ANNOUNCEMENT
Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence will represent ALNION at
The 2nd ANNUAL Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering & Investment Forum Promoting Public & Private Sector Collaboration & Investment in Drug Development, 19th March 2014 • New York Academy of Sciences • USA
Non-Invasive Lung Cancer Screening
March 2014
Alnion provides a low cost, non-invasive, point of care diagnostic tool capable of detecting early stage lung cancer with greater than 88% accuracy. The device makes use of human breath to detect Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which are indicators of malignant tissue metabolism. The tool takes the form of a low cost hand held consumer electronic device, into which proprietary test cartridges are inserted for each measurement. Once the unit has captured and digitized the patient’s breath print, the data is encrypted and uploaded wirelessly to the clinician’s appliance of choice, i.e. ipad, Android phone, etc. The concept has already been proven in pilot studies, as have all manufacturing processes required for mass production. See pilot study results below:
See Quick Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHp-ax12NT0
Alnion – A Joint Venture between ASI and Technion
– ASI provides an exceptional IP portfolio and electronics manufacturing capabilities to seamlessly industrialize such a Point of Care (POC) Appliance.
– Technion’s exhaustive biomarker characterization efforts have demonstrated unsurpassed accuracy at the clinical level, minimizing the regulatory process and learning curve in deployment.
These two attributes provide the basis for a plug and play business model comprised of a rapid time to market appliance addressing critical unmet medical needs as called for in the National Lung Screening Trials. Alnion’s diagnostic monitor is positioned to save lives, save provider cost in long term treatment, and open up additional opportunity to access CT Scanning.
Business / Social Impact
– Based on the American Cancer Society’s New Screening Guidelines, 3.5 million Americans are now ‘Identified’ as high risk lung cancer patients and are candidates for CT Scan screening, but > 90% of the population over 45 will not qualify until advanced symptoms occur.
– Alnion’s $50 test, in the form of a disposable (1) chip per patient, applied to those 45 years and older, represents a TAM of >$6B just in the USA. The screen would also provide justification to expand CT Scan eligibility and the all important early diagnosis for the entire population, smokers and non.
Funding Requirements
The Company is seeking a 4M USD series A capital investment to cover 3 years of normal operating expenses for the commercialization of a first product in the field of Lung Cancer. Key development work will be performed within a modest 1500 sq ft lab, while all asset intensive manufacturing will be outsourced to ISO 13485 compliant facilities.
• Alnion Ranked #1 in “Top 10 Israeli medical advances to watch in 2014”.
–Israel21C
Contact:
Steve Lerner, CEO
+1 978-371-7084
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.