Gut bacteria plays a big role in the progression to active myeloma, according to a new Italian study

December 9, 2018 / Margaret / 4 Comments

One of my Italian blog readers sent me this link today: http://goo.gl/AEwRXo

I realize the article is in Italian, but hey, you’re in luck 😉 : you can read the full study, on which the Italian article is based, in English…at this link: http://goo.gl/9U8NoN

In any case, I’m going to give you a brief summary (based only on the article. I need more time to read/go through the full study). Here goes.

Researchers at the Ospedale di San Raffaele in Milan have discovered that a particular type of gut bacteria, called Prevotella heparinolytica, plays a big role in the proliferation of some of the inflammatory lymphocytes involved in the progression from asymptomatic to active myeloma.

Here’s what happens, in a nutshell. First, the pesky Prevotella bacterium activates the above-mentioned pesky lymphocytes. The lymphocytes then wander over to the bone marrow where they help plasma cells proliferate. They do so by releasing an inflammatory molecule called IL-17.

Arianna Brevi, one of the main researchers, points out that IL-17 could become a predictive tool, since it can actually be measured in the bone marrow of asymptomatic patients. In other words, it might be able to show which patients are more at risk of developing active myeloma.

Testing their findings on lab mice, the researchers were able to block IL-17 and other inflammatory molecules involved in the progression to active myeloma. Result: they SLOWED DOWN progression to active myeloma. Incidentally, they used anti-inflammatory drugs that are already on the market.

Aha!

That got me to wondering if curcumin’s inhibition of IL-17 is the reason, the main reason, why I’ve remained “inactive” for so many years, as have so many of you, too!

Well, well, a VERY exciting finding today!!!

(More research needed, of course…)

P.S. Finally, I just wanted to mention that I’m FINE and have been doing FINE for a while, now. No time for the blog, though. I’ve been busy with life…tons of stuff to do, blablabla. Thanks for your notes of encouragement…much appreciated! 🙂

Forskolin: another natural compound goes on my list of myeloma killers

August 1, 2018 / Margaret / 4 Comments

Yesterday I came across a 2015 study that really caught my attention. A group of Norwegian researchers has discovered that the combination of dexamethasone with a natural compound called forskolin kills multiple myeloma cells.

They tested forskolin with other conventional myeloma drugs, too: bortezomib (Velcade), cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and melphalan.

And by itself.

Results in a nutshell: dead myeloma cells. 😎

Excerpt from the abstract: “Our findings support a potential role of forskolin in combination with current conventional agents in the treatment of MM.”

The researchers believe that forskolin might be able “to diminish treatment-associated side effects,” which of course would have a huge impact, obviously a very positive one!!!, on a patient’s quality of life…indeed, on the QOL of countless patients…

Of course, this is all theoretical, since the researchers used MM cell lines, not actual human beings. I checked the clinical trial website where I found only a few trials testing forskolin for various conditions, mostly eye, weight loss, and lung-related (interesting aside: there were a couple of cystic fibrosis studies there, too).

No myeloma clinical trials.

Are you surprised? I wasn’t. I mean, we know WHO finances almost all the clinical trials…and the ghastly rich and powerful pharmaceutical companies aren’t going to be interested in an affordable natural compound, are they?

No profit, no trial. It’s as simple as that.

And that is why non-toxic substances that might kill our myeloma cells without messing with our QUALITY OF LIFE are completely ignored…ignored even by our own MM foundations that should have our best interests at heart…It’s frustrating, to say the least…unbearably so, I admit, at times.

But let’s get away from negative feelings and focus instead on this potentially POSITIVE bit of news, which is that it seems we have another promising anti-myeloma tool. Yaaaaay!

Incidentally, the Norwegian study is fully available online: goo.gl/dRLgPg

So what exactly is forskolin? It’s a natural compound extracted from the root of an Indian plant called Coleus forskohlii. It has become popular in recent years as a weight loss supplement (the patient studies I glanced at early today, however, have mixed results). More importantly, it has been traditionally used in Ayurvedic medicine for centuries as a treatment for asthma, breathing disorders, and for general health purposes.

Contraindications. Generally speaking, forskolin is considered to be safe. However:

It may lower blood pressure, so definitely stay away from it if you have low blood pressure or are taking drugs for high blood pressure (beta-blockers, etc.). Of course, if you suffer from HIGH blood pressure, this might be of interest to you.
If you are on blood thinners such as warfarin or if you have kidney disease, forskolin is not for you.
It may also increase your heart rate and your levels of gastric acid.
There have been reports about possibly contaminated supplements in Europe.

Apart from these things, though, so far I haven’t read anything super negative about forskolin.

The big question is: will it work for myeloma patients? No idea, of course. As I mentioned, the Norwegian study used myeloma cell lines, not patients. But that hasn’t stopped me before, and it probably won’t stop me now…as long as my research keeps turning up positive information. Right now, though, it’s too hot here in Florence to think about experimenting with a new compound, which is good in the sense that it gives me time to do some further reading…

But I’m intrigued, really intrigued, and that’s a good start…

Hmmm, final (obvious!) thought: has anyone here taken this supplement? I’d love to hear from you! Thanks!

Two gadolinium-based contrast agents are banned in Italy

February 28, 2018 / Margaret / 2 Comments

Wellwellwellwellwell! WELL!

I just read a bit of welcome (or, wellcome!) news in Italian. If you understand Italian, here’s the link: goo.gl/JYN8ec. In a nutshell, beginning today, yes, TODAY!, two contrast agents used in MRIs have been banned in ITALY. And, quelle surprise (not), they are gadolinium-based.

Remember the study that came out some years ago about how much myeloma cells simply LOVED gadolinium, and proliferated at mad rates when placed in it? If not, just do a search of my blog for “gadolinium.” Gadolinium can also have a bunch of not-very-nice side effects…

The reason for this ban isn’t, however, because of that important gadolinium-myeloma study. No, what’s happening today in Italy is mostly a precautionary measure, based on the July 2017 recommendations of the EMA, the European Medicines Agency, which in turn are based (!) on the findings of its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, which is Europe’s equivalent to the U.S. FDA. Basically, small quantities of gadolinium have been shown to accumulate in the brain, and there is no way of proving that those quantities do not cause any damage in the long term.

Hence the ban.

Does that mean that gadolinium has been completely banned? Unfortunately not.

In some cases–when there is no other way to reach a diagnosis, e.g.–the smallest dose possible will be used. But there will be no more widespread use of this crap. Oh sorry, did I say “crap”? Oh dear, so I did. 😉

Another thing: the gadolinium-based contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadobenic acid will continue to be used in liver scans.

But that is IT. Gadolinium is on its way out (at least, that’s what I hope!).

We need to focus on finding non-toxic or at least not-so-toxic contrast agents. There must be another way to do this…there must be…

Ah, speaking of which, I just read about potentially safer manganese-based contrast agents in an article titled “U.S. patients left fending for themselves with gadolinium safety risks”: goo.gl/zCz5gM

And this is where I am going to stop today, with the hope that a non-toxic contrast agent can be found…

P.S. I’ve been having difficulty accessing the Internet in the past few days…It’s on, then off, then on again…a real drag. I want to publish this post before I lose Internet again, so I’m not going to reread it, as I usually do…pazienza!

Off I go…Need to feed the cats and have lunch! Ciao! 🙂

Andrographolide and parthenolide kill myeloma stem cells

February 14, 2018 / Margaret / Leave a comment

My andrographolide-researching blog reader also sent me the link to a 2011 U.S. study on the effects of parthenolide (remember PTH? Remember DMAPT? Yeah, I haven’t written about it in a long time…making mental notes right now…) and andrographolide on myeloma stem cells: goo.gl/3e6Nk5

That’s right…on MYELOMA STEM CELLS.

Problem: only the abstract is available for free online. With the help of a fab friend, however, I was able to read the full study, but I have to be careful about copyright issues, even though it irks me that you have to pay for studies that could be of vital importance to us. Of course, I DO understand that journals need to survive. And so…well, let’s have a look, without going into too much detail. Compromises…

Incidentally, this is the first study discussing “a natural product with anti-CSC activity in myeloma” (CSC = cancer stem cell).

As we all know, the main problem with myeloma is RELAPSE. Relapse is caused by the tough myeloma stem cells, the cells that can clone themselves, the really bad thugs that escape being killed by chemotherapy. The chemo drugs used in myeloma target the general plasma cell population, that is, the cells that cannot reproduce themselves, BUT they are NOT able to eliminate our myeloma stem cells. So no matter how many chemo bombs we throw at our myeloma, there will always be a handful of nasty ruffians in hiding, ready to come out and start proliferating again at some point.

This study shows that parthenolide AND andrographolide do just that: they go after the ruffians. The abstract calls them two “potent anti-MM-CSC agents.”

Potent…I like that!

Okay, I’m going to see if I can extract some gems from the full study.

As we’ve seen, it’s not enough to target the circulating plasma cells. If we want to get rid of the myeloma weed, we must go after the stem cells, the “clone troopers” (Star Wars, anyone? 😉 No, I’m not really a fan, but I do remember that expression…). The only way to prevent relapses is to kill the cloners!

Parthenolide is the first extract to be discussed. In addition to being a powerful NF-kappaB inhibitor, parthenolide (PTH from now on) kills the stem cells of myeloma and of acute myelogenous leukemia, without killing the normal hematopoietic cells, the good guys, which produce red/white blood cells and platelets. One big problem has been PTH’s has low solubility in water (but remember DMAPT? It’s water soluble… but these researchers don’t mention DMAPT, except in their References…anyway…).

Andrographolide (AGR from now on) hasn’t been studied as much as PTH. However, it’s more soluble in water compared to PTH. That is very good news…

The researchers point out that melphalan and bortezomib “are not curative” (their words, not mine), because they don’t target the MM stem cells.

But, they add, that’s what PTH and AGR do…

One of the coolest things about this study, IMO, is that the researchers used a 3-D tissue culture of rBM, which is basically a reconstruction of a bone marrow microenvironment (rBM stands for reconstructed bone marrow). They also used 2-D cell cultures. They were able to confirm that the main target of PTH and AGR were the myeloma stem cells.

Clearly, more research is needed…more testing…but I’d say that this study shows how promising these two extracts are. We need to rip out the myeloma weeds…without harming ourselves in the process…

Testing promising natural extracts is a step in the right direction.

Are our official myeloma organizations going to do something about this very important study??? C’mon!!!!!!

Does myeloma run in the family?

February 2, 2018 / Margaret / 18 Comments

Ever since I began doing research on myeloma, one of my certainties–although with something like myeloma you can never be absolutely certain!!!–has been that myeloma is NOT a hereditary disease. Yes, of course, I’ve read about a few patients who had relatives with myeloma, but…only a few.

If you do an online search, you will find that not much is known about the causes of myeloma. A few known ones are things such as pesticide exposure, past exposure to radiation, genetic changes that turn our plasma cells into MM cells…stuff like that. The family connection seems to be a minor one…

Today, however, I read a Science Daily article that suggested otherwise. As you can see for yourself (goo.gl/jPgDtS), the article begins like this: “Researchers have identified two gene regions that contribute to multiple myeloma, an inherited cancer…”

SAY WHAAAAAT??? MYELOMA…AN INHERITED CANCER?

The Science Daily article picked this up from a newly published gene mapping study that I won’t even try to read today (my brain is still reeling from that “inherited” business). If you’re interested and find technical jargon as fascinating as my kittens find me doing practically anything 😉 , go right ahead and have a look: goo.gl/bTgGmW

Still stunned, I immediately began digging and found a few relatively new studies on the apparent inheritance factor. A 2013 “Leukemia” study uses the expressions “familial clustering” and “genetic predisposition” in its abstract, but the full study isn’t available for free online, so I wasn’t able to check it out. For what it’s worth, here’s the link (to the abstract): goo.gl/kr2Fq2

According to another study published in 2016 (see goo.gl/nNqqJh), full study available online, “Results from this pooled analysis provide compelling evidence to support hypotheses that genetic inheritance plays a role in the aetiology of MM.” The risk is greater if you have a first-degree relative with myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, or leukaemia.

But is that enough evidence? I mean, can we really define myeloma as an “inherited cancer”?

Of one thing I am certain: nobody in my family has MGUS, let alone MM. I’m the first (and last, since I don’t have any children, apart from the marvelous furry ones, of course!). Besides, based on my most recent readings, I am 100% positive that EBV started my myeloma.

I think there are too many potential causes out there, there’s too much we just don’t know (for example, the bone marrow microenvironment wasn’t even considered to be an important player in myeloma until a decade ago), for us to be able to define myeloma as a hereditary type of cancer. Or…am I wrong?

I’d be really interested to know how many of you have myeloma (or leukemia/lymphoma) in the family…

Margaret's Corner

Tag: myeloma