The genetic paradox: Yesterday’s solutions are today’s problems. Can U.S. healthcare shift gear faster than our genes?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/genetic-paradox-yesterdays-solutions-todays-problems-can-pearl-m-d–r6mic/?trackingId=C3X2nlWPRe6yBwiHCcuWGg%3D%3D

In a world where change is the only constant, the swift currents of modern life contrast starkly with the sluggish pace of genetic evolution—and of American healthcare, too.

Two relatively recent scientific discoveries demonstrate how the very genetic traits that once secured humanity’s survival are failing to keep up with the times, producing dire medical consequences. These important biological events offer insights into American medicine—along with a warning about what can happen when healthcare systems fail to change.

The Mysteries Of Sickle Cell And Multiple Sclerosis

For decades, scientists were baffled by what seemed like an evolutionary contradiction.

Sickle cell disease is a condition resulting from a genetic mutation that produces malformed red blood cells. It afflicts approximately 1 in 365 Black Americans, causing severe pain and organ failure.

Its horrific impact on people raises a question: How has this genetic mutation persisted for 7,300 years? Nature is a merciless editor of life, and so you would expect that across seven millennia, people with this inherited problem would be less likely to survive and reproduce. This curiosity seems to defy the teachings of Charles Darwin, who theorized that evolution discards what no longer serves the survival of a species.

Scientists solved this genetic puzzle in 2011, illuminating a significant evolutionary trade-off.

People living with sickle cell disease have two abnormal genes, one inherited from each parent. While the disease, itself, affects a large population (roughly 100,000 African Americans), it turns out that a far larger population in the United States carries one “abnormal” gene and one normal gene (comprising as many as 3 million Americans).

This so called “sickle cell trait” presents milder symptoms or none at all when compared to the full disease. And, unlike those with the disease, individuals who with one (but not both) abnormal genes possess a distinct evolutionary advantage: They have a resistance to severe malaria, which every year claims more than 600,000 lives around the globe.

This genetic adaptation (a resistance to malaria) kept people alive for many millennia in equatorial Africa, protecting them from the continent’s deadliest infectious disease. But in present-day America, malaria is not a major public-health concern due to several factors, including the widespread use of window screens and air conditioning, controlled and limited habitats for the Anopheles mosquitoes (which transmit the disease), and a strong healthcare system capable of managing and containing outbreaks. Therefore, the sickle cell trait is of little value in the United States while sickle cell disease is a life-threatening problem.

The lesson: Genetic changes beneficial in one environment, such as malaria-prone areas, can become harmful in another. This lesson isn’t limited to sickle cell disease.

A similar genetic phenomenon was uncovered through research that was published last month in Nature. This time, scientists discovered an ancient genetic mutation that is, today, linked to multiple sclerosis (MS).

Their research began with data showing that people living in Northern Europe have twice the number of cases of MS per 100,000 individuals as people in the South of Europe. Like sickle cell disease, MS is a terrible affliction—with immune cells attacking neurons in the brain, interfering with both walking and talking.

Having identified this two-fold variance in the prevalence of MS, scientists compared the genetic make-up of the people in Europe with MS versus those without this devastating problem. And they discovered a correlation between a specific mutated gene and the risk of developing MS. Using archeological material, the researchers then connected the introduction of this gene into Northern Europe with cattle, goat and sheep herders from Russia who migrated west as far back as 5,000 years ago.

Suddenly, the explanation comes into focus. Thousands of years ago, this genetic abnormality helped protect herders from livestock disease, which at the time was the greatest threat to their survival. However, in the modern era, this same mutation results in an overactive immune response, leading to the development of MS.

Once again, a trait that was positive in a specific environmental and historical context has become harmful in today’s world.

Evolving Healthcare: Lessons From Our Genes

Just as genetic traits can shift from beneficial to detrimental with changing circumstances, healthcare practices that were once lifesaving can become problematic as medical capabilities advance and societal needs evolve.

Fee-for-service (FFS) payments, the most prevalent reimbursement model in American healthcare, offer an example. Under FFS, insurance providers, the government or patients themselves pay doctors and hospitals for each individual service they provide, such as consultations, tests, and treatments—regardless of the value these services may or may not add.

In the 1930s, this “mutation” emerged as a solution to the Great Depression. Organizations like Blue Cross began providing health insurance, ensuring healthcare affordability for struggling Americans in need of hospitalization while guaranteeing appropriate compensation for medical providers.

FFS, which linked payments to the quantity of care delivered, proved beneficial when the problems physicians treated were acute, one-time issues (e.g., appendicitis, trauma, pneumonia) and relatively inexpensive to resolve.

Today, the widespread prevalence of chronic diseases in 6 out of 10 Americans underlines the limitations of the fee-for-service (FFS) model. In contrast to “pay for value” models, FFS, with its “pay for volume” approach, fails to prioritize preventive services, the avoidance of chronic disease complications, or the elimination of redundant treatments through coordinated, team-based care. This leads to increased healthcare costs without corresponding improvements in quality.

This situation is reminiscent of the evolutionary narrative surrounding genetic mutations like sickle cell disease and MS. These mutations, which provided protective benefits in the past, have become detrimental in the present. Similarly, healthcare systems must adapt to the evolving medical and societal landscape to better meet current needs.

Research demonstrates that it takes 17 years on average for a proven innovation in healthcare to become common practice. When it comes to evolution of healthcare delivery and financing, the pace of change is even more glacial.

In 1934, the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care (CCMC) concluded that better clinical outcomes would be achieved if doctors (a) worked in groups rather than as fragmented solo practices and (b) were paid based on the value they provided, rather than just the volume of work they did.

Nearly a century later, these improvements remain elusive. Well-led medical groups remain the minority of all practices while fee-for-service is still the dominant healthcare reimbursed method.

Things progress slowly in the biological sphere because chance is what initiates change. It takes a long time for evolution to catch up to new environments.

But change in healthcare doesn’t have to be random or painfully slow. Humans have a unique ability to anticipate challenges and proactively implement solutions. Healthcare, unlike biology, can advance rapidly in response to new medical knowledge and societal needs. We have the opportunity to leverage our knowledge, technology, and collaborative skills to address and adapt to change much faster than random genetic mutations. But it isn’t happening.

Standing in the way is a combination of fear (of the risks involved), culture (the norms doctors learn in training) and lack of leadership (the ability to translate vision into action).

Genetics teaches us that evolution ultimately triumphs. Mutations that save lives and improve health become dominant in nature over time. And when those adaptations no longer serve a useful purpose, they’re replaced.

I hope the leaders of American medicine will learn to adapt, embracing the power of collaborative medicine while replacing fee-for-service payments with capitation (a single annual payment to group of clinicians to provide the medical care for a population of patients.) If they wait too long, dinosaurs will provide them with the next set of biological lessons.

Longtime HIV patient is effectively cured after stem cell transplant

A 66-year-old man with HIVis in long-term remission after receiving a transplant of blood stem cells containing a rare mutation, raising the prospect that doctors may someday be able to use gene editing to re-create the mutation and cure patients of the virus that causes AIDS, a medical team announced Wednesday.

For now, the crucial virus-defeating mutation is rare, leaving the treatment unavailable to the vast majority of the 38 million patients living with HIV, including over 1.2 million in the United States. Bone marrow transplants also carry significant risk and have been used only on HIV patients who have developed cancer.

The patient, who had lived more than half his life with the virus, is among a handful of people who went into remission after receiving stem cells from a donor with the rare mutation, said doctors from City of Hope, a cancer and research center in Duarte, Calif., who treated him.

“This is one step in the long road to cure,” said William Haseltine, a former Harvard Medical School professor, who founded the university’s cancer and HIV/AIDS research departments. Haseltine, now chairman and president of the nonprofit think tank Access Health International, was not involved in the City of Hope case.

While the announcement at the 24th International AIDS Conference in Montreal does not have immediate implications for most people living with HIV, it continues the long, slow progression of treatment that began with federal approval of the drug AZT in 1987, advanced a decade later with the use of protease inhibitors to reduce the virus in the body, and went further in 2012, with the approval of PrEP, which protects healthy people from becoming infected.

As a result of those developments,an HIV patient diagnosed at around age 20 today can receive antiretroviral therapy and live another 54 years, according to a 2017 study in the journal AIDS.

“When I was diagnosed with HIV in 1988, like many others, I thought it was a death sentence,” said the City of Hope patient, who asked not to be identified, in a statement shared by the hospital. “I never thought I would live to see the day that I no longer have HIV.”

The man received the transplant in early 2019, but continued taking antiretroviral therapy until he had been vaccinated against covid-19. He has been in remission for almost a year and a half.

“He’s doing great,” said Jana T. Dickter, an associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope, who presented the data at the conference. “He’s in remission for HIV.”

Dickter said the patient is being treated for painful ulcers in his mouth caused by the donor’s stem cells attacking his tissue.

The patient received the transplant from an unrelated donor in 2019, after being diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia. His doctor at City of Hope chose donor stem cells that had a genetic mutation found in about 1 in 100 people of northern European descent.

Those having the mutation, known as CCR5- delta 32, cannot be infected by HIV because it slams shut the doorway used by the virus to enter and attack the immune system. That doorway is the cell receptor CCR5, which the virus uses to enter white blood cells that form an important part of the body’s defense against disease.

The City of Hope patient is among a small, select group of HIV patients to go into remission after receiving such a transplant.

“This is probably the fifth case in which this type of transplant appeared to cure someone. This approach clearly works. It’s curative and we know the mechanism,” said Steven Deeks, a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, who cared for the first such patient, Timothy Ray Brown. In 2007, Brown was cured by a medical team in Berlin using a transplant from someone who hadthe same mutation.

Following the transplant, Brown no longer had a detectable level of HIV in his blood. He was known as “the Berlin patient” until he released his name in 2010 and moved to San Francisco.

“I will not stop until HIV is cured,” Brown vowed in a 2015 essay in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses. Brown died in September 2020 of leukemia unrelated to his HIV. He was 54.

Similar successes followed in patients in London, Düsseldorf, Germany and New York.

“It is yet another case that resembles Timothy Brown from years ago,” emailed David D. Ho, one of the world’s leading AIDS researchers and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University. “There are several others as well, each using approaches that are not feasible for most infected patients.”

The other patients also received bone marrow transplants, a relatively risky procedure that involves wiping out the patient’s immune system with chemotherapy drugs. Chemotherapy destroys remaining cancer cells, makes room in the marrow for the donor cells and reduces the likelihood that they will come under attack from the immune system. The transplanted blood stem cells are then injected into the bloodstream and make their way to the marrow, where — ideally — they begin producing new, healthy blood cells.

Although the survival rate for bone marrow transplant recipients has risen significantly, 30 percent of the patientsdie within a year of the procedure.

“I think it’s highly feasible to identify appropriate donors — in particular when more people register as bone marrow donors, with more representation of different racial and ethnic backgrounds,” said Eileen Scully, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.“That will enable this type of approach to be used for more people.”

But she added that “bone marrow transplantation is a significant medical procedure that carries its own risks.”

Doctors at City of Hope said they prepared the HIV patient for the transplant by giving him a lower-intensity regimen of chemotherapy developed by the cancer center and used with older patients.

HIV patients in wealthy countries like the United States,where antiretrovirals are widely available, live longer, but they also run a higher risk of developing certain cancers such as leukemia. In addition, they have a higher risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and even some brain conditions.

Dickter said that when the City of Hope patient was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in 2019, his doctors searched for a bone marrow match that contained the HIV-resistant mutation.

The nonprofit National Marrow Donor Program, now routinely screens donors to learn whether they have the CCR5- delta 32 mutation, said Joseph Alvarnas, a City of Hope hematologist-oncologist and a co-author of the abstract.

The possibility of someday being able to effectively cure much large numbers of people by using gene-editing techniques to generate the mutation may be a decade off, Deeks said.

Deeks said he is working with a San Francisco-based company called Excision BioTherapeutics to develop the first-in-human trials that would involve editing the genes of patients with HIV. Studies have shown some success in editing genes inside mice and monkeys infected with HIV.

Deeks said that it is not hardin the lab to use a gene-editing tool to knock out the receptor that allows HIV to invade the immune system. Carrying out that task inside the body of a human patient is where the work gets complex.

“That’s the challenge — to do that effectively and safely,” Deeks said. “And that’s a whole can of worms.”

Haseltine said that researchers must figure out how to reach enough of the right cells inside the body. At the same time, they must ensure the treatment does not cause unwanted effects to other genes.

“The message to people living with HIV is that this is a signal of hope,” said Scully of Johns Hopkins.“It is feasible. It has been replicated again. It’s also a signal that the scientific community is really engaged with trying to solve this puzzle.”