroughs and healthcare trends with the Reuters Health Rounds newsletter. Sign up here.
Uplizna, given by infusion, is designed to bind to a protein located on the surface of B cells, the underlying inflammatory cause of IgG4-RD and other autoimmune conditions. "By removing or depleting these B cells throughout the body, both in the circulating blood and in the tissue, there's a chance for Uplizna to confer a real benefit," said Jay Bradner, Amgen's head of research and development.
Around 20,000 people in the U.S. suffer from the condition, he said.
The approval was based on data from a late-stage study in which Uplizna helped reduce the risk of flares by 87% compared to a placebo.
"This would be a fairly compelling drug that is infrequent, fairly safe, and very effective," TD Cowen analyst Yaron Werber told Reuters ahead of the decision.
Werber estimates Uplizna to generate global peak sales of $1.3 billion by 2030 for IgG4-RD alone.
Uplizna, which was already approved for a rare, severe neuroinflammatory disease called neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, brought in sales of $379 million in 2024.
Steroids — usually used to manage IgG4-RD — have many negative effects on patients, including mood changes, weight gain and osteoporosis, said Dr. Matthew Baker, associate division chief of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford University.
"The goal with a treatment like this is to definitely minimize steroid exposure, and I think it certainly will do that," Dr. Baker said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medical News Today
2 hours ago
- Medical News Today
Popular artificial sweetener may negatively affect cancer immunotherapy
Non-sugar, or artificial, sweeteners are widely used to reduce the energy in sweetened foods and drinks, particularly those marketed as diet, or low or no concerns about their possible health effects include links to gastrointestinal problems, metabolic effects, and even increased cancer a study has found that one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners, sucralose, could adversely affect cancer researchers suggest that by changing the gut microbiome, sucralose decreases the effectiveness of immunotherapy for several cancers. Health concerns regarding sucralose have mainly centered around its potential to cause systemic inflammation, metabolic diseases, disruptions in gut microbiota, liver damage, and toxic effects at the cellular a study suggests that people whose diet includes large amounts of sucralose, e.g., from diet drinks, respond less well to cancer immunotherapy than those who consume less or none of the research, which is published in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association of Cancer Research, found that sucralose changed the gut microbiota so bacteria degraded an amino acid, arginine, that immune cells need to be able to destroy cancer are experts worried about sucralose?Sucralose is one of six non-sugar sweeteners approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as additives in the food and drinks industry — the others are aspartame, advantame, neotame, saccharin, and acesulfame potassium (Ace-K).It is made by replacing 3 hydroxyl (oxygen and hydrogen) groups in sucrose (table sugar) molecules with chloride resulting sucralose is up to 650 times sweeter than sucrose and, because people cannot digest it, contains no accessible energy. Therefore, it is widely used to sweeten foods and drinks, as well as being sold as an alternative to sugar for those trying to decrease their energy intake. However, there are concerns, both about its health effects and its efficacy for helping weight loss. In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) advised that non-sugar sweeteners should not be used for weight control, saying that: 'Replacing free sugars with NSS [non-sugar sweeteners] does not help with weight control in the long term. […] NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.'Investigating the sucralose-cancer linkDiwakar Davar, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and a medical oncologist and hematologist at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, senior author of the study, told Medical News Today:'We think this finding is highly significant as it could have immediate positive impacts on cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. The fact that we not only identified sucralose as a potential problem for those receiving immunotherapy, but that we also found a way to fix this problem through arginine supplementation is exciting and something that could be put into clinical practice easily.'According to Jack Jacoub, MD, a board certified medical oncologist and medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast and Saddleback Medical Centers in Orange County, CA, who was not involved in this research, the findings were significant.'Frankly, this is a superb piece of scientific work,' Jacoub told MNT. 'The authors were able to study preclinical models (mice) and draw conclusions related to the effect of high sucralose intake on T-cell function tumor response to immunotherapy.''They then took this understanding and later tested it in prospective enrolled patients with lung cancer and melanoma. They showed that patients consuming sucralose greater than 0.16 mg/kg/d [milligram per kilogram per day] had inferior response to immunotherapy,' he explained.'Recognizing the significance of arginine on T cell functions they then went back to the mouse model and proved giving it restored T cell function and benefit to immunotherapy in mice. In my opinion, this is high quality evidence suggesting this absolutely needs more exploration,' added decreased immune responseIn their study, the researchers included 132 patients who had undergone immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy for advanced/metastatic melanoma or advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They also included 25 patients who had high-risk resectable melanoma. All participants had completed a Diet History Questionnaire III (DHQ III), had received at least 3 months of treatment, had at least one post-treatment imaging study evaluable for response and had been followed up for at least 6 months from the start of the diet questionnaire, researchers calculated each patient's non-nutritive sugar (NNS) intake (mg/day) and divided it by their weight in kg to get a weight-normalized average daily intake of mg/kg/ with melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer who consumed high levels of sucralose (more than 0.16mg/kg/day) had a worse response to immunotherapy, and poorer survival rates, than those with diets low in the artificial whether people undergoing cancer immunotherapy should try to avoid sucralose in their diets, lead author Abby Overacre, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, told MNT:'We are working on future prospective clinical trials to ask these sorts of questions for patients undergoing immunotherapy. Based on what we know so far, we would recommend that patients minimize intake of non-nutritive sweeteners, particularly sucralose.'Jacoub agreed with this assessment, saying that: 'This is enough information for me to recommend this to my patients. Frankly, we are talking about cancer and giving up diet soda, etc. is not difficult and directly goes to the question patients and their family commonly ask every day when I see them which is 'What can I do to help treat my cancer?'.'It is important to note that the research is still in the early stages, and this may not apply to all cancer microbiota changes reduced T-cell activityThe researchers then carried out tests in two mouse models of cancer to determine how high sucralose consumption reduced the immunotherapy found that mice fed sucralose were resistant to immunotherapy, had significantly increased tumor growth, less CD8+ T cell infiltration, and were more likely to T-cells are immune cells that produce the most powerful anti-cancer response, so their reduced function meant the immunotherapy was less effective. In the sucralose-fed mice, the researchers discovered changes in the gut microbiota, with greater numbers of gram positive bacteria that degraded arginine, an amino acid that is essential for T-cell production.'Gram positive bacteria have been associated with poorer immunotherapy efficacy in previous studies. However, we are very focused and interested in the function of these bacteria in hopes to better understand how they may directly contribute to cancer growth and immunotherapy response.'— Abby Overacre, PhDArginine supplements may counteract sucralose's effectsWhen researchers fed arginine or citrulline (which is metabolized in the body to arginine) to the mice, immunotherapy became effective again. They suggest that arginine or citrulline supplements could be given to people undergoing cancer immunotherapy to counteract the effect of sucralose in their diet. But could people undergoing cancer immunotherapy get enough arginine from their diet?'While there are certainly foods that are higher in arginine, especially in diets associated with better immunotherapy responses (nuts/seeds, poultry, lentils, fruits), a supplement may help those who struggle to achieve a high amount or arginine from diet alone,' Overacre told addition to continuing their research into sucralose and immunotherapy, the researchers hope to investigate whether other non-nutritive sweeteners have similar effects.'We hope that this study can help patients currently receiving immunotherapy. Importantly, this gives patients something they can do themselves or alongside their physicians to potentially improve their overall care.'— Abby Overacre, PhD
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
FDA issues recall for snack distributed nationwide
An urgent recall has been issued for a popular snack distributed nationwide for being contaminated with a diarrhea-causing bacteria. Texas-based Navarro Pecan Holdings issued a voluntary recall of 32,670 pounds of pecan products on July 10 due to concerns about potential Salmonella contamination. The products were distributed to commercial and retail distributors in five states; Texas , Minnesota , Oklahoma , Arkansas and New Jersey. They were also distributed internationally to Italy , the Netherlands and UAE, the FDA said. The government agency has updated the recall as Class I, as the nuts have the potential to be contaminated with the bacteria salmonella , which hospitalizes 26,000 Americans every year. A Class I recall is a 'situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death'. The FDA says salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy people infected with the bacteria often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. No other products produced by Navarro Pecan Holdings have been impacted and as of yet, there have been no reported illnesses. Founded in 1977, Navarro Pecan Holdings prides itself on being one of the largest pecan shellers in the world. It is not clear how the Salmonella contamination was discovered. Salmonella is an infection contracted from eating foods contaminated with animal feces. It typically causes diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps that begin six hours to six days after initial infection. Most people recover within days, though the illness is responsible for more than 26,000 hospitalizations and 400 deaths a year. The CDC estimates that most Salmonella infections are linked to chicken, fruits, pork, and seeded vegetables (such as tomatoes). But any food can become contaminated, even processed foods, such as flour. Nuts can become contaminated with Salmonella during various stages of production, including pre-harvest, harvest, processing, and storage. Contamination can occur from soil, contaminated harvesting equipment, and inadequate storage conditions. Moisture during the storage period can also contribute to the spread of Salmonella. The recalled products from Navarro Pecan Holdings include small and medium pecan pieces and mammoth pecan halves. Distributors and consumers who purchased the pecans should return it to the retailer for a full refund. The FDA has advised anyone who falls ill after eating the product to contact local health authorities. Most people sickened with salmonella suffer from a four to six-day illness that causes stomach cramps, diarrhea and abdominal pain. But officials warn children under five years and adults over 65 years old are more at risk from the bacteria because they have a weaker immune system.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Raw milk sickens 21 people in Florida including 6 children
Six children are among 21 people who have E. coli or campylobacter infections after consuming raw milk from a farm in Florida, public health officials said. Seven people have been hospitalized, and at least two of them are suffering severe complications, the Florida Department of Health said Monday. It did not specify if any of the six infected children under 10 are among those being treated in hospitals, nor how many people were infected by E. coli, campylobacter or both bacteria. 'Sanitation practices in this farm are of particular concern due to the number of cases,' reads the state advisory, which did not identify the farm linked to the cluster of infections in northeast and central Florida. Raw milk appears to be gaining in popularity, despite years of warnings about the health risks of drinking unpasteurized products. The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say raw milk is one of the 'riskiest' foods people can consume. Raw milk is far more likely than pasteurized milk to cause illnesses and hospitalizations because of dangerous bacteria such as campylobacter, listeria, salmonella and E. coli, research shows. The infections can cause gastrointestinal illness, and in some cases may lead to serious complications, including a life-threatening form of kidney failure. Young children, the elderly, immunocompromised people and pregnant women are at greater risk of complications. 'We invented pasteurization for a reason,' said Keith Schneider, a food safety professor at the University of Florida. 'It's maddening that this is happening.' States have widely varying regulations regarding raw milk, with some allowing retail purchases in stores and others allowing sale only at farms. Some states allow 'cowshares,' in which customers buy milk produced by designated animals, and some allow consumption only by farm owners, employees or 'non-paying guests.' In Florida, the sale and distribution of raw milk for human consumption is illegal, but retailers get around the ban by labeling their products as for pet or animal food only. Schneider called it a 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge,' form of regulation. 'Everybody knows that they're selling it for human consumption,' Schneider said, adding that people getting sick — or even seriously ill — from drinking raw milk is 'not a question of if, but when.' ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
