
Bay Area family shares frustrations after FDA rejects drug for ultra-rare Barth Syndrome
With the FDA recently rejecting a drug application that aims to help those living with Barth Syndrome, one Bay Area family is frustrated by the delay of approved treatments in the rare disease community.
Approximately 150 people live with Barth Syndrome nationwide, an ultra-rare genetic disorder that affects only males and impacts muscle and heart muscle health.
"He has a severe heart failure, and was admitted to the hospital where he was on intravenous medications to help his heart pump," Megan Branagh, whose son Henry has Barth Syndrome, told CBS News Bay Area.
Megan's son was diagnosed with the disease when he was three months old.
"There's no treatment or cure for it at all, just simply symptom management," she said.
There are currently no FDA-approved therapies for the disease, but Stealth BioTherapeutics has been working for years to get a target drug approved.
"Extremely long and delayed," Megan said. "We were supposed to get an answer in January, and FDA asked for a three-month extension based on some data they had requested."
The drug, elamipretide, targets cardiolipins, a molecule in the mitochondria that is a key source for the gene defect. It's the only drug for Barth Syndrome clinical trials.
After several delays, however, the FDA announced it will not be approving the drug application.
Megan believes federal budget cuts could be one of the reasons.
"There was only one person left remaining at the FDA who had a hand on our case for this final part of it," she said. "We've heard from the current administration the desire to make medication available for the rare disease community, and the support of the rare disease community. And this case defies everything that has been publicly stated over the last few months."
The FDA instead recommended that more data be included in the company's resubmission of the drug application.
While the company said they are optimistic for a new path forward with the agency, families like the Branaghs are anxiously waiting for the approval.
"Sickening to know that there's something out there that could make a difference that might never be available for Henry or anyone else," she said.
Her son is 13 years old and has endured many challenges, taking at least eight pills a day and making frequent trips to the doctor's office.
"I do it and I just get it over with," Henry Branagh told CBS News Bay Area. "And I wait six more months, and they usually put a heart monitor for two days and I take it off."
He shared that he enjoys playing sports, including baseball, soccer, skiing, and swimming.
"I love playing with my friends," Henry said.
He added that he does take more frequent breaks to maintain his heart health, and hopes there will be more treatment options for him soon.
"It'd be really nice for me to have it too, because my wish is to like live one day be normal without having Barth Syndrome," Henry said. "Mainly when I'm in sports, and I'm running around, and I get tired and other kids are running way faster and have way better stamina."
Dr. Hitenda Patel, the Branagh's family cardiologist, told CBS News Bay Area that he doesn't see the application rejection as a denial.
"I think the FDA wants a little more data on its efficacy," Patel, who is also the pediatric cardiology director at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital in Oakland, said.
"There are a lot more designer drugs being developed. And designer drugs specifically, are often for rare diseases. And if you only have, let's say, at the most 500 patients in the world, it's very hard to get approval based on the current mandates for the FDA," he added.
Patel said FDA approvals in the pediatric rare disease community are an even bigger hill to climb.
"It seems like it's a delaying tactic, but I think you have to respect the FDA and its process because it's what has allowed to develop many things," he said. "And ultimately, they are in charge of the safety of the American people."
He said that with work from those like the Branagh's do make an impact.
"With advocacy such as the Barth Syndrome and what the Branaghs are doing, FDA has realized that there is a huge difference between approval process that is needed for the pediatric and rare disease market as opposed to something that is more common," Patel said. "Because the FDA has its mandates and you have to go through the trial process, it takes a long, long, long time."
Patel said he remains optimistic for the community that often gets overlooked. And so, the fight continues for the Branaghs.
"Super proud. He inspires us to live our best every moment and take nothing for granted," Henry's mother said. "I think the worst thing to watch as a parent to know that your kid has something that you can't do anything about."
She adds that she will continue to fight for his health, no matter how long it takes.
"My parents help me out a lot, they just always push me and encourage me to keep on going," Henry said.
CBS News Bay Area reached out to Stealth BioTherapeutics, and a spokesperson said that while there is no public timeline yet for next steps, they are working closely with the FDA urgently to reach approval.
Meanwhile, the Branaghs are preparing for their next fundraising campaign that will take place at the JBL Ranch on September 27.
"Our family started something called Happy Heart Week, that is an awareness and fundraising campaign all around Barth Syndrome. 13 years now, and all the funds go directly to the foundation to support everything that they're doing," she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
44 minutes ago
- Fox News
Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Body mass index (BMI) may not be the most accurate predictor of death risk. A new study from the University of Florida found that BMI — a measurement that is commonly used to determine whether a person's weight is in a healthy range for their height — is "deeply flawed" in terms of predicting mortality. Instead, one's level of body fat is "far more accurate," concluded the study, which was published this week in the Annals of Family Medicine. To measure participants' body fat, the researchers used a method called bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which uses a device to measure the resistance of body tissue to a small electrical current. Over a 15-year period, those who had high body fat were found to be 78% more likely to die than those who had healthy body fat levels, researchers found. They were also more than three times as likely to die of heart disease, the study noted. BMI — which is calculated by dividing weight by height, squared — was described as "entirely unreliable" in predicting the risk of death over a 15-year period from any cause. The study included 4,252 people in the U.S. and pulled data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BMI should not be relied upon as a "vital sign" of health, according to senior author Frank Orlando, M.D., medical director of UF Health Family Medicine in Springhill. "I'm a family physician, and on a regular basis, we're faced with patients who have diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other conditions that are related to obesity," Orlando said in a press release for the study. "One of the routine measures we take alongside traditional vital signs is BMI. We use BMI to screen for a person having an issue with their body composition, but it's not as accurate for everyone as vital signs are," he added. BMI has been the international standard for measuring obesity since the 1980s, according to many sources, though some experts have questioned its validity. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." An individual is considered obese if their BMI is 30 or above, overweight if it is between 25 and 29.9, of "normal" weight in the range of 18.5 to 24.9, or underweight if lower than 18.5. While BMI is easy to calculate, one of its main limitations is that it cannot distinguish between muscle and fat mass, the researchers noted. "For example, people who are bodybuilders can really elevate their body mass index," Orlando said. "But they're healthy even with a BMI indicating that they're obese." "BMI is just so ingrained in how we think about body fat," Mainous added. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." Other methods, such as a DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan, may be even more accurate than BIA, but are much more expensive and not as accessible, the researchers noted. "If you talk to obesity researchers, they're going to say you have to use the DEXA scan because it's the most accurate," Mainous said in the release. "And that's probably true. But it's never going to be viable in a doctor's office or family practice." Dr. Stephen Vogel — a family medicine physician with PlushCare, a virtual health platform with primary care, therapy and weight management options — echoed the limitations of BMI. "It has been an easy measurement tool that helps us understand at-risk groups across various populations and demographics, but it doesn't provide accurate data from patient to patient," the North Carolina-based doctor, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. "These findings don't challenge the assumptions about BMI — they strengthen the message that new standards, delivered in a consistent and low-cost way, would provide better nuance for the individual when it comes to their overall physical health." "The main strengths of this study are a better correlation to an individual's risk of morbidity and mortality — however, the limitations lie in the fact that we don't have enough data to determine the right cutoff for these numbers, or to identify the right tools that will be both accurate and precise across the population," Vogel said. The researchers also acknowledged that body fat percentage thresholds haven't yet been as standardized as BMI and waist circumference. Also, the age range of the participants in the study was limited by the data source. "Future studies should extend this comparison of body fat to BMI in older adults," the researchers wrote. The study was also limited by focusing only on mortality as an outcome, they noted, without taking into account any developing diseases — such as heart failure or cancer — that could deepen the understanding of body fat as a risk factor. The goal, according to Vogel, is to have a cost-effective, consistent method that can be used across the population with reliable accuracy. "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all." "Benefits would come in the form of a more detailed list of information that helps providers and patients make informed decisions about the patient's health, which is ideal," Vogel noted. "I'm hopeful there's enough buzz around these measures that steps will continue to be taken toward regular implementation." For more Health articles, visit The researchers are hopeful that once standards are validated, measuring body fat percentage with bioelectrical impedance analysis could become standard of care. They added, "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Citi Expresses Optimism for Eli Lilly and Company (LLY)
Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) is one of the 13 Best Long Term Growth Stocks to Invest in Right Now. On June 25, Citi reported that 'compelling' data shows that Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) and Novo Nordisk (NVO) have turned obesity into a treatable disease from a lifestyle-based condition. The firm models more than $40 billion in obesity sales by 2030, well above the consensus estimates of $25 billion. Citi stated that as the obesity space evolves from injectables to convenient orals, such as orforglipron, the emergence of a 'dynamic' consumer-centric market is possible, and LillyDirect by Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) is well-positioned to connect high consumer visibility for orforglipron with global access. In a research note, Citi further stated that it estimated penetration rates via income-based tiers for pricing and out-of-pocket costs in low- and mid-body mass index patients. The results place Eli Lilly and Company's (NYSE:LLY) consumer platform opportunity at $15B, which is not assumed in the firm's model. It thus believes that Eli Lilly and Company's (NYSE:LLY) is in a position to expedite access outside the US, employing a centralized out-of-pocket payment model instead of the traditional country-by-country launch. It contended that an 'income-based tiered pricing of orforglipron via LillyDirect could unlock unprecedented volume, all the while allowing it to maintain overall pricing power.' Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) develops, manufactures, discovers, and sells pharmaceutical products. These products span oncology, diabetes, immunology, neuroscience, and other therapies. Investors are bullish on Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) due to its in-demand GLP-1 drugs, used to treat diabetes and obesity, which are still in their early growth stages, and the company's strong financials. While we acknowledge the potential of LKQ as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. Sign in to access your portfolio


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Why a G.O.P. Medicaid Requirement Could Set States Up for Failure
The strict Medicaid work requirement at the center of the Republicans' major policy bill wouldn't just require millions of poor Americans to prove they are employed to sign up for health insurance. It would also require dozens of states to quickly build expensive and complex software systems to measure and track who is eligible. This new responsibility for states, whose existing Medicaid computer systems are often outdated, would be accompanied by reduced federal funding through other changes in the bill. The result, according to state officials, software developers and policy experts, could be major failures in state systems for enrolling people in Medicaid. 'That's how happens,' said Julie Brinn Siegel, a former top Biden administration budget official, referring to the Obama administration's botched launch of the online Affordable Care Act enrollment portal in 2013. Ms. Siegel and others familiar with Medicaid systems envision problems like websites that don't load or incorrectly tell applicants they are not eligible. And Medicaid workers may be overwhelmed as they try to run call centers and process applications. The fallout could mean eligible Americans will have their coverage dropped. Republicans contend that the work requirement achieves twin goals: It ensures that the government directs resources to Americans who are contributing to society, while saving money to help finance an extension of President Trump's tax cuts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.