StemCell Therapy

September 25, 2020 -A group of Senators has introduced a bill that would expand access to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program through telehealth.

S 4709 was introduced this week by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC), Mark warner (D-VA), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Tina Smith (D-MN). Titled the Prevent Diabetes Act, it addresses a long-standing issue with a Medicare program designed to help members at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Its no secret that diabetes is a disease that has disproportionately affected minority communities across the country, Warner said in a press release. To ensure that all individuals have the tools needed to combat this preventable disease, the Prevent Diabetes Act would help expand access to virtual classes under the existing Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program. This commonsense and cost-saving expansion will ensure that more Americans at-risk of developing diabetes who are living in either rural or medically underserved communities, can participate in this critical program that has been proven to delay the full onset of this preventable disease.

The original Diabetes Prevention Programwas developed by the National Institutes of Healths National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and focused on in-person classes and one-on-one coaching. Based on that model, which is administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created the National Diabetes Prevention Program for Medicare beneficiaries and launched that program in 2018.

But the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Expanded Model conducted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation doesnt reimburse care providers for using connected health platforms. Telehealth and mHealth advocates have been lobbying for years to add those services, saying a virtual platform would reach far more people at risk and enable providers to make better use of limited resources.

More than 70 healthcare providers are now listed on the CDCs DPP website, though only a handful have been recognized as offering proof that their online programs reach recognized benchmarks for activity and weight loss.A growing number of programs are using virtual careas a means of expanding the programs reach and making the most of limited resources, and theyre asking CMS to cover those services.

Last year, a group of Senators including those sponsoring the Prevent Diabetes Act wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and CMS Administrator Seema Verma asking that the program be expanded to include CDC-recognized virtual DPP providers.

Virtual delivery of MDPP has the ability to empower beneficiaries to access MDPP regardless of where they live, and in the format of their choosing, the Senators wrote. Because of the outcome-focused reimbursement structure, CMS has insulated from reimbursing for ineffective treatment. Medicare Advantage plans have also been vocal in their desire to deploy virtual DPP for their beneficiaries. Given this, we also encourage CMS to consider ways for Medicare Advantage plans to use virtual providers to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have access to a CDC fully-recognized DPP.

In April, that same group lobbied again for the inclusion of virtual care providers, saying the coronavirus pandemic has created further barriers to in-person care.

The new bill, which as of September 25 contains no text or summary, is supported by several organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, American Medical Association, Connected Health Initiative and National Kidney Foundation, along with digital health companies Livongo, Noom and Omada Health.

More:
New Bill Would Add Telehealth to Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program - mHealthIntelligence.com

Frequent hot tub bathinghada positive impact on glycemia, blood pressure, and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes, in the first real-world study to analyze the effect of this type of heat therapy in such individuals.

"The data from our analysis showed that the frequency of hot tub bathing could have beneficial influences on diabetic control, hypertension, and obesity even after adjusting for confounding factors," HisayukiKatsuyama, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Katsuyama presented the findings as a poster at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Annual Meeting 2020. The study aimed to explore the real-world influence of habitual hot tub bathing on the control of type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors.

"Heat therapy, shown here with hot tub bathing, can be one effective therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes in daily life. An alternative form of heat exposure might be nutrition therapy and exercise," noted Katsuyama, from Kohnodai Hospital, Ichikawa, Chiba, Japan.

But Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK, was not so enthusiastic about the results.

"While this research suggests there might a link between taking regular hot baths and better health in people with type 2 diabetes, it raises more far more questions than it answers," she said.

"It could be that people who bathe more frequently have a healthier lifestyle in general perhaps they are more physically active we just don't know from the limited data collected."

"It isnot possible to say from this research whether bathingcan benefit yourphysicalhealth," she noted in a statement from Diabetes UK.

Prior to the current study, there were no large studies looking at the effects of hot tub bathing on metabolic parameters in patients with diabetes.

One cohort study in Finland revealed that frequency of sauna bathing was inversely associated with fatal cardiovascular events in middle-aged adults (BMC Med. 2018;16:219). And a prior small before-and-after study in patients with diabetes showed a significant reduction in fasting glucose and A1c (N Engl J Med. 1999;341:924-925), Katsuyama noted.

Most homes in Japan, where bathing is a traditional and common practice, have hot tubs, which prompted the researchers' idea for a real-world study, he explained.

Katsuyama and colleagues studied the frequency of hot-tub bathing using a self-reported questionnaire completed by 1297 patients with type 2 diabetes who regularly visited Kohnodai Hospital over 6 months.

They took anthropometric measurements and used blood test results to analyze associations between hot tub use and different variables. Patients were divided into three groups according to frequency of bathing: group 1, 4 baths/week; group 2, 1-<4 baths/week; and group 3, < 1 bath/week.

Mean age was 67 years, weight was 67 kg, BMI was 25.9 kg/m2, and A1c was 7.2%. There were more men than women (713/584).

Most participants, 693, were in group 1 ( 4 baths/week), 415 were in group 2 (1-< 4 baths/week); and 189 were in group 3 (< 1 bath/week).

The mean frequency of bathing was 4.2 times/week and mean duration of bathing was 16 minutes.

Body weight, BMI, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, and A1c were all significantly better in group 1 (most frequent bathing) compared with group 3 (least frequent bathing) (Table).

Table. Effects of Frequency of Hot Tub Bathing on Metabolic Parameters

Group 1 4 baths/week

BP = blood pressure

Katsuyama pointed out that animal studies have suggested heat stimulation might improve insulin sensitivity and enhance energy expenditure, an effect also observed during exercise.

"I expect that patients can benefit in a similar way with heat therapy," he added, noting that hot tub bathing might be particularly beneficial for patients who cannot exercise.

"It would probably [also] be beneficial for the prevention of diabetes," and potentially, diabetes complications, he said. Indeed, "cohort studies have shown the possibilities that heat therapy could prevent cardiovascular diseases."

Katsuyama pointed out that a key strength of the study was the relatively large number of participants compared with previous studies.

But there were also limitations due to the nature of the cross-sectional study, which "means we cannot guarantee causality, and secondly, various confounding factors, such as diet and other life habits, could influence the results."

"A well-designed prospective study will be needed to confirm the beneficial effects of the heat therapy," he concluded.

EASD 2020. Presented September 22, 2020. Abstract 342.

Katsuyama has reported no relevant financial relationships.

For more diabetes and endocrinology news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Read more here:
Hot Tubs Improve A1c, BMI, and Blood Pressure in Type 2 Diabetes - Medscape

Dublin, Sept. 25, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Worldwide Diabetes Reusable Insulin Delivery Pen Market: Demand, Insights, Trends, Analysis, Opportunities, Growth Potential and Forecast to 2026" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The Worldwide Diabetes Reusable Insulin Delivery Pen Market size is expected to touch US$ 6 billion by 2026.

The report offers the most up-to-date industry data on the actual market situation and future outlook for the worldwide diabetes reusable insulin delivery pen market. The report provides historical market data for 2013 - 2019, and forecasts from 2020 until 2026.

The report contains a granular analysis of the present industry situations, market demands, reveal facts on the market size, reusable insulin pen volume, revenues for reusable insulin delivery pen, and illustrative forecast to 2026. It also provides 16 countries with an all-round analysis of an overall number of patients with diabetes and insulin users. A comprehensive analysis has been done on the market share of the countries-based market.

The report explores essential insights into worldwide diabetes reusable insulin delivery pen market for the top 16 countries, comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, Australia, Japan, China, India, and Brazil until 2026. The report also provides a detailed description of growth drivers and inhibitors of the worldwide diabetes reusable insulin delivery pen market.

The report concludes with the profiles of major players in the worldwide diabetes reusable insulin delivery pen market. The key market players are evaluated on various parameters such as company overview, product portfolios and recent development of the worldwide diabetes reusable insulin delivery pen market

Key Questions Answered in this Market Research Report:

The Major Companies Dominating this Market for its Products, Services and Continuous Product Developments are:

Key Topics Covered:

1. Executive Summary

2. Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Users (Volume), 2013 - 2026

3. Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Market (Value), 2013 - 2026

4. Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Market Share, By Users (%) 2013 - 2026

5. Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Market Share (%), 2013 - 2026

6. Key Market Drivers & Inhibitors of the Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Market6.1 Market Drivers6.2 Market Inhibitors

7. Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Market & Forecast (2013 - 2026) - Major 16 Countries Data Analysis7.1 United States7.1.1 Overall Diabetes Population & Forecast (Volume) 7.1.2 Insulin Users & Forecast (Volume) 7.1.3 Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Users (Volume) 7.1.4 Diabetes Reusable (Cartridge) Insulin Delivery Pen Market & Forecast (Value) 7.2 Canada7.3 Germany7.4 France7.5 Italy7.6 Spain7.7 United Kingdom7.8 Netherlands7.9 Poland7.10 Sweden7.11 Turkey7.12 Australia7.13 Japan7.14 China7.15 India7.16 Brazil

8. Key Companies Analysis8.1 Business Overview8.2 Insulin Pen Products Portfolio8.3 Recent Development

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/nmbp1s

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

Visit link:
Worldwide Diabetes Reusable Insulin Delivery Pen Market Report 2020: Demand, Insights, Trends, Analysis, Opportunities, Growth Potential and Forecast,...

A leading manufacturer of automated insulin delivery systems, Dexcom (NASDAQ:DXCM) signed a five-year collaboration agreement with the University of Virginia on Thursday . The company will fund research at the university that could expand its addressable patient population.

Dexcom already has clinical trial evidence that shows its constant glucose monitoring (CGM) technology reduces the amount of time Type 1 diabetes patients spend with blood sugar levels that are too high or too low. Through its collaboration with the university, the company will test its CGM technology for use among people with Type 2 and gestational diabetes, as well as for hospitalized patients.

Image source: Getty Images.

The University of Virginia's Center for Diabetes Technology will lead the research efforts, but the collaboration will employ experts from multiple disciplines across the University of Virginia System.

This isn't the first time these two have conducted research as partners. In 2019, the collaboration partners presented successful results of a trial with Type 1 diabetes patients that used Dexcom's CGM technology to control their blood sugar levels.

In 2020, Dexcom expects revenue to grow by about 25% to around $1.85 billion. While there has been some uptake of Dexcom's CGM systems among insulin-dependent Type 2 patients, the relative lack of evidence of a benefit is severely limiting the company's total revenue.

In 2017, the American Diabetes Association estimated the number of Type 1 diabetes cases in the U.S. at 1.3 million. In 2012, it estimated the number of Type 2 diabetes patients at 27.8 million.

Go here to see the original:
Dexcom and University of Virginia to Advance Diabetes Research Together - Motley Fool

My name is Dr. Vishwanath Pattan and I am the Medical Director of Endocrinology at Wyoming Medical Center in Casper. Endocrinology is the study of hormones, and as an endocrinologist I treat patients for a wide variety of diseases related to hormonal deficiencies and imbalances. That includes many patients with diabetes.

At my clinic, Wyoming Endocrine and Diabetes, I treat patients from across Wyoming, and I have noticed an alarming trend for my diabetic patients in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic: an inability to monitor and control glucose or maintain weight in the summer months.

In a typical year, diabetic patients tend to lose weight and achieve better glucose control in the summer because they are able to live a much more active outdoor lifestyle. During the winter, I often see the opposite trend of added weight, less stable glucose levels, seasonal depression, and an increase in overall stress.

2020, however, has not been a typical year, and I have noticed a deviation from the typical summer pattern in my diabetic patients. Many of these patients have actually gained weight, exhibited less than stable glucose control, and had an increase in their overall stress levels.

I have a few theories on why this might be. When COVID-19 was first acknowledged as a public safety concern, people were quick to stock up on everything they could. As we know, the shelf life of heavily processed foods is what makes them some of the first to go amidst a global crisis.

These foods are built to stand the test of time, but for a diabetic patient, they can easily contribute to an unsafe fluctuation of glucose. There was also a lot of uncertainty, fear, and confusion that caused millions to be left without a job and the added stress of strict isolation measures. People were forced to live a much more sedentary lifestyle, whether they wanted to or not, and eat food that does not promote a healthy glucose level. I also saw a major decrease in correspondence with many of my patients with uncontrolled diabetes, further contributing to an atypical summer for the diabetic population.

So, why does this raise a red flag?

Although patients with diabetes are not at any further risk of contracting COVID-19, they are much more likely to suffer greater complications because of it. These complications could lead to the need for ventilator support, further intensive care, and even higher death rates by several folds. This leads me to my main concern with so many of my diabetic patients experiencing poor glucose control prior to a season in which it is already difficult to manage: A person with uncontrolled diabetes in the summer is more likely to have uncontrolled diabetes in the winter, especially during a global pandemic. With the dual-threat of COVID-19 and this upcoming flu season, it is paramount that people with diabetes put their health and safety at the forefront.

I strongly urge people with diabetes and their families to safely support one another through the winter months with the helpful information discussed below.

People with diabetes should:

Monitor glucose regularly, per your healthcare providers recommendation

Make sure to follow up with your healthcare providers, either in person or by utilizing virtual visits. (Healthcare facilities take utmost care and precautions, and put your health as a top priority, so in-person visits should be safe). In the coming months, it is essential to keep your providers up-to-date on your progress, and you should discuss individualized glucose goals with your doctor

Contact your healthcare provider immediately if your blood glucose is above target

Remain compliant with medication regimens and dietary treatment plans

Aim to eat a balanced diet, exercise regularly and get adequate sleep at least between 7 and 8 hours per night

Maintain a healthy immune system by prioritizing glucose control, managing stress levels and taking a Vitamin D supplement. In Wyoming, most people are naturally deficient during the winter months and are encouraged to seek their healthcare providers recommendation for proper supplementation.

Family members of diabetic patients should:

Encourage your loved one to keep appointments with healthcare providers

Assist them with technology for virtual visits

Avoid social gatherings, practice proper hand hygiene, and always wear a mask in public spaces to keep your loved one safe

Help with cooking balanced and healthy meals

Ensure that your loved one has at least 4 to 6 weeks worth of diabetic supplies on hand in case of supply issues later on. These include testing strips, insulin, and necessary insulin administration equipment

Remind patients to take their medication on time and encourage compliance with glucose monitoring

Help to maintain a stress-free environment at home

The rest is here:
Concerning trend found in patients with diabetes - Green River Star

Consuming more than 3 cups/day of white ricesignificantly increases the risk of diabetes compared with eating lower amounts, a new analysis of the multinational, multiethnic Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study suggests.

In addition, the results show that those living in South Asian countries ate the most white rice and subsequently had the highest likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes.

Compared with participants who ate less than 1 cup/day (150 g/day) of cooked white rice, those who ate more than 3 cups/day (> 450 g/day) had a 20% higher risk of developing diabetes over a mean follow-up of 9.5 years (P = .003).

However, among South Asian participants, who consumed a median of 630 g/day of white rice, the risk of diabetes was 61% higher compared to those who consumed less than 150 g/day (P = .02), Balaji Bhavadharini, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues report in their article, published online in Diabetes Care.

As the authors point it, excess white rice consumption, in particular, is known to lead to postprandial glucose spikes. These spikes, in turn, trigger compensatory hyperinsulinemia to help maintain euglycemia.

"Over time, -cells become exhausted, leading to -cell failure and diabetes," the researchers write.

"Among people of middle and lower socioeconomic status, rice consumption is very high because other food choices meat, fish, chicken, vegetables, and fruits are all quite expensive," second author Viswanathan Mohan, MD, PhD, DSc, chairand chief diabetologist at Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialties Centre, India, told Medscape Medical News in an email.

"Hence, people make up the calories [they need] by eating 'polished' rice. What we are suggesting is that protein intake should be increased, and this can come...in the form of beans and legumes, whichif consumed along with the rice, would help reduce the overall glycemic load of the diet," he added.

A total of 132,373 participants aged 35 to 70 from 21 different countries were included in the new analysis, which excluded anyone with diabetes at baseline.

Cooked white rice consumption was categorized as less than 1 cup (< 150 g/day); 1 to 2 cups (150 to < 300 g/day); 2 to 3 cups (300to < 450 g/day), or more than 3 cups/day (> 450 g/day). In the overall cohort, the median consumption of white rice was 128 g/day.

Participants from South East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia, among other countries) ate a median of 239 g/day of white rice, while those from China ate a median of 200 g/day, investigators note.

Those living in South Asian countries (including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives) ate the most white rice, at a median of 630 g/day.

During the study interval, 6129 individuals developed incident diabetes.

Among those living in South East Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, Europe, and Africa, the risk of diabetes was 41% higher among those with the highest levels of white rice consumption compared to those with the lowest levels(P = .01), the investigators report.

And as already noted, the risk was even higher, at > 60%, in those living in South Asia.

In contrast, the effect of consuming the greatest quantity of white rice versus the lowest on diabetes risk was minimal among Chinese participants and did not reach statistical significance, the authors note.

"There could be several reasons for this," Mohan said. "Firstly, the actual intake of white rice in China was substantially lower than it was in other countries, especially among those living in South Asia. Secondly, the type of rice the Chinese consume may be slightly different than elsewhere in that it is 'sticky,'" he speculated.

Probably more importantly, however, "in China, they do consume a lot of animal protein as well as vegetable protein," he noted.

In contrast, protein intake tends to be low and carbohydrate intake mostly in the form of white rice is higher in South Asia than in any other region of the world.

In fact, in South Asia white rice makes up 70% to 75% of a typical person's daily calorie intake, Mohan observed.

As the authors point out, until a few decades ago, most of the rice consumed in India was pounded by hand, or "unpolished," and thus was a much coarser grain, similar to brown rice. But this fell out of favor because it's easier to store highly polished white rice than brown rice, which turns rancid more quickly.

In addition, there were only a handful of rice mills in India until the early 1970s, a situation which has now completely changed: there are now over a million rice mills in the country.

"This naturally led to increased consumption of high polished white rice," Mohan emphasized, "and in general, people like the color, taste, and smell of white rice better [than brown rice] plus brown rice takes longer to cook and is difficult to chew," he noted.

The solution to this public health conundrum is multifold. As Mohan sees it, the most obvious solution is to reintroduce brown rice as a widespread food commodity and make it less expensive than white rice.

Alternatively, food manufacturers could develop healthier varieties of white rice with resistant starch that would lower both the glycemic index and overall glycemic load, he observed.

People also need to be encouraged to increase their intake of beans, legumes, and other types of vegetable proteinsor pulses, which in India include chickpeas, green gram, black gram, and thoor dal. When these are consumed along with white rice, it improves the overall quality of the diet and would be expected to reduce the risk of diabetes.

Lastly, people need to be encouraged to be more physically active, which would also help reduce obesity rates and with it, diabetes risk, Mohan emphasized.

The study was funded by a number of pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Bhavadharini and Mohan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

Diabetes Care. Published online September 1, 2020. Abstract

For more diabetes and endocrinology news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

View post:
More Proof That High White Rice Intake Ups Type 2 Diabetes Risk - Medscape

People with diabetes have a more difficult time regulating their blood sugar. Those with type 1 diabetes are not able to produce insulin, the hormone that helps the body convert blood sugar into energy. And those with type 2 diabetes cannot use insulin effectively.

As a result, blood sugar levels are often much higher for people with diabetes, especially in the morning. Here's why.

As your body prepares to wake for the day, it releases glucose stored in the liver to give you the energy you need to get going. However, people with diabetes are not able to utilize this blood sugar, so roughly half of diabetics experience high blood sugars in the morning. This is known as the dawn phenomenon.

If you have diabetes, your doctor will work with you to set a target range for your blood sugars. In general, blood sugar levels between 70 to 130 mg/dl are considered healthy for diabetes.

If your levels are consistently above your target in the morning, and you have not eaten yet, you might be experiencing dawn phenomenon. This is most common in people with type 2 diabetes.

Blood sugars typically peak about 2 to 3 hours before waking and can remain high as you wake up. For most people, that means the early morning hours, but if you have an abnormal sleep schedule you can experience this spike at any time.

"For individuals who work night shifts, the 'dawn' phenomenon may occur at dusk, since it's related to an individual's normal waking time, not the specific time of the day," says Joseph Barrera, MD, an endocrinologist with Mission Hospital in Orange County, California.

The Somogyi effect is a second explanation for high blood sugars in the morning, and this occurs most often in people with type 1 diabetes. It happens when people experience hypoglycemia or low blood sugar during the night. In an attempt to correct that, the body releases more stored glucose, which can then lead to high blood sugars in the morning.

The Somogyi effect is more rare than the dawn phenomenon, but that's mostly because fewer people have type 1 diabetes than type 2 diabetes. When a 2015 study published in Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome followed 85 people with type 1 diabetes, it found that 82.4% of them had high blood sugars in the morning, and 60% of those were caused by the Somogyi effect, compared with just 12.9% caused by the dawn phenomenon.

To determine if your high blood sugars in the morning are caused by the Somogyi effect, Barrera says you'll need to see your blood sugar levels about 4 to 5 hours before you wake up, which can be done with a continuous glucose monitor.

You should talk to your doctor if you regularly experience high blood sugars in the morning, Barrera says. Your team will make recommendations on changing your treatment regimen that might help you avoid this morning hyperglycemia.

"High blood sugars in the morning can generally be addressed by careful attention to a diet and exercise regimen, and adjustments in diabetic medication by a qualified health professional," Barrera says.

To avoid dawn phenomenon, your doctor might tell you to take these steps:

People who continue to have trouble with the dawn phenomenon might be advised to take insulin before bed, Barrera says. However, this has to be done carefully, so that it doesn't cause the Somogyi effect.

People who experience the dawn phenomenon often find that it gets worse over time. In fact, it's considered an indicator that diabetes is progressing, so it's important to talk to your doctor about treating it.

On the flip side, making the necessary changes to regulate the dawn phenomenon can lower blood sugar over time. In fact, research has found that it can result in a 0.5% decrease in A1C levels a long-term measure of blood sugar which can reduce your risk for health complications from diabetes.

See original here:
Why your blood sugar is high in the morning and how to lower it - Insider - INSIDER

The global Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market is segregated on the basis of Type as Under 50 GHz and Above 50 GHz. Based on Application the global Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market is segmented in Type 1 Diabetes and Type 2 Diabetes.

The global Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market report scope includes detailed study covering underlying factors influencing the industry trends.

Browse Full Report: https://www.marketresearchengine.com/millimeter-wave-diabetes-treatment-devices-market

The global Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market report provides geographic analysis covering regions, such as North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Rest of the World. The Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market for each region is further segmented for major countries including the U.S., Canada, Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, China, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and others.

Competitive Rivalry

Zimmer MedizinSysteme, Smiths Group, Domer Laser, Hubei YJT Technology and others are among the major players in the global Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market. The companies are involved in several growth and expansion strategies to gain a competitive advantage. Industry participants also follow value chain integration with business operations in multiple stages of the value chain.

The Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices Market has been segmented as below:

Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices Market, By Type

Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices Market, By Application

Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices Market, By Region

Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices Market, By Company

The report covers:

Report Scope:

The report covers analysis on regional and country level market dynamics. The scope also covers competitive overview providing company market shares along with company profiles for major revenue contributing companies.

The report scope includes detailed competitive outlook covering market shares and profiles key participants in the global Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices market share. Major industry players with significant revenue share include Zimmer MedizinSysteme, Smiths Group, Domer Laser, Hubei YJT Technology, Application C10, Application B10, Application B8, Application B9, Application B10, Application C10, and others.

Reasons to Buy this Report:

Request Sample Report from here: https://www.marketresearchengine.com/millimeter-wave-diabetes-treatment-devices-market

Table of Contents:

Other Related Market Research Reports:

Medical Ultrasound Knife Market 2019 Demand, Size, Growth Research Report by 2024 MRE Analysis

About MarketResearchEngine.com

Market Research Engine is a global market research and consulting organization. We provide market intelligence in emerging, niche technologies and markets. Our market analysis powered by rigorous methodology and quality metrics provide information and forecasts across emerging markets, emerging technologies and emerging business models. Our deep focus on industry verticals and country reports help our clients to identify opportunities and develop business strategies.

Media Contact

Company Name: Market Research Engine

Contact Person: John Bay

Email: [emailprotected]

Phone: +1-855-984-1862

Country: United States

Website: https://www.marketresearchengine.com/

More:
Millimeter Wave Diabetes Treatment Devices Market Size, Share 2020 Growth Analysis, Share, Demand By Regions, Types And Analysis Of Key Players-...

ThursdaySep24,2020at11:08AM

DURHAM The University of New Hampshire announced it will receive $1.8 million from the National Institutes of Health to further molecular research to better understand drug interactions at the cellular level and help lead to the development of new targeted drugs to treat wide-spread metabolic, growth, neurological and visual disorders including diabetes and cancer.

"This is an exciting opportunity to support some of our preliminary research that showed promise in new protein drug targets involved in several diseases," said Harish Vashisth, associate professor of chemical engineering and recipient of the NIHs Outstanding Investigator award. "The NIH MIRA award (Maximizing Investigators' Research Award) is meant to provide flexibility to investigators and will allow us to explore new ideas and change direction based on our findings during the process."

Vashisth and his team will use computational techniques combined with experimental data to explore new and more suitable stages in the signaling cycle of a cell protein to target drug interventions. One of the studies will focus on better understanding the folding and binding mechanisms of novel peptides, a short string of amino acids that are building blocks of proteins and perform biological functions. Researchers will look at how they affect cell surface receptor proteins, part of the tyrosine kinase family, to signal responses within the cell. Small peptides can fold and bind to the receptor and mimic the normal physiological effects of natural peptides. The goal is to understand the folding and binding and ultimately find drugs to work around the fold.

"Imagine a cell as a flexible bag with the outer surface as the cell membrane containing proteins that act as gate keepers to communicate, or sense, specific conditions outside the cell that in turn trigger a cascade of signaling inside the cell," said Vashisth.

Their second research project will take an unconventional approach to target protein-protein interactions in proteins inside the cell, part of the G-protein coupled receptor family, that are important in touch, smell and sight and are implicated in many diseases. This work would create new small molecule drugs that would cross inside the membrane rather than bind to an outside receptor. These drugs would be synthetic and not naturally occurring.

Read this article:
UNH receives $1.8 million for biomolecular research in diabetes and cancer - Seacoastonline.com

The scientists concluded that HIIT can help in improving the blood sugar levels and can also help in losing weight effectively.

Representational image. Reuters

Diabetes is one of the major health burdens in the entire world. According to the International Diabetes Federation, more than 463 million adults in the age group of 20 to 79 years were living with diabetes in the year 2019.

Among these, a majority of people have been reported to have type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is the result of reduced insulin sensitivity in the body, which mostly occurs due to excess body weight and physical inactivity.

It is already known that physical activity helps in managing and preventing type 2 diabetes. However, it has been reported that most commonly practised aerobic exercises such as walking or jogging provide only 10 percent to 20 percent improvement in insulin sensitivity.

As per the new study, presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September 2020, it was stated that insulin sensitivity, body composition and cardiorespiratory systems of people with obesity along with type 2 diabetes can be improved by combining high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with cycling and rowing.

Determining the effect of HIIT on obese and diabetic people

To determine the effects of HIIT, scientists from the Steno Diabetes Centre Odense, Odense, Denmark, enrolled 48 men in the study and divided them into three groups.

Out of the 48, 15 participants were obese with an average Body Mass Index (BMI) of 31 (kg/m2) and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The other two groups had non-diabetic participants, out of which 15 were obese with an average BMI of 31 and the rest 18 were lean with an average BMI of 24.

Body mass index, also known as BMI, is a way to measure whether or not a person is overweight or obese. An adult with a BMI that is between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered healthy, between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight and 30 or over is considered obese.

All the participants underwent a highly supervised HIIT programme, which lasted for eight weeks. The participants had three training sessions per week, which were combined with cycling and rowing.

The effects of the training programme were evaluated with the help of Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans to determine the body changes, VO2 max tests to measure the amount of oxygen utilised during the session and euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamps along with indirect calorimetry to determine insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

The results of the study

In the beginning, people with diabetes showed around 35 to 37 percent reduction in insulin sensitivity as compared with the non-diabetic subjects.

However, after eight weeks of HIIT, the insulin sensitivity in lean men and those with only obesity was 32 to 37 percent on average whereas the average for the diabetic group was found to be 44 percent.

The scientists further found that after the training, the fasting blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes were also reduced. The HbA1c results, which measures the average level of blood sugar over the past 2 to 3 months, also showed a decline.

The body fat mass was reduced by 1.6 to 2.3kg in all three groups.

The VO2max results showed that oxygen utilisation increased by 10 percent in lean and obese people with no diabetes, while it increased to 15 percent in people with type 2 diabetes.

The scientists concluded that HIIT can help in improving the blood sugar levels and can also help in losing weight effectively. It is believed that the short bursts of intense anaerobic exercise with short recovery periods in between may prove to be better for people with obesity and diabetes in managing their condition.

For more information, read our article on High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT).

Health articles in Firstpost are written by myUpchar.com, Indias first and biggest resource for verified medical information. At myUpchar, researchers and journalists work with doctors to bring you information on all things health.

Excerpt from:
HIIT along with rowing and cycling can help type 2 d..etes patients lose weight, improve insulin sensitivity - Firstpost

Why does diabetes make people particularly vulnerable to COVID-19? There is no persuasive evidence that this is because they are more likely to catch the virus in the first place and we, as yet, have no answers. Research is underway to understand the biological reasons why diabetes might allow the virus to get a firmer hold. A pro-inflammatory state, vascular damage, and upregulation of ACE2 receptors, all of which are associated with diabetes, have been suggested as potential contributors to severe COVID-19 in people with the condition7. The type of basic science needed to explore the virus mechanisms of attack and its interplay with diabetes takes time and is vital for understanding how we might better protect and care for people living with the condition.

Recently emerging is some limited and anecdotal evidence that COVID-19 might be triggering new cases of type 1 diabetes, accelerated progression of type 2 diabetes, or a new type of diabetes altogether. Again, we need to look to science for answers only long-term studies will reveal whats really going on and, crucially, help to inform care. To find answers, a global database of new cases of diabetes in patients with COVID-19, called the CoviDiab Registry Project, has been established8. The Post-HOSPitalisation COVID-19 (PHOSP COVID) study, a national consortium to understand and improve long-term health outcomes in people who have had the virus, will also shed light on the long-term implications of COVID-19 for people with diabetes.

Investment in science has never been more important. Last year, UK charities, including Diabetes UK, invested 1.9 billion into medical research more than half of all public spending nationally. But the sector is facing a dramatic and deeply concerning drop in income due to COVID-19 and research is at risk. The Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) has predicted a 310 million shortfall in research spend in 2020/21, with an estimated four-year recovery period.

AMRC and its members, including Diabetes UK, are urging the Government to commit to the Life Sciences Charity Partnership Fund (support at #Researchatrisk) co-investment scheme. This will allow medical research charities to emerge from this pandemic intact and in a strong position to continue to fund research that transforms healthcare and saves lives. Now more than ever, investment is needed in the sector to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and future pandemics, on the health of the nation.

References

1 International Diabetes Federation, (2019). IDF Diabetes Atlas, 9th edn.Brussels, Belgium: IDF. Available at: https://www.diabetesatlas.org

2 Estimated from NCVIN (2016), Diabetes Prevalence Model for England + estimated growth between 20152020 from APHO (2010) Prevalence Models for Scotland and Wales.

3 Barron, E., Bakhai, C., Kar, P., Weaver, A., Bradley, D., Ismail, H., Knighton, P., Holman, N., Khunti, K., Sattar, N. and Wareham, N.J., (2020). Associations of type 1 and type 2 diabetes with COVID-19-related mortality in England: a whole-population study. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

4 Diabetes Prevalence Model. Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) 2017/18. Public Health England. Available at: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/diabetes-ft/data

5 Holman, N., Knighton, P., Kar, P., OKeefe, J., Curley, M., Weaver, A., Barron, E., Bakhai, C., Khunti, K., Wareham, N.J. and Sattar, N., (2020). Risk factors for COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in England: a population-based cohort study. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

6 Williamson, E.J., Walker, A.J., Bhaskaran, K., Bacon, S., Bates, C., Morton, C.E., Curtis, H.J., Mehrkar, A., Evans, D., Inglesby, P. and Cockburn, J., (2020). OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19 death in 17 million patients. Nature.

7 Apicella, M., Campopiano, M. C., Mantuano, M., Mazoni, L., Coppelli, A., & Del Prato, S. (2020). COVID-19 in people with diabetes: understanding the reasons for worse outcomes. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

8 Rubino, F., Amiel, S. A., Zimmet, P., Alberti, G., Bornstein, S., Eckel, R. H., & Del Prato, S. (2020). New-Onset Diabetes in Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine.

View original post here:
COVID-19 and diabetes: What do we (not) know? - Open Access Government

The research and analysis conducted in Peripheral Neuropathy report help clients to predict investment in an emerging market, expansion of market share, or success of a new product with the help of global market research analysis. This report has been designed in such a way that it provides a very evident understanding of the business environment and Peripheral Neuropathy industry. However, this global market research report unravels many business problems very quickly and easily. Due to high demand and the value of market research for the success of different sectors, Peripheral Neuropathy Market report is provided that covers many work areas.

For the basic understanding of strategy in this report, we will focus on the static and dynamic pillars of the industry. Beyond this, identify the business development circle and opportunities. It also focuses on the limitations of analyzing problems in existing business strategies. Focus on various aspects such as application areas, platforms, and key players operating around the world.

Peripheral neuropathy market is expected to gain market growth in the forecast period of 2020 to 2027. Data Bridge Market Research analyses the market is growing at a healthy CAGR in the above-mentioned research forecast period. Emerging markets and vulnerable diabetic patients worldwideare the factors responsible for the growth of this market.

Get Free PDF Sample Copy of this Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart): https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-peripheral-neuropathy-market&utm_source=&kA

Major Key Players Mentioned:

Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Galen Limited, Cipher Pharmaceuticals Inc, Mylan N.V., Aurobindo Pharma,ZydusCadila, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, ACI Limited, Apotex Inc, Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc, Pfizer Inc, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, ALMATICA PHARMA, Alkem Labs, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Novartis AG, and Lupin, among others.

Important Features that are under offering & key highlights of the report:

Why choose us:

COVID-19 Impact Analysis:

The report seeks to track the evolution of the market growth pathways and publish a medical crisis in an exclusive section publishing an analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on the Peripheral Neuropathy market. The new analysis on COVID-19 pandemic provides a clear assessment of the impact on the Peripheral Neuropathy market and the expected volatility of the market during the forecast period. Various factors that can affect the general dynamics of the Peripheral Neuropathy market during the forecast period (2020-2026), including current trends, growth opportunities, limiting factors, etc., are discussed in detail in this market research.

Get Table Of Contents of This Premium Research For Free:https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-peripheral-neuropathy-market&utm_source=&KA

Regional Analysis Includes:

Questions answered in the Peripheral Neuropathy report:

Our analysis includes market research that considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Contact us for complete information on the current situation and the impact of the market. Our team of professional analysts will provide you with reports that are tailored to your needs.

Table Of Contents

Part 01: Executive Summary

Part 02: Scope of the Report

Part 03: Research Methodology

Part 04: Market Landscape

Part 05: Pipeline Analysis

Part 06: Market Sizing

Part 07: Five Forces Analysis

Part 08: Market Segmentation

Part 09: Customer Landscape

Part 10: Regional Landscape

Part 11: Decision Framework

Part 12: Drivers and Challenges

Part 13: Market Trends

Part 14: Vendor Landscape

Part 15: Vendor Analysis

Part 16: Appendix

If you required any Quiry orNeed Customization in the report, please follow the given link:https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/inquire-before-buying/?dbmr=global-peripheral-neuropathy-market&utm_source=&KA

Request a customized copy of Peripheral Neuropathy Market report:

We are grateful to you for reading our report. If you wish to find more details of the report or want customization, contact us. You can get a detailed of the entire research here. If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

Thanks for reading this article you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report versions like North America, Europe, MEA, or Asia Pacific.

Contact:

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

[emailprotected]

More here:
Peripheral Neuropathy Market Understand The Key Growth Drivers Developments And Innovations - The Daily Chronicle

During a Case Based Peer Perspective event, Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, associate professor of Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, at the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University in Chicago, IL, discussed the case of a 75-year-old male with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Targeted Oncology: What are potential treatment options for the second-line setting in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)?

MORGANS: This patient was started on enzalutamide [Xtandi] and had progression after 8 months; he was started on docetaxel at that time. He received 4 cycles but had neuropathy that resulted in the patient and provider stopping the treatment.

The patient had a rising PSA level and required treatment. We know that we have multiple treatment options in this second-line setting for mCRPC.

We have to consider what these patients were treated with prior to seeing us. This includes assessing the fitness of the patient and the patients goals and preferences. We now know that this patient was treated with enzalutamide. We also know that the options are abiraterone acetate [Zytiga], cabazitaxel [Jevtana], and docetaxel.

After 4 cycles, the patient experienced neuropathy and a rising PSA level after less than 12 months on treatment.

Would you give cabazitaxel to a patient after experiencing neuropathy from docetaxel?

That would be a good treatment option.

We have data from a study in patients with mCRPC called FIRSTANA [NCT01308567].1 Patients were randomized in the first-line setting in mCRPC to receive either cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2, cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2, or docetaxel 75 mg/m2. For cabazitaxel, the 20-mg/m2 dose replaced the 25-mg/m2 dose in the NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines in the United States.2

Although none of these agents demonstrated superiority in terms of disease control or efficacy, there was a slightly higher response observed in the cabazitaxel 25-mg/m2 dose versus the 20-mg/m2 dose. Fewer adverse events [AEs] such as neuropathy, neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were observed in patients who received 20 mg/m2 versus docetaxel, which was a little surprising to me.

The study came out just a few years after cabazitaxel was approved.3 In most cases, I start at the 20-mg/m2 dose rather than the 25 mg/m2. We can give this in patients who have had complications with docetaxel. Its on a cycle-by-cycle basis, but it seems reasonable based on these data and on personal experience. I thought this was an interesting postapproval study that was required of the organization to enlighten us about different doses.

There is also the phase 4 CARD study [NCT02485691], which was shared at the ESMO [European Society of Medical Oncology] Congress last year.4 These patients had already progressed on their AR [androgen receptor]targeted agent and docetaxel. This is a European study, so patients had received an AR-targeted agent in the metastatic castration-resistant setting as well as chemotherapy in the metastatic castration-resistant setting. They were not patients who received AR-targeted agents in the hormone-sensitive setting.

Patients were randomized for their next treatment to cabazitaxel at the full 25-mg/m2 dose with Neulasta [pegfilgrastim versus either abiraterone or enzalutamide, depending on which agent that they had not previously received and progressed on in an earlier phase of the disease. Radiographic progression-free survival [rPFS] was the primary end point, overall survival was a secondary end point, as well as quality-of-life concerns including pain and PSA responses.

The baseline characteristics suggested that there were more patients who were older in the cabazitaxel arm. The investigators reported that patients in the AR-targeted arm experienced pain more frequently, but overall, both arms were fairly well matched. This was a small study to begin with, but they matched well overall

Please explain the efficacy of the CARD trial.

We saw that the rPFS was significantly better for patients who received cabazitaxel versus those treated with either abiraterone or enzalutamide. The median rPFS for the cabazitaxel arm was 8.0 months versus the abiraterone or enzalutamide arm at 3.7 months [HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73; P <.0001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that most subgroups benefited from an rPFS standpoint.

The overall survival data were also presented at ESMO, and this is why I think it was considered one of the presidential symposia. Patients treated with cabazitaxel had a significant improvement in mortality as compared with patients who received either abiraterone or enzalutamide.

There was a 46% reduction in mortality when patients were treated with cabazitaxel compared with the other 2 regimens. Although this is a higher dose than what I normally prescribe, these patients were still able to tolerate it and had an improved survival.

Interestingly, there were significantly more PSA responses reported with treatment with cabazitaxel versus an AR-targeted agent, and significantly more tumor responses [reported] by [the] RECIST [trial]. When investigators measured the tumor size, it seemed to have decreased in size, and a much better pain response was observed. This was determined by using the percentage of the patients who had an improvement in their pain score that was maintained and clinically meaningful over time. Better pain control with cabazitaxel was reported as well. Investigators also observed a longer time to symptomatic skeletal events in the cabazitaxel arm versus the AR-targeted agent.

Whats important to note is when looking at chemotherapy versus AR-targeted agents, there were more AEs that led to treatment discontinuation, with slightly more discontinuations in the cabazitaxel arm. What surprised me and a fair number of people was that there were more AEs leading to death in those patients treated with the AR-targeted agents than with the chemotherapy. This suggests more mortality-related AEs associated with the AR-targeted agents.

Health-related quality of life seemed to be maintained, probably because the disease was better controlled. This was just presented at the 2020 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Patients had better pain control and certainly better prostate-specific concerns with cabazitaxel than with the AR-targeted agents, at least through cycle 5 or so.

What other presentations at the 2019 ESMO Congress were noteworthy?

The other study that I think was groundbreaking at ESMO was a phase 3 trial that targeted DNA repair defects.6 PROfound [NCT02987543] evaluated patients with mCRPC who had also progressed on the AR-targeted agents as well as chemotherapy. They were randomized to receive olaparib [Lynparza] or the second AR-targeted agent. All patients had to have DNA repair defects in their tissue to get into this trial. This was an ambitious study to carry out in a population with prostate cancer. The investigators were able to complete it and do a nice phase 3 trial and present it.

When the 2 arms were compared, the rate of AEs was higher in the olaparib arm; those included cytopenias, some nausea, and other complications. Those are some of the common AEs. Importantly, the treatment duration was significantly longer for patients treated with olaparib than AR-targeted agents.

Reviewing the disease response, rPFS as determined by a blinded independent reviewer was significantly longer for patients treated with olaparib compared with patients who received that second AR-targeted agent. Importantly, patients who received that second AR-targeted agent did not have any restrictions on how long they had to have been on that agent in the first place.

This differs from the CARD study, in which patients had to be on treatment for 12 months or less with a response to an AR-targeted agent. These patients, in contrast, could have been on for however long they were responding; they just had to have received treatment in the past. We see at 3.5 months, 50% of patients treated with that second AR-targeted agent are falling off for radiographic progression, which demonstrates that its not an effective treatment. In any event, olapaolaparib seemed to be significantly more effective in terms of rPFS.

Looking at the confirmed overall response rate in cohort A, which included patients with BRCA1/2 and ATM mutations, there was a significant improvement in objective response rate, 33% versus 2.3% [odds ratio, 20.86; 95% CI, 4.18-379.18; P <.0001].

Reviewing the data for cohort B, which included patients with DNA repair-defect mutations and not just BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations, the investigators reported an improvement in rPFS for this selected patient population.

What did the patient end up receiving?

In this particular case, the patient received cabazitaxel. In a pandemic, I think its especially important to try to prevent our patients from being hospitalized for neutropenic fever.

References:

1. Oudard S, Fizazi K, Sengelv L, et al. Cabazitaxel versus docetaxel as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial-FIRSTANA. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(28):31893197. doi:10.1200/ JCO.2016.72.1068

2. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate cancer, version 1.2020. Accessed May 12, 2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ prostate.pdf

3. FDA approves lower dose of cabazitaxel for prostate cancer. Updated September 14, 2017. Accessed May 12, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-lower-dose-cabazitaxel-prostate-cancer

4. deWit R, Kramer G, Eymard J, et al. CARD: randomized, open-label study of cabazitaxel (cbz) vs abiraterone (abi) or enzalutamide (enz) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mcrpc). Ann Oncol. 2019;30(suppl 5):v851-v934. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz394

5. Fizazi K, Kramer G, Eymard J-C, et al. Pain response and health-related quality of life (HRQL) analysis in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving cabazitaxel (CBZ) versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in the CARD study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(suppl 6):16. doi:10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.16

6. Hussain M. PROFOUND: phase 3 study of olaparib versus enzalutamide or abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mcrpc) with homologous recombination repair (hrr) gene alterations. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(suppl 5):v851- v934. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz394

Link:
Morgans Addresses Neuropathic Toxicity in Second-Line Metastatic CRPC - Targeted Oncology

LA JOLLA - MediciNova, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company traded on the NASDAQ Global Market (NASDAQ: MNOV) and the JASDAQ Market of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (Code Number: 4875), today announced positive clinical findings published in Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology regarding MN-166 (ibudilast) as a treatment for prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

The publication, entitled 'Ibudilast for prevention of oxaliplatin-induced acute neurotoxicity: a pilot study assessing preliminary efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic interactions in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer', is the result of a collaborative effort between MediciNova and Dr. Janette Vardy, Professor of Cancer Medicine, University of Sydney Concord Cancer Centre in Australia. The authors report that co-administration of MN-166 (ibudilast) with oxaliplatin resulted in improvement or stabilization of oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity in the majority of participants treated with oxaliplatin.

This prospective, open-label, sequential crossover study was conducted to assess whether MN-166 (ibudilast) can reduce acute peripheral neuropathy symptoms in patients with metastatic upper gastrointestinal or colorectal cancer. A total 16 patients consented, and 14 patients completed two cycles of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, one cycle with conventional chemotherapy (Cycle A) and one cycle of chemotherapy with concurrent MN-166 treatment (Cycle B). As a cross-over design, each participant acted as their own control. Participants underwent a number of assessments for neurotoxicity on Day 3 of each cycle, and at the completion of each cycle, including the Oxaliplatin-Specific Neurotoxicity Scale (OSNS), the Total Neuropathy Score Clinical (TNSc), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynaecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx13), and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) neuropathy subscale.

About Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy

Peripheral neuropathy is a set of symptoms caused by damage to the nerves that are outside of the brain and spinal cord. These distant nerves are called peripheral nerves. Some of the chemotherapy and other drugs used to treat cancer can damage peripheral nerves that carry sensations to the hands and feet. This damage results in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and is a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Most commonly, people complain of 'pins and needles' in their toes and fingers. CIPN may affect cancer outcomes due to reductions in chemotherapy dosing and/or premature treatment discontinuation and have a profound impact on quality of life and survivorship. According to a meta-analysis which included more than 4,000 patients, CIPN prevalence was 68% when measured in the first month after chemotherapy, 60% at 3 months, and 30% at 6 months or more (Seretny et al., 2014). Long-term neurotoxicity is an important issue for the growing number of cancer survivors, with the highest number of affected patients having been treated for breast and/or colon cancer.

About MN-166 (ibudilast)

MN-166 (ibudilast) is a first-in-class, orally bioavailable, small molecule macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) inhibitor and phosphodiesterase (PDE) -4 and -10 inhibitor that suppresses pro-inflammatory cytokines and promotes neurotrophic factors. Our earlier human studies demonstrated significant reductions of serum MIF level after treatment with MN-166 (ibudilast). It also attenuates activated glial cells, which play a major role in certain neurological conditions. MN-166 (ibudilast)'s anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective actions have been demonstrated in preclinical and clinical studies, which provide the rationale for treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) and other neurological diseases such as glioblastoma (GBM), and substance abuse/addiction. MediciNova is developing MN-166 for ALS, progressive MS and other neurological conditions such as degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), glioblastoma, substance abuse/addiction, and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, as well as prevention of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19. MediciNova has a portfolio of patents which covers the use of MN-166 (ibudilast) to treat various diseases including ALS, progressive MS, and drug addiction.

About MediciNova

MediciNova, Inc. is a publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company founded upon developing novel, small-molecule therapeutics for the treatment of diseases with unmet medical needs with a primary commercial focus on the U.S. market. MediciNova's current strategy is to focus on BC-PIV SARS-COV-2 vaccine for COVID-19, MN-166 (ibudilast) for neurological disorders such as progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), substance dependence (e.g., alcohol use disorder, methamphetamine dependence, opioid dependence) and glioblastoma (GBM), as well as prevention of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19, and MN-001 (tipelukast) for fibrotic diseases such as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). MediciNova's pipeline also includes MN-221 (bedoradrine) and MN-029 (denibulin).

Statements in this press release that are not historical in nature constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding the future development and efficacy of MN-166, MN-001, MN-221, and MN-029. These forward-looking statements may be preceded by, followed by or otherwise include the words 'believes,' 'expects,' 'anticipates,' 'intends,' 'estimates,' 'projects,' 'can,' 'could,' 'may,' 'will,' 'would,' 'considering,' 'planning' or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, risks of obtaining future partner or grant funding for development of MN-166, MN-001, MN-221, and MN-029 and risks of raising sufficient capital when needed to fund MediciNova's operations and contribution to clinical development, risks and uncertainties inherent in clinical trials, including the potential cost, expected timing and risks associated with clinical trials designed to meet FDA guidance and the viability of further development considering these factors, product development and commercialization risks, the uncertainty of whether the results of clinical trials will be predictive of results in later stages of product development, the risk of delays or failure to obtain or maintain regulatory approval, risks associated with the reliance on third parties to sponsor and fund clinical trials, risks regarding intellectual property rights in product candidates and the ability to defend and enforce such intellectual property rights, the risk of failure of the third parties upon whom MediciNova relies to conduct its clinical trials and manufacture its product candidates to perform as expected, the risk of increased cost and delays due to delays in the commencement, enrollment, completion or analysis of clinical trials or significant issues regarding the adequacy of clinical trial designs or the execution of clinical trials, and the timing of expected filings with the regulatory authorities, MediciNova's collaborations with third parties, the availability of funds to complete product development plans and MediciNova's ability to obtain third party funding for programs and raise sufficient capital when needed, and the other risks and uncertainties described in MediciNova's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 and its subsequent periodic reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K. Undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. MediciNova disclaims any intent or obligation to revise or update these forward-looking statements.

Contact:

Geoff O'Brien

Email: info@medicinova.com

Read the original here:
MediciNova : Announces Positive Clinical Results Regarding MN-166 for Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy Published in Cancer...

North America will continue to be the Leading Market for Neuropathic Pain over the Forecast Period (20182026)

According to a recent study conducted by TMR, the global market for neuropathic pain is expected to reflect a CAGR of over XX% during the forecast period (20182026). In 2015, the market was valued at over US$XX Billion and is estimated to stand at US$XX Billion by 2026 end.

This Press Release will help you to understand the Volume, growth with Impacting Trends. Click HERE To get SAMPLE PDF (Including Full TOC, Table & Figures) @https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/sample/3726

Factors such as increasing prevalence of chronic disorders including cancer and diabetes, introduction of newer modalities of receiving neuropathic pain treatment, growing number of pain management service providers and higher demand for neuropathic pain treatment drugs are expected to support the growth of neuropathic pain market globally. Further, arrival of various new medications for neuropathic pain treatment in the market, increasing patient awareness on the availability of advanced neuropathic pain therapeutics and rising demand for generic drugs are additional factors expected to drive the market growth. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies are actively focusing on developing enhanced drugs to cater to the requirement of patients with neuropathic disorders. In contrast to all of that, adverse side effects of steroids and opioids coupled with high cost of branded drugs may act as impediments for the global market of neuropathic pain.

Based on drug class, the global market for neuropathic pain has been segmented into anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressant, opioids, local anaesthesia, steroids, and others. Anticonvulsants drug is anticipated to be the largest segment of the market, reflecting a CAGR of over XX% during the forecast period. Minimum risk of side effects is a major factor driving the demand for this segment. By the end of 2026, the segment is estimated surpass market valuation of over US$XX Billion. Tricyclic antidepressant drugs are also gaining popularity amongst the physicians and patients and the segment is expected to witness a sound growth during the forecast period.

By indication, the market has been segmented into chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy, diabetic neuropathy, and others. Diabetic Neuropathy segment accounts for the largest share of the market. By the end of 2018, the segment is anticipated to account for nearly 47% share of the market in terms of value. On the other hand, chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy indication is projected to account for over 42% share of the market in revenue by 2018 end.

By region, the global market for neuropathic pain has been segmented into Asia Pacific North America, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East & Africa. North America is anticipated to be the most lucrative market for neuropathic pain, account highest share of the market in terms of value. The market in the region is expected to expand at a CAGR of over XX% during the forecast period. This is primarily due to a strong distribution network and presence of advanced healthcare infrastructure and major players of the market in the region.

Pre-Book Right New for Exclusive Analyst Support @https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/analyst/3726

Vendor News

Key players operating in the global market for neuropathic pain include Bristol Myers Squibb, Depomed, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Pfizer, Inc., Sanofi S.A., Eli Lily and Company, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Biogen Idec, and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. Most of these pharmaceutical companies are actively focusing on developing enhanced medication for treat neuropathic pain and other disorders in order to strengthen their presence in the global market for neuropathic pain. Global market for neuropathic pain is expected to surpass market valuation of US$XX Billion by the end of 2026

View post:
Neuropathic Pain Market: Projection of Each Major Segment over the Forecast Period 2026 - The Market Records

Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON) is a maternally inherited mitochondrial disease, characterized by acute or subacute, painless vision loss or even loss simultaneously or sequentially, accompanied by central visual field defect and color vision impairment with poor prognosis. It was first reported by German scholar Leber in 1871. It affects about 1-9:100,000 people worldwide. LHON is one of the blinding diseases. The disease mainly occurs in young- and middle-aged men. Currently, there is no effective treatment for LHON. About 70% - 90% of LHON is caused by ND4 mutation of harboring a point mutation at nucleotide 11778 associated with a G-to-A transition. With the development of NR082, AAV-based gene therapy of LHON becomes possible.

"Due to the lack of effective treatment, the quality of life of LHON patients associated with ND4 mutation is very poor, and a huge unmet medical needs have not been fulfilled," said Dr. Alvin Luk, Chief Executive Officer at Neurophth. "NR082 is the first candidate drug developed by Neurophth. It uses recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 2 to deliver the genetically modified ND4 gene (rAAV2-ND4). After a single intravitreal injection, the gene is translated and expressed in cells, which effectively supplements the function loss caused by endogenous mutation. Through this gene therapy, the electron transport function of mitochondrial respiratory chain was maintained, and the increase of ATP synthesis restored the normal function of mitochondria, which in turn improved the sensory function of the retinal ganglion cells and improved the visual acuity of LHON patients."

Luk added, "the significance of orphan drug designation is that regulators recognize the unmet medical needs of rare diseases like LHON. The recognition of NR082 will reduce the R&D investment to a certain extent and accelerate the progress of clinical trials and marketing registration. Furthermore, Neurophth is committed to fundamentally solve the causes and change the quality of life of patients through a single treatment of gene therapy."

Professor Bin Li, Founder, Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer at Neurophth, said: "NR082 has been granted as orphan drug by U.S. FDA, which further strengthens our focus on gene therapy for rare ophthalmic diseases, and develops more drugs for treatment of ocular genetic diseases, bringing hope to patients with ocular genetic diseases in the world".

*FDA grants orphan drug designation to drugs and biological products designed to safely and effectively treat, diagnose, or prevent rare diseases or conditions affecting less than 200,000 people in the US. According to the Orphan Drug Act of FDA, Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) provides opportunities for grant funding, fast approval channel, and some incentives, such as waiver of New Drug Application (NDA) fees, tax credits for clinical trial expenses and exemption for prescription drug users' fees as well as the products are entitled to a seven-year of market exclusivity and will not be affected by patents.

About NR082 (rAAV2-ND4; NFS-01 Project)

LHON disease is caused by mutations in mitochondrial DNA 11778, 14484 or 3460. ND4 gene of 11778 G>A mutation is the main pathological factor, which exists in 55-70% of European and American patients and 90% of Chinese patients. NR082 (NFS-01 project) is an innovative candidate drug for ophthalmic AAV-based gene therapy. It uses AAV2 vector to express human ND4 gene in the retinal ganglion cells to repair optic neuropathy caused by 11778 G>A mutation.

As early as 2011, Professor Bin Li's team started the world's first LHON gene therapy investigator-initiated trial (IIT) with this candidate drug. Nine subjects who participated in the clinical trial have been followed up for up to 8 years with no serious adverse reactions, and 5 of them have significant improvement in their vision. This result is the longest follow-up record of gene therapy in the world, which has already been published in the Scientific Report, EBioMedicine and Ophthalmology journals, and has fully proven the long-term safety, effectiveness, and durability of AAV gene therapy in clinical settings.

After the gratifying results of the first study, Professor Li's team conducted a more comprehensive IIT clinical study from 2017 to 2018, with 159 subjects (including 10 subjects from Argentina), which is the largest clinical trial in the entire gene therapy in the world. Among those, 143 of the patients has completed the 12-month follow-up and 56.6% showed a significant BCVA (best-corrected visual acuity improved by at least 0.3 LogMAR) improvement. No serious adverse reaction was found. In May 2020, at the 23rd online annual meeting of the American Society for Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) and the online annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), Neurophth presented these two clinical research data on the treatment of LHON with NR082 (NFS-01 project of rAAV2-ND4), demonstrating the international advanced level of this research in the field of gene therapy.

Following the positive results of these two IIT trials, Neurophth is actively preparing the China/U.S. IND (Investigational New Drug) applications, and plans to carry out the registration clinical Phase 1/2/3 registration trial to evaluate the safety, efficacy and durability of NR082.

About Neurophth

As a clinical-stage R & D company, Neurophth is committed to exploring and developing new therapies for global patients with ophthalmic diseases. With the help of the mature AAV ophthalmic gene therapy technology platform and the deep understanding of the ophthalmology field by the founding team for decades, Neurophth has established a rich, robust product pipeline, including more than 10 research projects for various ophthalmic diseases, such as dominant hereditary optic atrophy, optic nerve injury diseases, vascular retinopathy, etc., and gradually expanded from rare to common ophthalmic diseases. Additionally, the company is preparing to build a GMP commercial production platform for gene therapy drugs accordance with the international quality standards, and plans to build an ophthalmic gene therapy transformational excellence center, aiming to become a global leader in gene therapy in ophthalmology to benefit patients all over the world.

Prospect of Gene Therapy in Ophthalmology

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) have long been regarded as an ideal disease area for gene therapy, because most of the gene mutations leading to the disease have been identified (more than 200 gene defects are associated with the most common IRDS). The eye is, to some extent, an immune privilege. Clinical trials have shown that gene therapy using adeno-associated virus (AAV) or lentivirus (LV) vectors in the eye does not cause systemic side effects and does not cause significant immune responses. The most common IRDs were Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP), Achromatopsia color blindness (ACHM), Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON), Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA), Stargardt disease and X-linked Retinoschisis (XLRS).

To date, only one ophthalmic AAV gene therapy product has been approved in the world, namely the first AAV2 gene therapy voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA; Spark Therapeutics) approved by FDA in December 2017 to treat IRD caused by RPE65 double allele mutation in adult or pediatric patients. The approval of LUXTURNAhas brought confidence and hope to the global ophthalmic gene therapy field. Public information disclosed that at least 20-30 kinds of gene therapy for ophthalmic diseases are in the research and development stage, and the international representative companies include Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation and Meira GTX, and new companies represented by Neurophth have also begun to enter the international stage of ophthalmic gene therapy.

References

Contact:Dr. Alvin Luk[emailprotected]

SOURCE Neurophth Therapeutics, Inc.

Read the original post:
Neurophth Therapeutics' Treatment of Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy Gene Therapy NR082 was Granted Orphan Drug Designation by US FDA - PRNewswire

The Warriors are back in the lab and putting up shots in the Warriors Minicamp, presented by Oracle NetSuite. One of those ready to step back on the hardwood and get their reps in is center Kevon Looney. After a 2019-20 campaign in which he appeared in just 20 of the Dubs 65 games due to a combination of neuropathy and abdominal soreness, Looney says he is doing great and ready to test himself.

See what else the Dubs center had to say following Thursdays practice below:

On his recovery from abdominal surgery in May:I had a lot of time to take my time on the rehab and I didnt have to rush this as though we were playing, so I was able to be really detail-oriented about it and make sure I was feeling 100 percent before stepping on the court and before pushing myself this camp is great for me so I have a chance to play (with) these guys, really test myself and see where Im at.

On what helped him through his injuries during the 2019-20 season:Just being in a good atmosphere like the Warriors. Just having the support of the coaches, the training staff and players made a tough time easier. Kinda got down on myself: signed that contract and wanted to come in and have a big year, but things didnt go as planned. To get injured again, and then get injured again, was kinda frustrating I got a lot of trust in our training staff and that theyre going to put me in a position to succeed. I was able to lean on my family, lean on my teammates, lean on fans. I always have my support.

His feelings on current racial inequality and overcoming the obstacles:Its been a tough time seeing what happened to James Blake. Hes not the first, and probably wont be the last its sad to say. Growing up in Milwaukee, seemed like every couple of months or every couple of years something like this happens Gotta try to persevere, gotta try to stay hopeful, try to encourage people to do the right thing, try to get them to protest peacefully, get them to go out there and vote.

Continue reading here:
What They Are Saying in The Dubble - 9/24/20 - Warriors.com

Skyler Simpkins 23

Opinion Editor

When all other options fail, acupuncture is often recommended for those suffering unbearable neuropathy. My father, who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last year, developed severe neuropathic symptoms as a side effect of chemotherapy. His doctors recommended that he receive acupuncture after a plethora of other treatments showed no improvement. The appointment was made and my father was optimistic. A short time before the appointment, the therapist called him and cancelled his appointment due to suspicion of coronavirus infection. The only basis the therapist had for cancelling treatment was that my dad had recently traveled to Florida, a coronavirus hotspot. My father was denied life-altering treatment due to mere suspicion. It was at this moment that I saw the effect of coronavirus anxiety on the health of a loved one, and I quickly realized an egregious problem in our modern, pandemic-defined society.

In the age of coronavirus, we have seen the reemergence of infectious disease discrimination. While this discrimination has always existed, it is now more prevalent and apparent than ever. This can be experienced on a daily basis when wefor examplevisit a store or take public transportation. I would believe that most of us would agree with this, as do I, because these are private businesses enforcing their own jurisdiction over their property. Also, many of us would agree that this discrimination is better for the world since it is helping prevent the spread of coronavirus. But what about healthcare institutions like the one mentioned in my example above? Should private healthcare institutions be allowed to discriminate based upon coronavirus suspicion? While legally these institutions have the right to discriminate upon the basis of infectious disease, healthcare professionals have a much higher ethical obligation to the patient that overrides any legal or constitutional argument applicable.

There are two fields of thought to ponder in this argument over the right to discriminate over infectious disease. First, the legal and second, the ethical.

Legally a privately owned American business has the right to discriminate on the basis of infectious disease precaution. As stated above, I wholeheartedly agree with this right as it protects the community (if they choose to disallow those potentially exposed to or with coronavirus) and protects the sanctity of privately-owned business. Its when these private businesses are based around health care that I perceive a startling reality.

The Hippocratic Oath calls upon physicians to swear to uphold ethical standards in regard to their medical practices. This oath holds physicians to do what is good for the patientsand one could assume that this promotes anti-discriminatory practices. While not all medical students and doctors explicitly swear upon the same oath, we could extrapolate the premises of this oath to the plethora of others sworn by medical professionals every year.

When a doctor sees a patient in need, they should treat them as it is their ethical responsibility to do so. Today, many doctorsmostly in private practicesdeny patients out of fear of a coronavirus outbreak. While some may say this is out of caution and for the greater good, the physician denigrates the patient in favor of their own personal safety. Some may argue that the physician is protecting the community as well as themselves; however, if we start to care only for the greater good, we put the most helpless and feeble in danger.

When a healthcare worker enters into their field of work, they accept a formidable taskwhether literally or theoretically. Healthcare workers devote themselves to their patients and those in need. They help without discriminationespecially when its the most helpless. Why, then, do healthcare workers in private institutions neglect these standards when infectious disease is introduced? While I understand physicians are not contractually bonded to these standards, these standards are bound to their work. When physicians deny individualslike my fatherthey lose their perceived higher moral standing in society. These physicians that neglect the individual are no more of an upstanding citizen than the lay people as they care only for themselves when anxiety is high.

If we allow healthcare workers in privatized businesses to neglect their ethical obligations, we permit the societal abandonment of the most needy. We must remind healthcare workers of their obligations and their predecessor Hippocrates who would look down with shame at how these physicians and specialists are conducting their work. We must protect those discriminated against and ensure the care of allunhealthy or wellin these trying times of uncertainty and fear.

Read the original post:
Infectious Disease Discrimination and the Coronavirus - The Trinity Tripod

Childrens Health Defense

Special to Valley News

The law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Sept. 16, against pharmaceutical giant Merck on behalf of a young man, Zachariah Otto, who was allegedly injured by Gardasil, Mercks HPV vaccine. The complaint seeks damages, including punitive damages, for negligence; strict liability or failure to warn; strict liability or manufacturing defect; breach of warranty; common law fraud and violation of Californias unfair competition law.

Otto claimed in the lawsuit that multiple Gardasil injections, which he first received at the age of 16, caused him to develop life-altering injuries, including dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, orthostatic intolerance, small fiber neuropathy, chronic fatigue syndrome, mast cell activation syndrome, autoimmune disease and fibromyalgia, as well as a constellation of other serious health issues. POTS is an autoimmune condition that impacts the autonomic nervous system, which automatically regulates critical bodily functions, and the sympathetic nervous system, which is involved in the fight or flight response. POTS symptoms include fainting, migraine headaches and anxiety among many other serious conditions.

The plaintiff said the Gardasil-induced injuries have made him disabled to a point where he can no longer work and cannot physically attend college. His mother said it was Mercks intense Gardasil marketing campaign that encouraged her to have her son get the shots. Otto and his mother said that had they known of the serious risks associated with this vaccine, they would have never gone forward with the shots.

Merck fast-tracked Gardasil by presenting misleading data to the FDA and fabricating a health crisis, Ottos co-counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said. They claimed they were filling an unmet medical need but in reality, the only thing Merck was interested in filling was the $6 billion financial hole created by the Vioxx scandal.

Gardasil is racking up a long list of young women and men who were similarly harmed following vaccination with Mercks product. Childrens Health Defense has also been following the case of former athlete and scholar Jennifer Robi, who filed a lawsuit for Gardasil injuries against Merck in 2016. Robi is a 25-year-old woman who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccine at age 16. Like Otto, she was diagnosed with POTS after receiving the series of Gardasil shots. Her attorneys alleged that Gardasils amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant can over-stimulate the immune systems of vaccine recipients, tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies own organs. The autoimmune process allegedly caused a cascade of illnesses that, in Robis case, resulted in damage and deterioration in diverse organ systems throughout her body.

Colton Berrett, featured in the documentary film Vaxxed II, was another victim of Gardasil injury. Berrett was an active 13-year-old when he received the series of shots as advised by his physician before leaving for Boy Scouts camp in 2014. Two weeks after his third dose of Gardasil, Berrett experienced a sore neck followed by paralysis in his arms and hands. The paralysis continued to other parts of his body ultimately making Berrett completely paralyzed from the neck down and ventilator dependent through tracheostomy. Though he fought hard, he never recovered, and in January 2018, Berrett removed himself from the need of life support or the ventilator.

In this latest Gardasil lawsuit on behalf of Otto, Baum Hedlund accused Merck of knowingly and recklessly placing Gardasils profits ahead of patient safety. The team asked for punitive damages to deter Merck from withholding information on the serious adverse events associated with Gardasil while promoting it as safe and effective.

Most people think Gardasil is for girls, but since 2009, Merck has made billions in profit by marketing the HPV vaccine to the parents of boys and to young men, attorney Nicole K.H. Maldonado said. Through its advertising, Merck sold parents on the idea that Gardasil is a safe and effective tool to stop the spread of HPV and prevent cervical cancer. But Merck knew that Gardasil was neither safe nor effective at preventing cervical cancer, and worse, the company knew that Gardasil could cause a host of serious health issues.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Childrens Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured.

Here is the original post:
Lawsuit filed against Merck on behalf of young man allegedly injured by Gardasil - Valley News

The dramatically falling costs of renewables are now a political, a media, and conversational clich. However, the claim is demonstrably false. Audited accounts show that far from getting cheaper, wind power is actually becoming more expensive. The failure of the British civil service to detect this fact and, hence, to protect the consumer and taxpayer from the consequences of the looming failure of the renewables sector raises important questions about the analytic competence of the Whitehall machine.

If we asked a random sample of broadsheet newspaper readers about the economics of offshore wind, it is practically certain that a majority of those interviewed would say they believed it was now cheap. A similar survey of investment analysts and advisors might return the same answer. Politicians and journalists would be certain about the matter. However, if pressed for evidence none of these groups could do much more than point to secondary sources. Some might remember that the Greenpeace sponsored an extensive advertising campaign in 2017, with full page adverts in the press. Others might point out that official bodies present offshore wind as the cheapest source of electricity. Those in financial circles might also indicate that almost every report or lengthy article on the future role of offshore wind power is accompanied by a chart which claims to show the rapid decline of costs over the last one or two decades, perhaps with forward projections to 2030 or 2040.

Incredible though it may seem, none of this is true. Neither offshore nor onshore wind has become cheaper; indeed, both have become more expensive over the last two decades.

How do we know this? Because one of us, Gordon Hughes, has compiled data from audited accounts on the capital and operating costs of 350 onshore and offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, a set which covers the majority of the larger wind farms (> 10 MW capacity) built and commissioned between 2002 and 2019. It is the largest study of its kind to date and will be published shortly by the charity Renewable Energy Foundation, which John Constable directs.

In summary, analysis of the data reveals unequivocal findings:

There is an important corollary to these findings. The current set of offshore projects being constructed and planned in North Western Europe are closely akin to speculative property development. They are high risk projects that will only be able to repay lenders and offer a return to equity investors if the average wholesale market prices of power rise to at least three to four times their current level throughout North West Europe. Such a price surge would require either a large and permanent increase in the market price of gas, which experience suggests is very unlikely, or carbon taxation at 8 to 10 times current levels, rising to at least 200 per tonne of carbon dioxide at 2018 prices in 2030. Such a tax would place a heavy burden on the rest of the economy.

This has consequences for financial regulation. To discharge their responsibilities financial regulators ought to impose a heavy risk weighting on loans to offshore wind farm operators, while also advising that green equity investments are too risky for pension funds and small investors. Instead, the chiefs of the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England and other regulators have urged more investment in green assets without acknowledging the risks involved.

This leads to the prospect of what is not so much a car crash as a motorway pile up in the fog of ignorance. The looming crisis will require that those who finance wind power and its related ecosystem of companies are bailed out by either taxpayers or electricity consumers. The scale of the bailout would be large: about 30 billion is at risk in the UK wind sector alone, with significantly more in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark.

Some wind industry players may be aware that specific projects are not performing in line with general expectations there is no lack of examples reported in specialist media. However, until very recently investors have been protected by generous subsidies and operators are likely to blame project-specific factors rather than realising that the entire sector is affected. In addition, the industry in general seems believe its own propaganda, for which basic error they have only themselves to blame.

Government, we suspect, is genuinely confused. On the 24th of August while we were preparing this summary for Briefings for Britain the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published its latest set of electricity generation cost estimates, Electricity Generation Costs.[1] It recommits BEIS to the view that the costs of wind power have fallen and that this technology is now amongst the cheapest available.

However, it is not difficult to show that the BEIS analysis is wholly, almost pitifully, inadequate and that it cannot be relied upon. We will discuss it in some detail below because the mistaken view that it gives of wind economics is important in itself. Even more, it provides a graphic illustration of the truly wretched quality of the analytical work that underpins policy decisions with vast implications for the United Kingdom and its people.

Before making more detailed observations, we note two general aspects of the BEIS study. First, it purports to provide estimates or forecasts of electricity generation costs for projects commissioning in 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040. While costs at the nearest of these dates can be estimated rationally, costs a decade or more in the future are radically uncertain. To attempt even moderately precise costings, as BEIS does, suggests naivety or hubris. Who in 2000 or even in 2010 had any realistic basis for forecasting the capex and opex costs for projects that are being commissioned in 2020?

Furthermore, on examining the accompanying spreadsheet containing the Departments detailed assumptions it turns out that 94 per cent of the model parameters for the various technologies, conventional and renewable, do not change from one period to the next. This is implausible, since it must presume that there is no technological progress in those fields. Where costs do vary they are for either (a) wind and solar, or (b) a range of minor (Geothermal CHP) or novel (wave, biomass with CCS) technologies. This is unreasonable. If there are cost reductions in the renewable sector, why rule out cost reductions in the conventional sector?

Looked at in more detail this underlying bias is quite extraordinary. The rates of decline in capex and opex costs or increases in operating performance for offshore wind now a mature technology are greater and more sustained than the decline for CCGT+CCS a new and potentially critical technology.

Consequently, the BEIS projections of short-term costs are almost trivial, merely generic costs for the middle of the current decade, while the estimates of relative costs of conventional and renewable generation in the medium and longer term are at best meaningless and at worst misleading.

A second general point that should be noted is that the data used in the BEIS model is almost entirely derived from work conducted by or for the department itself. With the exception of a single reference to a National Grid ESO report, all of the sources cited for the data are BEIS publications or BEIS-commissioned reports. No attempt has been made to draw upon the growing academic and policy literature on the actual costs of building and operating various kinds of generation. There is not even a single reference to the extensive studies undertaken by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in the US and various of the research laboratories funded by the US Department of Energy (DoE) for the example the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Such a narrow focus is hard to justify, and indeed begins to look like a deliberate blindness in which all data is selected to fit with a pre-determined narrative.

And of course it is also true that BEIS has not made any effort to undertake the empirical investigation of audited accounts that forms the data behind the Hughes study summarised above.

Bearing these general remarks in mind, we will now compare some of the specific assumptions in the BEIS study with the results of the data compiled for this and other studies.

Conveniently BEIS has adopted the same base year (2018) for real prices as the one used for the Hughes database, so there is no need for adjustment. We will start by examining capex costs and then opex costs before looking at load factors and financial parameters. In all cases we will use the BEIS assumptions for projects commissioned in 2025, since, as noted above, the BEIS estimates for later dates are mere speculation. We will focus on onshore wind, offshore wind and large scale solar as those are the primary technologies for which BEIS has updated its assumptions and for which comparisons with actual data from company accounts are possible.

Reviewing the deficiencies of the UK governments latest estimates of generation costs we are left with a puzzle. The assumptions which underpin the BEIS estimates of the cost of generation for wind and solar power are fanciful, and do not withstand even cursory scrutiny; under close analysis they disintegrate and are a disgrace to the civil service and an embarrassment to ministers. Indeed, they are so far from the actual costs incurred by current operators and recorded in audited accounts that they are not worth further consideration, except as evidence for fundamental civil service reform. The review preceding that reform should ask how a heavily funded and staffed government department in a major economy can have strayed so far from the real world in a matter of such importance as energy supply. What on earth is going on?

The behaviour of the commercial entities involved in the renewables sector is also puzzling. If the empirical evidence is so clear, why are large companies committing substantial capital to very large projects that are almost certain to make a loss under anything like current market conditions? There are three factors that may explain this behaviour:

Once economic reality becomes undeniable, there will be a huge lobby to pass on the full costs of offshore wind to either electricity consumers or taxpayers. The obvious instrument is carbon taxation, but the increase required would be very large, and the economic harm would be politically contentious to say the least. Vast bailouts to an industry that has misrepresented its economics, whether knowingly or not, will be extremely unpopular. A government trapped between intense political opposition and the ever-widening ramifications of the financial collapse of the offshore wind sector will behave in ways that cannot be predicted confidently, but investors in renewables should be very nervous.

Gordon Hughes is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh

Dr John Constable is Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation.

[1] BEIS, Electricity Generation Costs (24 August 2020). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-generation-cost-projections?utm_source=2deef6b5-8bc2-4b0b-a6a7-eecc4f289432&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=daily#2020

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-capital-update-for-electricity-generation-storage-and-dsr-technologies

Related

Excerpt from:
The Costs of Offshore Wind Power: Blindness and Insight - Briefings For Britain - Briefings For Brexit