In US, first baby treated with custom gene-editing, sparking hope for rare illnesses
WASHINGTON, May 18 — A US infant with a rare condition has become history's first patient to be treated with a personalised gene-editing technique that raises hopes for other people with obscure illnesses, doctors said Thursday.
The wee pioneer is KJ Muldoon, now a nine-and-a-half-month-old boy with chubby cheeks and big blue eyes.
Shortly after birth, he was diagnosed with a rare and serious condition called CPS1 deficiency.
It is caused by a mutation in a gene that produces an enzyme key to liver function, and prevents people with it from eliminating certain kinds of toxic waste produced by their metabolism.
'You Google 'CPS1 deficiency' and it's either fatality rate or liver transplant,' the baby's mother, Nicole Muldoon, says in a video released by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where the baby was treated.
With the prognosis grim, doctors suggested something that had never been done before: a personalised treatment to fix the baby's genome using what amounts to a pair of molecular scissors — the technique called Crispr-Cas9, which earned its creators the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2020.
The boy's father said he and his wife faced an impossible decision.
'Our child is sick. We either have to get a liver transplant or give him this medicine that's never been given to anybody before, right?' said Kyle Muldoon.
In the end, they agreed to have the child treated with an infusion created just for him to fix his genetic mutation — incorrect DNA letters in the several billion that make up the human genome.
'The drug is really designed only for KJ, so the genetic variants that he has are specific to him. It's personalised medicine,' said Rebecca Ahrens-Nicklas, a member of the medical team who specialises in paediatric genetics.
Once the tailor-made infusion reaches the liver, the molecular scissors contained in it penetrates cells and goes to work editing the boy's flawed gene.
The results were promising for other people with genetic conditions, said the medical team, which published their study Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
KJ can now follow a diet richer in proteins — his condition prohibited such before — and does not need as much medicine as he used to.
But he will need to follow-up long term to monitor the safety and efficacy of the treatment, the team said.
Ahrens-Nicklas said she hoped this achievement will allow the boy to get by with little or no medication some day.
'We hope he is the first of many to benefit from a methodology that can be scaled to fit an individual patient's needs,' the doctor said. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump's WHO withdrawal could cost the US dearly
While the Covid-19 pandemic is firmly in the past for many Americans, US households continue to bear the costs of infectious-disease outbreaks. A few months ago, the price of eggs in the US soared to a record high, largely owing to the spread of H5N1 bird flu. Since March 2024, the virus has ravaged US chicken farms, leading to tens of millions of poultry deaths from infection or culling. More ominously, at least 70 human cases of bird flu have been identified in the US, with one death reported in Louisiana. In a recent report about enhancing the response to H5N1 in America and globally, the Global Virus Network, a consortium of the world's top virologists, warned of 'the terrible consequences of underreacting to current threats'. But while bird flu poses the most immediate risk to Americans, it is by no means the only one. Virulent infectious-disease outbreaks in other countries, such as mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola in Uganda, Marburg in Tanzania, and multi-country outbreaks of cholera, do not respect borders, and thus are a threat to people everywhere – including in the US. Without the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) to contain these outbreaks, the risk of wider transmission would be much greater. This underscores the need for a global agency like WHO to supervise cross-border cooperation – and the shortsightedness of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the organisation. Despite being the world's richest and most powerful country, America is not immune to another Covid-style calamity, and abandoning multilateralism and neglecting pandemic preparedness (such as the stockpiling of treatments and vaccines) will make it all the more vulnerable. One might think that the deadly spread of Covid-19, prolonged by the emergence of new virus strains, would convince policymakers to strengthen the world's public-health architecture – especially as experts warn that future pandemics could be even worse. But with other leaders indicating that they may follow Trump's example and leave WHO, the resources for pandemic prevention and control could dwindle to the point that global outbreaks become more frequent and difficult to overcome. If Trump follows through with the move, his administration will become increasingly isolated and impotent. American officials, including at US military installations abroad, will lose access to WHO-led and -facilitated global networks that collect and share information about infectious-disease threats and respond to outbreaks. Moreover, the US government will have no say in developing new solutions (which will almost invariably be less effective) for controlling the spread of diseases across borders – including its own. Trump has suggested that he may change his mind, presumably if the grievances set out in his executive order to withdraw the US from the organisation are addressed. This implies that WHO should apply pressure on China to identify the pandemic's origins. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for his part, has refused to accept the Chinese government's prevarications. If Trump can propose a way to determine the cause of Covid-19, I am sure that WHO's leadership would gladly hear it. Trump's second condition is that WHO undertakes reforms and uses its resources more effectively at the local level, with a greater focus on stopping the spread of infectious diseases. This is a demand that can and should be met. To that end, Tedros has already promised more targeted use of funds and implemented other measures to transform the organisation. In addition, under Tedros, WHO has transformed the way it raises funds. Its member states have sharply increased their annual contributions, and it has diversified its donor base to share the funding load more widely. This is all part of WHO's drive to be more sustainably financed, a plan launched as part of Tedros's effort to transform the organisation's operations after he took office in 2017. Back then, he and member states assessed that the departure of a major donor could leave WHO's programmes and independence vulnerable to funding shocks. Who knew it would be the US. But, had those changes not been made, we can only imagine how much more challenging WHO's current financial situation would be. The Trump administration should welcome these changes, not least because it benefits from having a seat at the table. If the US ultimately abandons WHO, developing evidence-based guidance and regulations for chronic-disease prevention and management will be significantly harder, undermining the administration's goal of addressing America's chronic-disease epidemic. The US will also no longer be a part of WHO's medicine prequalification process, a programme that opens a host of new markets for drug producers in a cost-effective manner. Instead, US pharmaceutical companies will be forced to sell their prequalified products to each country individually, putting them at risk of losing access to highly profitable multibillion-dollar markets. Twenty-first-century trends – including more mobility and international travel, greater urbanisation, and increasing human encroachment on nature – fuel the global spread of infectious diseases, to the detriment of everyone. US officials would be better positioned to protect their citizens if they joined – and perhaps even led – a discussion on how WHO and other global health organisations, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, can meet the world's needs. One such initiative, in which the US had been a strong partner until Trump took office, was to negotiate a WHO Pandemic Agreement, which was adopted by consensus by WHO member states at the World Health Assembly on May 20. This historic compact, based on the principles of equity, collaboration, and the reaffirmation of national sovereignty in public-health decision-making, will make the world safer from future pandemics. The US, bolstered by its world-class medical professionals and substantial public investment in medical research, has long exerted considerable influence on global health priorities. But withdrawing from WHO places America on the outside, unable to shape the agency's policy agenda and reforms. When the next pandemic strikes, the US will be left watching from the sidelines, as WHO and its remaining member countries manage the global response and pick up the pieces as they see fit. Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of the UK, is UN special envoy for global education and chair of Education Cannot Wait. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Free Malaysia Today
New hope for patients with less common breast cancer
Results from a new study could soon establish a new first-line therapy for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. (Envato Elements pic) WASHINGTON : A new treatment nearly halves the risk of disease progression or death from a less common form of breast cancer that hasn't seen major drug advances in over a decade, researchers reported Monday. Results from the study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, are expected to be submitted to regulators and could soon establish a new first-line therapy for people with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer – the advanced stage of a form that comprises 15–20% of all breast cancer cases. HER2-positive cancers are fuelled by an overactive HER2 gene, which makes too much of a protein called human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 that helps cancer cells grow and spread. Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body live around five years. 'Seeing such a striking improvement was really impressive to us – we were taking a standard and almost doubling how long patients could have their cancer controlled for,' oncologist Sara Tolaney, chief of the breast oncology division at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told AFP. The current standard of care, known as THP, combines chemotherapy with two antibodies that block growth signals from the HER2 protein. The new approach uses a drug called trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), an antibody attached to a chemotherapy drug. 'Smart bomb' This 'smart bomb' strategy allows the drug to target cancer cells directly. 'You can bind to the cancer cell and dump all that chemo right into the cancer cells,' explained Tolaney. 'Some people call them smart bombs because they're delivering chemo in a targeted fashion – which is how I think we're able to really increase efficacy so much.' Common side effects included nausea, diarrhea and a low white blood cell count, with a less common effect involving lung scarring. T-DXd is already approved as a 'second-line' option – used when first-line treatments stop working. But in the new trial, it was given earlier, paired with another antibody, pertuzumab. In a global trial led by Tolaney, just under 400 patients were randomly assigned to receive T-DXd in combination with pertuzumab, thought to enhance its effects. A similar number received the standard THP regimen. A third group, who received T-DXd without pertuzumab, was also enrolled — but those results haven't yet been reported. 44% risk reduction At a follow-up of 2.5 years, the T-DXd and pertuzumab combination reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% compared to standard care. Meanwhile, 15% of patients in the T-DXd group saw their cancer disappear entirely, compared to 8.5% in the THP group. Because this was an interim analysis, the median progression-free survival – meaning the point at which half the patients had seen their cancer return or worsen – was 40.7 months with the new treatment, compared to 26.9 months with the standard, and could rise further as more data come in. Tolaney said the results would be submitted to regulators around the world, including the US Food and Drug Administration, and that future work would focus on optimizing how long patients remain on the treatment, particularly those showing complete remission. 'This represents a new first-line standard treatment option for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer,' said Dr. Rebecca Dent, a breast cancer specialist at the National Cancer Center Singapore who was not involved in the study
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Living near green spaces could reduce risk of premature birth
Mothers living in areas where new trees are planted are more likely to give birth at term, with babies of higher weights, researchers say. (Envato Elements pic) PARIS : The benefits of green spaces for human health are well established – they have been shown, for example, to promote physical activity, and reduce stress and pollution. But proximity to nature also has an impact on the number of premature births, according to a recent US study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment. Conducted by professors at Drexel University in Philadelphia, this research followed over 36,000 pregnant women who gave birth between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2020, residing in Portland, Oregon, where over 36,000 trees were planted between 1990 and 2020. The number of trees planted within a 100m radius of the participants' addresses was evaluated. 'We found that tree planting around maternal address was associated with increased birthweight as well as a reduced probability of a small-for-gestational-age or preterm birth,' the researchers wrote. In other words, mothers living in areas where trees were planted within the past 30 years were more likely to give birth at term, with babies of higher birth weights, than those living farther away from tree-planted areas. Specifically, living within 100m of at least 10 trees is associated with an increase of about 50g in birth weight, which was the case for 2,879 babies in the sample studied. 'This might not seem like a lot, but if every baby in our sample gained 50g at birth, that means 642 fewer babies considered small for gestational age and at higher risk for worse development later in life,' said senior author Yvonne Michael. The study also notes that older trees may provide some additional benefits compared to those recently planted, such as improved air quality and reduced noise pollution from road traffic. This study isn't the first to highlight a link between a reduction in premature births and proximity to green space. But the novelty lies in its methodology, which focuses on recently planted trees and over a precise period. 'Existing tree cover is often closely tied to factors like income, education and race, making it difficult to fully account for other possible explanations when studying birth outcomes. By focusing on newly planted trees, we were able to reduce the bias – essentially treating it as a natural experiment,' Michael explained. 'This is another data point showing that planting trees is a relatively easy and low-cost way to improve public health from the earliest stages of life,' she concluded.
