Showing posts with label CHDI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHDI. Show all posts

Monday, May 12, 2025

With ‘great promise’ for treating Huntington’s disease, four drug programs press ahead (Part II)

 

At the recent 20th Huntington’s Disease Therapeutics Conference in February, four pharmaceutical companies provided updates on their key clinical trial programs, demonstrating that they had overcome basic safety hurdles and revealing plans to have their drugs potentially approved as therapies (treatments) for delaying the progression of HD symptoms.

 

All four programs use drugs to lower the amount of harmful mutant huntingtin protein in the brain cells of patients.

 

In the first of two articles on these programs, I described the projects of PTC Therapeutics and Roche.

 

In this article, I cover the presentations made by Wave Life Sciences and uniQure.

 

These updates took place during the conference’s first session on February 25, the first day of the three-day event.

 

In a post-conference interview Robert Pacifici, Ph.D., the chief scientific officer for CHDI Foundation, Inc., the conference sponsor, told me that that there is “great promise” regarding these four programs’ potential HD therapies.

 

Attacking only the bad protein, preserving the good one

 

Jane Atkins, Ph.D., Wave’s senior vice president for portfolio strategy and program management, provided an update on the company’s groundbreaking program.

 

Like Roche’s tominersen, Wave’s WVE-003 is an antisense oligonucleotide, an artificial strand of DNA that blocks or lowers the production of the huntingtin protein.

 

However, whereas tominersen and PTC’s votoplam (a splicing modulator) reduce both the mutant and normal huntingtin protein, Wave’s drug is uniquely allele-selective: it attacks just the bad protein and allows the good one to carry out its essential actions unhampered.

 

Clinical trials for drugs usually go through three phases. If the last is successful, the drug can receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

In 2021, in small clinical trials, precursors WVE-120101 and WVE-120102 failed to reduce the bad protein. Wave then developed WVE-003, which entered a clinical trial that same year.

 

At the conference, Dr. Atkins reported that in June 2024 the Phase 1b/2a SELECT-HD study of WVE-003 produced positive results, “including the first allele-selective silencing in any disease.”

 

“A growing body of literature” supports the importance of the good huntingtin protein, she explained, as it sustains the health of brain cells.

 

Slowing the shrinking of the brain

 

In the clinical trial, the bad protein was reduced as much as 46 percent in some volunteers, exceeding the overall goal of 30 percent, Dr. Atkins said, noting that the drug was safe and well-tolerated.

 

Significantly, the study also demonstrated a slowing in the atrophy (shrinking) of the caudate, a key part of the brain dramatically affected in HD, leading to a decline in cognition, function, and movement, Dr. Atkins said. Such atrophy occurs before symptoms appear, she noted, so being able to observe this change early makes the atrophy a good measure of a drug’s effectiveness.

 

The slower shrinking “was the first time this was shown in the clinic,” Dr. Atkins said. “We were super-excited to see this.”

 

With these promising results, Wave plans to put WVE-003 into a combined Phase 2/3 clinical trial, Dr. Atkins said. The company later this year expects to seek FDA approval of the trial. Wave proposes to use caudate atrophy as a primary endpoint, that is, a main measure of WVE-003’s effectiveness.

 

Wave is also investigating WVE-003’s potential impact on somatic expansion, Dr. Atkins said. Somatic expansion is the tendency of the mutant huntingtin gene to continue expanding over time. Many scientists now believe that this process triggers HD symptoms.

 

Somatic expansion is understood as a two-step process where expansion of the gene (step 1) triggers disease (step 2) that drives HD. Wave believes that lowering the bad protein selectively (with WVE-003) is likely to address the second step.

 

As with tominersen, WVE-003 is administered via a spinal tap. Votoplam is a pill.

 

 

Dr. Jane Atkins of Wave Life Sciences displays a slide demonstrating the slowing of caudate atrophy in the WVE-003 clinical trial (photo by Gene Veritas, aka Kenneth P. Serbin).

 

uniQure drug slows disease progression in trial

 

David Margolin, M.D., Ph.D., uniQure’s vice president for clinical development, gave a presentation on the latest developments regarding AMT-130, the firm’s gene therapy drug that reduces the levels of both the good and bad huntingtin protein.

 

In the uniQure clinical trial, a neurosurgeon injects AMT-130 directly into the brains of the volunteers under the guidance of an MRI. As a gene therapy, AMT-130 requires just this one application. (Watch the uniQure video about how AMT-130 is administered here).

 

This small, long-term uniQure Phase 1/2 trial began in 2020. As of April, the number of participants had reached 45, including people from the U.S. and Europe.

 

An interim analysis in mid-2024 showed that “AMT-130 high dose … strongly and significantly reduced disease progression,” Dr. Margolin pointed out. Another analysis found “substantial reduction in risk of clinically meaningful worsening,” he added.

 

As patients continue to go through the trial and beyond, with follow-up, “with every data cut we see… a promising treatment effect becoming more and more evident,” Dr. Margolin said.

 

 

Dr. David Margolin of uniQure presents data illustrating the slowing of HD disease progression in the AMT-130 clinical trial (photo by Gene Veritas).

 

Hoping to accelerate approval

 

The positive results have led uniQure to seek acceleration of FDA approval for AMT-130.

 

Because of HD’s status as a rare disease, in 2017 uniQure received the financially beneficial orphan drug designation from the FDA for AMT-130. In 2019, FDA granted AMT-130 fast track status to further facilitate development of the drug and expedite review.

 

As explained by Dr. Margolin at the conference, in 2024 the FDA defined AMT-130 as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT).

 

This category includes life-threatening diseases such as HD. Dr. Margolin said it is applicable to new kinds of drugs such as gene therapy, cell therapy, and tissue-engineered products, and it further accelerates FDA review.

 

In achieving this designation, uniQure presented to the FDA the data from the Phase 1/2 trial, and the FDA agreed that this data can serve as the primary basis for a drug application, Dr. Margolin said.

 

Dr. Margolin indicated that this determination means that uniQure will not need to put AMT-130 into a Phase 3 trial.

 

“An additional investigational study will not be required,” he emphasized. “That accelerates by several years the timeframe in which AMT-130 might become available to a wider U.S. cohort of patients.”

 

Swaying the FDA to be more flexible

 

Because of the lack of therapies that modify the course of this rare and devastating disease, the uniQure project and the company’s dialogue with the FDA have indicated the willingness of the agency to allow flexibility in clinical trial programs and a faster timeline.

 

Dr. Margolin’s talk title included the phrase “alignment on a US Regulatory Path Via RMAT.” Alignment with the FDA could lead to an “accelerated approval” for AMT-130, he observed.

 

Dr. Margolin asserted that uniQure’s dialogue with the FDA “has meaningfully advanced HD regulatory science.”

 

In response to a question from Dr. Pacifici about the negotiations with the FDA, Dr. Margolin stated that uniQure hopes that the lack of disease-modifying therapy is “swaying FDA to be more liberal than they have been in the past.”

 

Dr. Pacifici asked what additional studies uniQure will conduct if it secures the accelerated approval, which would still be only conditional.

 

Dr. Margolin replied that uniQure will discuss that matter with the FDA.“Importantly, even an accelerated approval means the drug will be available to patients,” Dr. Margolin stressed. “It does constrain promotional materials in certain ways, but would have no relevant impact on its potential availability and accessibility to U.S. patients.”

 

A Breakthrough Therapy designation

 

AMT-130 gained RMAT designation because it is a gene therapy. Since the conference, the AMT-130 program has made yet further progress.

 

On April 17, uniQure announced that the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to AMT-130.

 

“Receiving Breakthrough Therapy designation underscores both the urgent need for effective treatments for Huntington’s disease and the encouraging interim data demonstrating that AMT-130 has the potential to slow disease progression,” said Walid Abi-Saab, M.D., chief medical officer of uniQure, in a press release. “We look forward to working closely with the agency to bring AMT-130 to the Huntington’s disease patient community as quickly as possible.”

 

As explained in the press release, Breakthrough Therapy designation for AMT-130 means that the drug “may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s).” 

 

The firm expects to provide a further FDA update this quarter. In the third quarter, it aims to present data on AMT-130 to support its potential drug application submission.

Friday, May 07, 2021

‘The first at-bat is never a grand slam’: how Huntington’s disease drug research has matured with the Roche and Wave setbacks


Despite the disappointing clinical trial results reported last week by Roche and Wave Life Sciences, Huntington’s disease drug researchers see an upside: they are using the data collected to achieve new insights, offering renewed hope of effective treatments.

 

The news of these setbacks produced one of the most heartbreaking moments of the last several decades for the HD community and researchers.

 

“That kind of news, I hope it’s okay to say: it sucks!” said Robert Pacifici, Ph.D., the chief scientific officer for CHDI Foundation, Inc., of the Roche and Wave trial data. “All of us who hold out so much hope and recognize that there are so many families who so desperately are waiting for much needed relief and therapies – it knocks the wind out of you.”

 

The companies made their first formal scientific presentations of their data at the start of the CHDI-sponsored 16th Annual HD Therapeutics Conference, held virtually from April 27-29. A nonprofit virtual biotech, CHDI focuses solely on developing Huntington’s therapies.

 

Roche confirmed that its drug tominersen failed to alleviate symptoms in its Phase 3 clinical trial; patients receiving the highest of two possible doses may have done even slightly worse than those on placebo. Two early-stage Wave trials failed to meet the goal of reducing the amount of mutant huntingtin protein in the trial participants – an objective already achieved by Roche in an earlier tominersen trial. (Click here to read more.)

 

Dr. Pacifici offered his assessment of the Roche and Wave data and the state of HD drug research in a wide-ranging, 46-minute Zoom interview with me after the close of the event.

 

Dr. Robert Pacifici moderates panel discussion of huntingtin-lowering clinical trial results with Dr. Vissia Viglietta of Wave Life Sciences and Dr. Scott Schobel of Roche (screenshot by Gene Veritas, aka Kenneth P. Serbin)

 

Gaining perspective

 

“My reaction though, now that I’ve come back down to earth, is really not one of surprise,” Dr. Pacifici said. “Drug discovery, as we’ve discussed many times, is a really tough business. The probability of success on any given endeavor is incredibly low.”

 

Dr. Pacifici used a baseball metaphor to explain: “How often does the first batter get up to the plate and hit a grand slam home run? A grand slam, never, because you need to load up the bases with three people. Even a home run is incredibly rare.”

 

The “name of the game” in discovering effective treatments is to carry out as many trials as necessary, “doing it well, failing, but making it a good failure that we can learn from so that subsequent efforts have a much higher chance of success,” Dr. Pacifici explained. “And we continue to snowball and build on that so that we can learn the things to do better, the things that we can do differently, or the things that we should stop doing altogether because we now have confirmed that those are not viable lines of investigation.”

 

The accumulation of experience through research and clinical trials, including the crucial participation of patient volunteers, has produced “an incredibly positive thing,” Dr. Pacifici observed.

 

“Look at how the field has matured,” he said. In the past, scientists would have kept a trial running for three years, waiting for patient improvement, only to discover that “the drug really didn’t even have a chance of working” because it hadn’t done what it was “tasked with doing, which is lowering huntingtin levels.”

 

Now the process is moving “faster” and is “better informed,” Dr. Pacifici said.

 

Watch the entirety of my interview with Dr. Pacifici in the video below.

 

Huntington's disease drug research now a 'mature field' from Gene Veritas on Vimeo.

 

Huntingtin lowering still in the running

 

Dr. Pacifici commented on the critical topic of lowering (reducing) the mutant huntingtin protein, the first strategy aimed at HD’s genetic cause. Scientists believe that the mutant protein is a main driver of the disease. In mouse studies, lowering that protein led to a disappearance of symptoms, and, beginning with the Roche trial, researchers have sought to achieve similar results in humans. Thus, until now, lowering mutant huntingtin has been seen as the potentially most promising path to a treatment.

 

Both Roche and Wave used a type of drug known as an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), an artificial strand of DNA. Other firms and labs are also investigating ASOs.

 

“When two of those things don’t move forward simultaneously, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask the question, ‘Well, is this one of those times where we’ve learned that this approach is not going to work?’” Dr. Pacifici asked. “I can say unequivocally that that’s not yet the case. There are just too many things that factor into how a drug needs to do its job that remain unanswered.”

 

He said that possible key factors affecting the outcomes of the Roche and Wave trials include the stage of disease of the participants, the concentration of the drug tested, and the proper distribution of the drug within the brain. The particular characteristics of the drugs selected could have also impacted the outcome, he added.

 

Another possible explanation involves the design of the trials, the techniques for measuring patient response, and biomarkers (signs of disease and a drug’s effects).

 

In addition, even though Roche’s tominersen reduced the level of mutant huntingtin protein in trial volunteers’ cerebrospinal fluid, researchers still do not know whether the samples of protein actually came from the brain and, if so, cells relevant to HD, Dr. Pacifici cautioned. Scientists also lack other critical details about those samples; for example, they could be fragments, he said.

 

Crucially, the “interim analysis” of the Roche data at the Therapeutics conference did not demonstrate whether lowering huntingtin can help people feel, function, or survive better, Dr. Pacifici observed.

 

Even a “whisper of efficacy” would have validated the huntingtin-lowering approach and “prepared the path for subsequent trials with gusto and confidence,” he continued, adding, however, that “the opposite is not true. We still have great hopes that this is a viable mechanism of action.”

 

Wave plans to start a trial of a third ASO later this year. Roche has also stated that it will continue to explore drugs for HD.

 

Exploring other avenues

 

Because the effectiveness of huntingtin-lowering remains an open question for the field, Dr. Pacifici renewed his call to redouble and diversify drug-hunting efforts.

 

Dr. Pacifici noted that other potential huntingtin-lowering approaches are in the works using non-ASO compounds, while others propose different methods of delivery, including a pill. In the Roche and Wave trials, participants received the drug via spinal tap.

 

“If we were in a fantasy world of the 20th new treatment for Huntington’s coming, you would worry about things like convenience: ‘I’d like to have a pill instead of an injection,’” Dr. Pacifici said. “‘I’d like to have a pill I can take once a day. I’d like to have a small pill that’s easy to swallow.’”

 

However, Dr. Pacifici observed, “we’re not at that stage yet.” Even so, “very critical advantages” exist in exploring different modes of delivery, he said.

 

Indeed, another possibility emerged at the conference. A scientist from pharmaceutical giant Novartis presented research on its drug branaplam, a pill used to treat spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), which causes severe muscle weakness in children. Novartis researchers discovered that Branaplam also reduced the amount of the huntingtin protein in a study of SMA patients. Novartis plans a trial of branaplam in HD patients, with details expected in the coming weeks and over the summer (click here to read more).

 

Like other so-called small-molecule drugs, branaplam becomes distributed very evenly across the whole body, including the brain, whereas a drug like an ASO tends to concentrate where it is administered, Dr. Pacifici explained. He added that small-molecule drugs can be dosed “creatively” – for example, weekly instead of daily – to maximize the “beneficial effect” and allow the person a rest from the drug.

 

(I will explore the quest to develop this type of HD drug in a future article.)

 


Dr. Rajeev Sivasankaran of Novartis presents data demonstrating the effect of the drug branaplam on huntingtin RNA in a study of spinal muscular atrophy patients (screenshot by Gene Veritas).

 

Sharing knowledge rises all boats

 

Dr. Pacifici emphasized that success in the fight against HD ultimately depends on the sharing of scientific information – even negative research results that private companies are loathe to reveal to protect their egos and their stock prices.

 

He cited the presentation by featured speaker Aled Edwards, Ph.D., the founder and CEO of the Structural Genomix Consortium, which practices and advocates for open sharing of scientific information, particularly as it applies to protein science, chemical biology and drug discovery. Dr. Edwards spoke on “HD drug discovery in the public domain – a model for CHDI.”

 

“I think the HD field will benefit by everybody realizing how difficult this problem is,” Dr. Pacifici concluded. “It’s not giving up a competitive advantage by being transparent about what happened. It’s sharing data. That knowledge rises all boats. Everybody needs to know about these things.”

 

Sharing of data and other knowledge has also been one of CHDI’s trademarks as a nonprofit. Dr. Pacifici pointed to specifics: knowledge about the disease, potential treatments, biomarkers, and clinical outcome measures (the techniques for measuring patient response).

 

With such sharing, he asserted, everybody will have an increased chance of success.

 

Refusing to do so will “doom us to the same failure we see in other neurodegenerative fields that have outspent us and been at this a lot longer than we have.” 

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Roche confirms tominersen as ineffective, while Triplet provides key details for trial of drug to slow major driver of Huntington’s disease

 

Following up on news that it had halted dosing, Roche has confirmed that its historic GENERATION HD1 clinical trial, aimed at the genetic causes of Huntington’s disease, failed to improve symptoms in study participants.


The disappointing trial outcome for the drug candidate tominersen was revealed on April 27 by Scott Schobel, M.D., M.Sc., Roche’s medical leader of GENERATION HD1, at the virtual 16th Annual HD Therapeutics Conference, sponsored by CHDI Foundation, Inc., the nonprofit virtual biotech focused solely on developing HD treatments and a collaborator in the effort.

 

More than 1,000 people registered for this greatly anticipated meeting.

 

“Nobody wanted this result,” Dr. Schobel said in his online talk, the first scientific presentation describing why an independent review committee had recommended, and Roche accepted, that GENERATION HD1 be halted. “This is a setback, and it’s a setback which is emotional. It’s a setback which we all feel, because, after being able to lower the huntingtin protein for the first time, there’s a lot of hope in that.”

 

An opportunity to learn

 

Dr. Schobel displayed a series of slides demonstrating tominersen’s lack of effect on trial volunteers, who showed “progressive decline,” reflected in key measures of cognition and control of bodily movements. Observations by physicians also showed “increasing severity” of disease in the participants, Dr. Schobel said.

 

Still, he said the researchers established a “new setpoint for the field”: reducing the level of the mutant protein in the early-stage tominersen clinical trial.

 

That achievement was a historic first, and many HD scientists still believe that this strategy can lead to an improvement in symptoms. However, it now remains for potential future trials to demonstrate that huntingtin-lowering can actually help patients.

 

Roche is “compelled” to use the trial results “as an opportunity to learn,” Dr. Schobel said. The company still has a “wealth of data” to analyze regarding tominersen and its implications for the huntingtin-lowering approach. The firm will share results with the HD community.

 

The Huntington's Disease Society of America will hold a webinar at noon Eastern time on April 29 with an update for the community on the Roche results. (Click here to register.)

 

 

Dr. Scott Schobel of Roche displays slide demonstrating decline in volunteers' condition in the GENERATION HD1 clinical trial at the 16th Annual HD Therapeutics Conference (screenshot by Gene Veritas, aka Kenneth P. Serbin)

 

Drug candidate’s target chosen

 

On this first day of the three-day conference, Irina Antonijevic, M.D., Ph.D., the chief medical officer at Triplet Therapeutics, Inc., revealed key details of the firm’s drug program to develop a genetic strategy that contrasts sharply with the idea of lowering the huntingtin protein. The firm also issued a press release.

 

Dr. Antonijevic focused on Triplet’s efforts to slow or stop a key driver of HD, somatic expansion, the mutant huntingtin gene’s tendency for continued expansion with age.

 

Triplet’s research exploits continuing breakthroughs in HD genetics, also the topic of this year’s Therapeutics Conference. Those advances have revealed that so-called modifier genes linked to the speeding or slowing of somatic expansion can hasten or delay the age of HD onset by just a few years or by as many as 40.

 

Triplet scientists and others believe that the longer that expansion, the more toxic the gene and its product, the huntingtin protein, become.

 

Building on these developments, in 2020 Triplet announced its drug candidate TTX-3360, aimed at slowing or stopping somatic expansion.

 

In her conference presentation, Dr. Antonijevic announced that the specific biochemical target of TTX-3360 is the modifier gene MSH3, involved in the maintenance and repair of DNA.

 

In studies of mice, Triplet has demonstrated safe and effective lowering of MSH3 using TTX-3360. Additional safety studies were done in nonhuman primates.

 

Injection directly into the brain

 

Like the Roche drug, TTX-3360 is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), a synthetic modified single strand of DNA. Both the early-stage trial of tominersen and GENERATION HD1 delivered ASOs via spinal tap.

 

However, Dr. Antonijevic announced that TTX-3360 will be introduced into the brain using an intracerebroventricular (ICV) injection. The ICV device is a small reservoir implanted at the top of the head with a catheter going into the brain. ICVs have been used in medical treatments since the 1960s, including injection of anti-cancer drugs.

 

Dr. Antonijevic explained that, in contrast with the spinal tap – whereby an ASO had to travel along the spine before entering the brain – the ICV will permit Triplet to get its drug deeper into the brain, including areas severely affected by HD.

 

With spinal taps, patients can experience pain and inflammation during dosing because of scarring that results from repeated dosing, Dr. Antonijevic asserted. The ICV permits easy withdrawal of cerebrospinal fluid (which bathes the brain) for monitoring of drug safety and efficacy, she added.

 

The ICV also allows for rapid dosing – perhaps even at home – whereas the spinal tap requires a visit to a doctor’s office, Dr. Antonijevic pointed out.

 

(According to one scientific article, an ICV can remain in place for life. However, long-term usage is not well understood. The device should be monitored for leakage or failure. If necessary, the device can be removed or replaced.)

 


At the HD Therapeutics Conference, Dr. Irina Antonijevic of Triplet Therapeutics discusses a slide comparing two methods of drug delivery: spinal taps (intrathecal injections) and intracerebroventricular injection (screenshot by Gene Veritas)

 

Triplet aims to file an investigational new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug administration (and/or a clinical trial application in Europe or Canada) by year’s end for a Phase 1/2a study of TTX-3360, which will address primarily the safety and tolerability of the compound. Triplet will recruit presymptomatic and early symptomatic individuals for the trial.

 

Triplet also announced a pledge of one percent of its equity to a “patient support fund,” to be managed independently, to support patients suffering from HD and other, similar disorders, known as repeat expansion disorders. The fund will help patients and families secure access to care and therapies.

 

(For background on the Triplet clinical trial program, click here. Stay tuned to this blog here for further coverage of the conference.)

 

(For additional coverage of the conference, click here).

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Blog article No. 300: who exactly is Gene Veritas?

 

On January 10, 2005, I began the first post in this blog with a simple but consequential sentence: “My name is Gene Veritas and I am at risk for Huntington’s disease.”

 

Today, 16 years and two months later, after my mother’s death from Huntington’s at age 68 in 2006 and my own long struggle to avoid disease onset, I am writing my 300th post.

 

Now 61, I never expected to get this far. Starting in her late 40s, my mother’s symptoms left her progressively unable to care for herself and ultimately bedridden. And I inherited from her the same degree of mutation in the huntingtin gene – which I long thought portended the same fate.

 

As I have noted often in recent years, I feel extremely lucky to remain asymptomatic. Although there is (as yet) no genetic test available to individuals to pinpoint the reason, researchers have discovered key modifier genes that slow or hasten onset among people with identical mutations (click here to read more). Also, as doctors and researchers have observed, my efforts to lead a healthy lifestyle likely have also helped.

 

In the early years of the blog, writing under the protection of my Gene Veritas pseudonym, I focused mainly on my family’s struggles with the many medical and psychosocial ramifications of HD. More recently, with the tremendous advances in HD research of the past decade, I have emphasized the science and the advent of crucial clinical trials. Those trials have brought unprecedented hope for the HD community.

 

However, in the whirlwind of HD advocacy and writing, I have not paused to reflect on the deeper meaning of my alias. Even after I went fully public as Kenneth P. Serbin nine years ago in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, I am still widely known in the HD community as Gene Veritas.

 

I have relished explaining a pen name that has become my trademark. In my HD work, I actually prefer the pseudonym, which not only intrigues people but also instantly focuses our interaction on the profound implications of Huntington’s.

 

To mark my blogging milestone, I thus want to clarify two things: who exactly is Gene Veritas? And what does that name mean?

 

A college professor and family man

 

Huntington’s, as a 100-percent genetic disorder, always involves stories about families.

 

After the news of my mother’s diagnosis blindsided my wife Regina and me in late 1995, our life plans changed dramatically. A future as my potential caregiver has loomed over Regina ever since. She is ever thankful about my delayed onset.

 

We forged ahead as best we could. Over the past two decades, we have brought our HD-free daughter Bianca to the threshold of adulthood. Bianca expects to graduate from college in 2022.

 

I am in my 28th year as a history professor at the University of San Diego, and Regina works as an instructional coordinator for the San Diego Unified School District.

 

As a family, we have been active in the local chapter of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America. In 2017, we traveled to Rome for one of the most extraordinary moments in our journey with HD, “HDdennomore: Pope Francis’ Special Audience with the Huntington’s Disease Community in Solidarity with South America.”

 

In the doctor-recommended enrichment and exercise that I practice, I have included the canine member of our family, our cockapoo Lenny, with long walks on diverse routes through our neighborhood.

 


Gene Veritas (aka Kenneth P. Serbin) with wife Regina, daughter Bianca, and dog Lenny (family photo)

 

Representing our common struggles

 

I began this blog under “Gene Veritas” because I lived in the “terrible and lonely HD closet,” fearing discrimination on the job and in healthcare and insurance matters. I built what I have described as an “absolute firewall” between my HD reality and the rest of my life.

 

In February 2011, I took a major step out of that closet by delivering the keynote speech at the “Super Bowl” of HD research, the Sixth Annual Huntington’s Disease Therapeutics Conference, sponsored by CHDI Foundation, Inc., the nonprofit virtual biotech solely dedicated to finding HD treatments. It was held in Palm Springs, CA.

 

About 250 prominent scientists, physicians, drug company representatives, and others listened to my speech, which was titled “Blog Entry 85 … Unmasking the World of Gene Veritas: An Activist Copes with the Threat of Huntington’s Disease.” (I referred to an “entry” instead of “post,” because of the diary-like nature of the blog in the early, anonymous years. Now I use the term “article,” because the posts have become more in-depth and sometimes run several thousand words or more.)

 

As I wrote in an article about that key moment, despite revealing my real name to the audience, my penname “‘Gene Veritas’ will still live on in cyberspace.[…] Through its anonymity and universality, it symbolizes the common struggles of families threatened by HD and numerous other neurological and genetic diseases.”

 

Indeed, in many talks since then I have introduced myself with both my real name and pseudonym.

 

‘The truth in my genes’

 

I explain to people that “Gene Veritas” means “the truth in my genes.”

 

A “gene” is a sequence of DNA, the code that programs our development as humans and gives us particular characteristics. “Veritas” is Latin for “truth.”

 

The truth of my future lies in the mutant huntingtin gene that I inherited from my mother.

 

I also have a personal connection to “veritas”: it forms part of the motto “lux et veritas” (light and truth) on the seal of my alma mater, Yale University.

 

The connection to Yale bubbled up from my subconscious while I was searching for a pseudonym. Surely Yale also came to mind because of the solidarity, advice, and assistance I have received from fellow alumni (click here, here, and here to read more).

 

As one observed, because of the devastation caused by HD, the pseudonym can also represent a grim pun on the school motto.

 

We are all Gene Veritas

 

On March 8, I participated in an online interview conducted by HD global advocate Charles Sabine and Simon Noble, Ph.D., CHDI’s communications director. They wanted to learn more about the Gene Veritas facet of my life.

 

Dr. Noble asked me whether I had an alter ego and other identities, in line with the ideas of 2010 keynoter and graphic novelist Steven Seagle, who has addressed his family’s way of confronting Huntington’s by juxtaposing the reality of disabling HD with the fantasy of Superman.

 

“Gene Veritas” is my alter ego, I said.

 

So, Dr. Noble wanted to know, how did the Gene Veritas alter ego protect me? Did it allow me to do other things? Did I become a different person in some respect? Were there positives to being Gene Veritas?

 

“Absolutely,” I responded. “Being anonymous for so many years allowed me to be completely honest about Huntington’s disease. Those first years of the blog were a complete explosion of HD honesty – talking about the feelings, talking about the discrimination, talking about the anger, the hurt, the pain, worrying about my mother, seeing my mother die from the disease. Those early years were really, really hard.”

 

This blog and “Gene Veritas” have also served as coping mechanisms, I added, and they allowed me to build awareness about HD.

 

“But how to build awareness anonymously?” I continued. “It’s like a contradiction in terms. That’s why ‘Gene Veritas’ became so important, because I was somebody. I couldn’t be Ken Serbin, but I could be Gene Veritas.”

 

Pondering further the universality of my pseudonym, I observed: “It’s my story, but it’s really the story of the HD community. Anybody could be Gene Veritas in the HD community. Because I think we’ve all been at one point or another a kind of Gene Veritas, at least when we first find out about Huntington’s. It’s representative. It’s something that has a broad meaning to it.”

 

Writing the history of the HD movement

 

In this blog, my CHDI keynote, and other speeches, I have documented the new and harrowing human experience of living in the gray zone between a genetic test result and onset of a disease.

 

In my CHDI speech, I showed a slide with a simple breakdown of main blog topics to that point. Information about the disease and research was the leading topic, followed by articles on my mother, fear of onset, and coping.

 

I will do a more fine-grained content analysis of posts for an academic article on the blog as a coping mechanism, fount of information for the HD community, and source of insight into the fight against HD and the search for therapies. I will submit the article to a scientific or medical journal.

 

I am also planning a book on the history of the Huntington’s disease cause, tentatively titled “Racing Against the Genetic Clock: A History of the Huntington’s Disease Movement and the Biomedical Revolution.” The blog will serve as a considerable primary source (a document or other material produced by a participant in a historical event) for my research and/or future historians of the HD cause.

 

In academic year 2021-2022, I will dedicate an expected sabbatical (a leave from teaching and other on-campus duties) to the book project. I will consult researchers, physicians, and members of the HD community about the key themes.

 

I earnestly hope to recount in this blog and my book the achievement of effective treatments for HD.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

I’m a Huntington’s disease gene carrier at age 60, so why haven’t I developed symptoms yet?


Huntington’s disease struck my mother in her late 40s, turned her into a debilitated, mere shadow of herself by her late 50s, and took her life at 68. I inherited from her the same degree of genetic mutation. Last December, I turned 60. So, doomed to suffer this inevitable and untreatable disease, why don’t I have any apparent symptoms yet?

Of course, I am thrilled to have avoided the dreadful scenario I imagined for myself after my mother’s diagnosis in 1995 and my positive test for the mutated, expanded gene in 1999. I did not believe that, by age 60, I would still be able to work, write, and not become a burden for my family. Indeed, in January, I marked fifteen years as a Huntington’s disease blogger.

I have written about my broad range of strategies for keeping healthy, including swimming, neurobics  (exercising the brain) and blogging, and taking supplements, some of which were ultimately proved ineffective. I stretch daily to keep limber, and I eat a healthy diet (no alcohol, sodas, or red meat; minimal processed foods; and lots of fish and fresh fruits, vegetables, and salads). I also consult a psychotherapist, meditate, and practice spirituality. 

I also have the benefit of a stable, solid-paying job and a close relationship with my wife and daughter. I cannot be sure whether any of these things help avoid HD, but they generally bolster health.

As Robert Pacifici, Ph.D., the chief scientific officer for the nonprofit, HD-focused CHDI Foundation, Inc., pointed out in a major interview last year, “lifestyle” is potentially very important. Evidence from at least one animal study suggests this, he said, although no scientific data yet prove this for HD in humans (click here to read more).

However, extensive, pathbreaking research based on humans has provided a new understanding of the genetics of Huntington’s and why people with the same size of gene mutation – the same CAG count, as explained below – can experience widely different ages of onset. A Huntington’s Disease Society of America (HDSA) webinar, presented by James Gusella, Ph.D., on November 19, 2019, explained the main points of this research and its relevance for HD families.

“You can relatively easily find people who’ve developed symptoms maybe 20 or more years later than you’d expect from the average, or 20 or more years earlier than you’d expect, and you can find people all along that range,” said Dr. Gusella, who titled his presentation “New Insights on Huntington’s Disease Age of Onset from Genetic Studies of HD Families.”

Dr. Gusella is the Bullard Professor of Neurogenetics at Harvard Medical School and the director of the Center for Human Genetic Research at Massachusetts General Hospital. He helped lead the efforts that narrowed the search for the huntingtin gene to chromosome 4 in 1983 and the discovery of the gene in 1993 (click here to read more). Since then, he and his collaborators have continued to make important discoveries about HD.


Above, Dr. James Gusella (left) during an interview with Gene Veritas (aka Kenneth P. Serbin) at the 7th Annual Huntington's Disease Therapeutics Conference, sponsored by CHDI,  in 2012. Below, a slide from Dr. Gusella's HDSA webinar presentation illustrating the average age of HD onset correlated with the CAG count.


The CAG count

Focusing on the discovery of so-called “modifier genes” for HD, Dr. Gusella delved into the reasons for the wide variations in onset – and the potential this research has for producing HD treatments.

As Dr. Gusella explained in the webinar, the human genome has 3 billion “letters,” or base pairs, which make up our DNA. The four letters that make up the bases of DNA are A (for adenine), C (cytosine), G (guanine), and T (thymine).

Like all genes, the huntingtin gene is made of a string of “three-letter words,” sequences from those four letters. Within the gene is a segment in which the word “CAG” is repeated a number of times. Normal genes have 10-25 CAG repeats. Repeat lengths of 26-34 do not ordinarily cause HD, but the repeat number can increase as the gene is passed to a child, leading to HD in the offspring. HD can occur in people with 35-39 repeats, and genes with 39 or more repeats “almost always” cause the disease, Dr. Gusella stated.

“CAG repeats” is the lingo of the HD community. Tested gene carriers like me usually know our repeats, and those of our affected parent and relatives. I have 40, as did my mother.

The “CAG count,” as it’s also known, became critical in my wife’s and my decision to conceive, especially because males (we were told) had a greater tendency to pass on a larger number of repeats. What if our child had a few more repeats or even more?

The CAG count has long factored heavily in genetic counseling and even in people’s decisions about moral dilemmas like abortion.

In general, the more repeats, the earlier the onset, leading even to juvenile HD – although, as Dr. Gusella emphasized, the age of onset varies widely.

New thinking about HD genetics

Since the discovery of the HD gene, scientists have published thousands of papers on HD, many of them based on studies in non-human organisms such as flies, mice, sheep, and primates – some of these organisms genetically modified (before birth) to later develop HD-like symptoms. However, because HD occurs only in humans, ultimately our species provides the best model for understanding and treating the disease, scientists say.

Scientific advances and the advent of clinical trials have made deeper research in humans more widespread and easier to carry out.

“We’re firm believers that, if you’re going to study a human disease, you’re best to study it first in people, rather than in trying to recreate it in other animals,” Dr. Gusella stated. “People really give you the information for what the disease is.”

Assessing genetic data collected over decades in more than 9,000 people affected by HD, Dr. Gusella and the Genetic Modifiers of HD (GeM-HD) Consortium have made discoveries that have changed standard thinking about Huntington’s genetics.

This type of broad-ranging study is known as GWAS, genome-wide association study. 

As Dr. Pacifici stated in 2015, human data are “precious” because they enable Huntington’s drug hunters to design and run better clinical trials, which are crucial for developing treatments.


Dr. Robert Pacifici (photo by Gene Veritas)

Explaining onset

In the webinar, Dr. Gusella detailed the research on CAG repeats and onset. A correlation definitely exists, he stated. However, other key factors come in into play.

“The inherited CAG length accounts for about 60 percent or so of the variation in age of onset, but there is a lot of variation” at each CAG count, he said.

“Just measuring the CAG repeat doesn’t give you an accurate prediction of when any given individual is going to have onset,” he emphasized. Research in thousands of people produces an average, “but it really doesn’t tell you much specifically about a given individual that would be useful diagnostically.”

However, the mass CAG data can help scientists explain why individuals diverge from the average, he stated.

Forty percent of the reason for onset must be due to factors other than the CAG count, Dr. Gusella continued. From their research, the GeM-HD Consortium concluded that 20 percent is due to other genes, that is, modifier genes “that are influencing when you have onset.”

Environmental factors ‘hard to study’

“The other 20 percent remains unexplained,” Dr. Gusella said. “It could be anything. It could be chance. It could be environmental factors.”

Environmental factors “are very hard to figure out and study,” he added. In answer to a webinar question about environment, diet, and exercise, Dr. Gusella could point to no study on the topic, although he noted that such research falls outside his expertise.

Indeed, in my more than two decades as an HD advocate and participant in numerous research studies, I’ve not been aware of any such study for presymptomatic gene carriers like me. The closest was PREDICT-HD, which collected samples of blood, urine, saliva, and cerebrospinal fluid from presymptomatic gene carriers. It also had them undergo a motor coordination exam and brain MRI scan and perform a battery of cognitive and mood tests. (Click here to read more).

Dr. Gusella added that the unexplained factors could also include “simply the diagnostic uncertainty, because you’re dealing with a motor onset.”

Motor onset marks the start of the involuntary movements typical in HD. Doctors have long used it as the standard way of diagnosing the disease, as opposed to other, initially often more subtle symptoms such as depression or cognitive difficulties.

However, as Dr. Gusella noted, diagnosing motor onset can be “a little bit subjective” on the part of the patient, the family, and the physicians. They all might also lack certainty about the exact time of onset.

Modifier genes influence age of onset

For the 20 percent of onset determined by modifier genes, the GeM-HD Consortium has hard evidence from the genetic studies of the 9,000-plus individuals.

It is “clear” that genetic variations “account for the differences” in age of onset for people with the same CAG count, Dr. Gusella said.

Everybody has genetic differences such as hair and eye color, and the overall number of differences among people is very large, he explained. By studying thousands of people, and using two methods of analysis, the scientists have detected 23 genes that influence the onset of HD.

Modifiers can come from both the affected and non-affected parent, Dr. Gusella pointed out.

As with many other genes, researchers have assigned these modifiers with very long, scientific names, which they have abbreviated to terms like FAN1. Delay in onset from the average varied from one to 20 years. FAN1 and most of the other modifiers are involved in the maintenance and repair of DNA, which, in general, helps cells remain healthy, he noted.


A slide from Dr. Gusella's presentation illustrating the location on the chromosomes of some of the currently identified Huntington's disease modifier genes

Dr. Gusella stressed that the GeM-HD research had not yet resulted in new types of genetic tests for individuals to discover whether they have favorable or unfavorable modifier genes. The research correlates to observations in thousands of people, but does not allow for prediction of age of onset in any given individual. 

The GeM-HD findings have shed light on other genetic aspects of the disease critical for families and family planning. When an affected parent passes on an abnormal CAG repeat, the count can increase or decrease, usually by one to three repeats, with a slight tendency to go up, and with a greater tendency for increases in CAG count when the gene is passed on by males, Dr. Gusella stated.

However, because of the action of modifier genes and the larger overall variation in onset, any attempt to “to predict onset from relatives” could “easily be wrong.”

So, Dr. Gusella asked, if such findings cannot directly inform individuals and their families, what are they good for?

Researchers can seek to investigate the “mechanism” by which the modifiers affect the “disease process” and then, based on that knowledge, design treatments to influence that process “in a much, much stronger fashion” than any of the modifiers does individually.

“Imagine if we had a drug that could delay onset of motor symptoms by 40 years!” Dr. Pacifici exclaimed, commenting on the discovery of the modifier genes. “My gosh, that would be fantastic. Nature’s kind of done that experiment for us. It’s told us that it is possible to modulate the disease.”


A slide from Dr. Gusella's presentation illustrating how age of disease onset is influenced by modifier genes, as shown in the different curves

The defective protein

Another key finding of the GeM-HD studies has also changed standard thinking in the HD field. This discovery involves the protein made by the huntingtin gene, also called huntingtin.

Each 3-letter “word” in the DNA encodes an amino acid to put into the protein the cell is making.  There are 20 different amino acids; proteins are made of long chains of hundreds or thousands of amino acids, which are then folded, linked, or otherwise modified to create the final product. Dr. Gusella described proteins as the “workers in the cell.” Cells are assisted in this process by RNA, which acts as a messenger to carry instructions from the DNA in the making of proteins.

In the case of huntingtin, there is a particular location in the gene where the word CAG appears many times in a row, as noted above. This leads to the creation of a protein that includes the amino acid glutamine many times in a row.

Since the discovery of the gene, scientists have assumed that HD onset occurred because of too many glutamines in the protein, supposedly resulting in cumulative damage to brain cells by the faulty protein, Dr. Gusella observed.

“This assumption is actually not correct,” he reported.

The gene drives onset

The GeM-HD researchers found that, after the string of CAG repeats in the gene, there is usually the “word” CAA and then another CAG, Dr. Gusella explained. The DNA “words” CAG and CAA both mean “glutamine” to the cell’s protein-making apparatus.  

“The vast, vast majority of Huntington’s disease individuals have that structure,” he continued.

However, in less than one percent of people with HD, there is no extra CAA-CAG – or there are two CAA-CAG combinations.

These genetic differences affect the measurement of the CAG count, making the actual section of the gene shorter or longer than the laboratory would measure using usual test methods, Dr. Gusella explained. Detecting these very small variations in DNA sequence in a small number of patients is difficult and costly. Also, as with modifier genes, getting tested for these differences would not benefit HD patients in any way, he added.

However, these uncommon variants in the DNA sequence permitted researchers to do something very important: to distinguish the effect of the CAG from the effect of the glutamine.

“It’s not glutamine that’s driving the time of onset,” Dr. Gusella explained. “It’s some property of the CAG repeat itself, some property of the DNA where the consecutive CAG that’s not interrupted by anything is determining roughly the time of onset.”

Here is an example: a typical person with HD might have a huntingtin gene with 42 CAGs followed by a CAA and another CAG. Because both CAA and CAG lead to glutamine, the gene test would say that he had 44 CAG repeats, and his huntingtin protein would have 44 glutamines in a row. But the testing in Dr. Gusella’s laboratory would show that there were only 42 CAG repeats before the CAA “interruption.” Another person might have 44 CAG repeats without a CAA interruption. Her gene test would show that she has 44 CAG repeats, the special test would show 44 repeats, and the protein would have 44 glutamines in a row. The first patient, however, who has a smaller actual number of CAG repeats before the interruption, would have a later onset age than the second patient.

This finding “makes a big difference for how you think about the disease and how you might go about trying to intervene in it,” Dr. Gusella concluded.


Dr. Gusella with long-time collaborator Marcy MacDonald, Ph.D., a member of the GeM-HD team (HSDA photo)

The CAG can expand over time

Another “special property” of the expanded CAG repeat is that the longer it starts out, the more likely it is to increase in size over time, Dr. Gusella said.

According to Dr. Pacifici, this so-called somatic expansion could be related to the appearance of symptoms. In this theory, brain cell damage and death occurs as CAG repeat lengths within the cell increase from 40-50 to 100 or more.

Several of the 23 modifier genes identified by the GeM-HD team appear to influence somatic expansion of the CAG; some modifiers seem to make it go faster, leading to early symptom onset, while others seem to slow somatic expansion, leading to a later onset of symptoms.

Onset (start of the disease) is different from progression (how the disease worsens over time).

Dr. Gusella cautiously answered a question from a webinar participant about whether a later onset could slow or hasten “progression” of the disease. He observed that the HD field has not yet established a clear definition of progression, with much debate on the matter. Clearly, as the GeM-HD data demonstrate, there’s a “lesser influence” of the CAG count on the changes in symptoms “than there was on getting there in the first place, of starting to have them.”

Implications for potential treatments

Taken together, the GeM-HD findings have helped to specify – over a large number of people – a number of genetic factors determining HD onset, and to show that it’s not a “cumulative damage as a result of the huntingtin protein,” Dr. Gusella summarized.

“The mechanism of toxicity is uncertain – it might involve huntingtin protein or might act by another mechanism involving the DNA or RNA of the HD gene,” he said.

The search for other modifier genes continues in the quest to clarify how the cells are being harmed, he said. Researchers are also examining how rapidly certain measures of health change before onset, how the disease changes after onset, and the differences in how the disease develops in people with very similar CAG length.

Dr. Gusella addressed the potential implications of the GeM-HD research for clinical trials in progress that seek actually to reduce the amount of the huntingtin protein in brain cells. Run by Roche, the first of these so-called huntingtin-lowering trials, GENERATION HD1, entered a critical and final Phase 3 in early 2019 (click here for the latest update on the trial).

“Those therapies are being applied at a point in time where you’re right around onset or after onset, which means that the expansion of the repeat that is leading to damage has gotten to the point where enough cells are damaged that you are close to or showing symptoms,” Dr. Gusella said. “If you now knock down the huntingtin [protein], if the huntingtin is the mechanism by which the expanded repeat ultimately kills the cell, then it should work. If it’s the RNA, it may work, depending on what the effect of the treatment is on the RNA level.”

However, Dr. Gusella emphasized that the GeM-HD findings do not address when a huntingtin lowering therapy should be given, or whether or how they work.

“I certainly hope that it does,” he added.

Other paths to drugs

Dr. Gusella addressed other ways in which the new understanding of HD genetics might help in the search for treatments. One possibility would be to interfere with the characteristic of the CAG repeat that is seen as driving onset, he said. Another approach could involve the modifiers engaged in DNA maintenance and repair – by manipulating them with drugs, suppressing them, or by activating them.

Yet another way would be to block the somatic expansion of the huntingtin gene, Dr. Gusella continued. Researchers could also use the new techniques developed for manipulating DNA and perhaps even change the number of repeats. Also, huntingtin-lowering drugs (if and when they are developed) could be used in combination with as yet undiscovered modifiers, he said.

Would more genetic information be helpful?

In addition to the Dr. Gusella’s 2019 webinar – his first such presentation for HDSA – I’ve also watched talks at scientific conferences by him, his long-time collaborator Marcy MacDonald, Ph.D., and Jong-Min Lee, Ph.D. According to Dr. Gusella, Dr. Lee “in particular has helped drive these studies.”

People in the HD community often speculate as to what “triggers” the disease. The GeM-HD research provides a partial but important answer with its discovery of modifier genes and other genetic factors that influence the age of onset.


Dr. Jong-Min Lee at the 2015 HD Therapeutics Conference (photo by Gene Veritas)

For many years, I have speculated about my age of onset, almost always referencing my mother’s situation. However, as the GeM-HD research now shows, that is not very helpful because of the great variation in age of onset.

Thus, as I’ve watched the research progress, I have wondered: could one or more modifier genes inherited from my parents have acted to delay my HD onset well beyond my mother’s?

I’ve also thought about somatic expansion: perhaps my mother’s 40 CAG repeats expanded to a much higher number more quickly than mine. Perhaps the other genetic factors outlined by Dr. Gusella have had an impact.

For now, at least, I can’t be tested for the modifier genes or these other factors. As Dr. Gusella indicated, even if I could, it’s not clear how predictive they would be, nor how helpful such knowledge would be.

From 1995 to 2000, my family went through three CAG tests: my mother’s, mine, and our daughter’s. Luckily, our daughter tested negative in the womb, but my wife and I waited for three agonizing months to learn her status.

After those difficult experiences, would I really want to go through more tests? If I could know my genetics to a more precise level, including moment of onset and how the disease would develop, would I really want such information?

Because of the lack of an effective treatment, most at-risk untested individuals decline testing for the CAG count. As Gene Veritas – the person who wanted to know the “truth in his genes” – I’m an outlier.

However, I cannot predict my feelings about further genetic testing until actually facing that possibility. I would only know at the moment they became available.

HD in the vanguard, but still highly complex

A decision to get tested again and my feelings about it would also depend on the availability of effective treatments. With the potential success of the Roche drug and others, doctors and HD clinics are preparing for the likely boom in testing for the CAG mutation, as people seek to learn their status before taking a drug.

As Dr. Gusella pointed out, HD stands in the vanguard of the attempt to apply protein-lowering and other cutting-edge techniques because, unlike the other major neurological disorders, it is monogenetic: it has a single genetic cause.

The critical GeM-HD discoveries could perhaps bolster the effectiveness of these other approaches or even result in unique medicines.

However, the new genetic research also underscores another reality of HD. Despite its monogenetic status, it is complex and features subtle genetic nuances. Huge challenges remain in developing treatments.

For HD-impacted individuals and their families, in the near term much will remain a mystery.

(For further background on the GeM-HD research, click here for the 2019 CHDI presentation “Genetic Modifiers” by Dr. MacDonald. Click here for the 2015 CHDI presentation by Dr. Lee.)