Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for 2014

Allergan agrees to $66 billion Actavis offer $219 a share

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

(Reuters) – Botox maker Allergan Inc on Monday accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Actavis Plc, ending a seven-month hostile pursuit by activist investor William Ackman and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.

Dublin-based Actavis offered $219 per share in cash and stock, amounting to billions more than Canada’s Valeant was prepared to pay. Valeant said it would walk away from its Allergan campaign shortly after the deal was announced. Ackman was not available for comment.

The deal marks a surprise win for Allergan, which had fought the Valeant-Pershing alliance in court and among shareholders in one of the healthcare sector’s most complex takeover efforts.

Allergan shares rose 5.3 percent to close at $209.20. Actavis gained 1.7 percent to $247.94.

Allergan had argued that the Valeant cash-and-stock offer, most recently worth about $54 billion, would hurt its shareholders, given the Canadian drugmaker’s history of cutting research and development spending at companies it acquires.

Besides the higher price tag, the Actavis deal came with only $400 million in R&D cuts for Allergan, far less than the $900 million decrease that Valeant had proposed, the companies said on a conference call with investors.

Actavis’ approach may help the two companies integrate their operations and ensure some of Allergan’s promising experimental eye treatments for macular degeneration and glaucoma remain in the pipeline.

“If these bets turn out well, Actavis will be seen as a better call,” said Morningstar analyst Michael Waterhouse.

Ackman in late April disclosed a nearly 10 percent stake in Allergan and plans to bid for the company together with Valeant. Despite losing his takeover target, Ackman’s Pershing Square will earn at least $2.3 billion from Allergan’s buyout by Actavis.

The $18 billion hedge fund has roughly 30 percent of its capital invested in Allergan, whose share price has nearly doubled from the $126.54 it paid earlier this year.

Valeant, meanwhile, may find new acquisition targets more willing to push back on its overtures, some of its investors said.

FRIENDLY APPROACH

Actavis Chief Executive Officer Brent Saunders said in an interview that he had reached out to Allergan CEO David Pyott many times during the Valeant-Ackman campaign to express his interest in a combination.

“As he was in discussions, or the throes of battle, with Valeant and Pershing Square, we would connect from time to time,” Saunders said, “and I would let him know that we were a friend and we thought it made sense – from 10,000 feet – to combine the businesses.”

But talks with Actavis did not begin in earnest until a few weeks ago. Until then, Pyott had publicly fought to keep his company independent and told investors that Allergan was working on acquisitions that would pay off.

Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that they included discussions about a more than $10 billion deal for Salix Pharmaceuticals that did not materialize.

Allergan also sued Valeant and Ackman, saying that when the hedge fund teamed up with the drugmaker before it made the joint April offer, it broke insider trading rules.

Ackman and Valeant fought back with a proxy battle, seeking to replace Allergan board members and initiating a special shareholder meeting for Dec. 18 to compel the company to negotiate.

Under the buyout deal, Actavis will lead a combined company with $23 billion in revenue from Allergan’s ophthalmology, neurosciences, and dermatology business and Actavis’ gastroenterology and women’s health franchises. In the last two years, Actavis has purchased Forest Laboratories, which Saunders ran, and Warner Chilcott, which enabled it to move headquarters to Dublin.

Actavis said it expected $1.8 billion in savings, on top of the $475 million in cuts that Allergan has already made this year. Valeant planned on savings of about $2.7 billion.

The new company will operate from both California, where Allergan is based, and New Jersey. Its tax rate will be 15 percent compared with Allergan’s current rate of about 26 percent.

Actavis was advised by JPMorgan and law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton. JPMorgan, Mizuho Bank and Wells Fargo provided the deal financing.

Allergan was advised by Goldman Sachs & Co and BofA Merrill Lynch as well as law firms Latham & Watkins, Richards, Layton & Finger and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz.

(Reporting by Caroline Humer; Additional reporting by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Ransdell Pierson in New York; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Lisa Von Ahn)

 

SOURCE

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/17/us-allergan-actavis-idUSKCN0J00W720141117?feedType=RSSfeedName=topNews

Read Full Post »

FoundationOne for solid tumors and FoundationOne Heme for blood cancers: NGS-based Tumor Profiling – Standard of Care for Advanced Cancer Patients – Present and Future Trends

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Foundation Medicine’s Data Experiment to Prove Clinical Utility

By Clinical Informatics News Staff

November 6, 2014 | Foundation Medicine highlighted several recent industry wins yesterday including a data partnership that it hopes will further prove the business case for the company’s two cancer diagnostic panels:

  • FoundationOne for solid tumors and
  • FoundationOne Heme for blood cancers.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs called the third quarter results in-line with expectations, and said that the commercial developments connected to reimbursements and partnerships, “underscore[d] our positive view on FMI’s strategic plan and management execution.” They continued, “We remain of the view that NGS-based tumor profiling will soon become a standard of care for advanced cancer patients.”

The company announced yesterday that Google has agreed to cover the tests for “all employees and their families navigating cancer treatments” starting in 2015. Google’s support is significant; the company is committing to the offering the tests for about 47,000 employees and their families. And Google Ventures was one of Foundation Medicine’s earliest three supporters, so the additional buy-in is a nice vote of support.

But the more significant commercial stamp of approval was last month’s announcement that Michigan-based insurer Priority Health would cover both of the company’s tests for its 600,000 or so covered patients.

More announcements like this one would be a great boon for the company. “We would view future news of additional private payer reimbursement as a key positive for the story,” said Goldman Sachs analysts.

Another newly announced partnership may help. Foundation Medicine yesterday announced a data partnership with Cancer Outcomes Tracking and Analysis (COTA). COTA is a cloud-based platform for oncologists to share data with physicians, patients, and payers.  Foundation Medicine and COTA reached an agreement to track clinical outcomes and cost data for patients who have been tested with FoundationOne.

The partnership will start with New Jersey patients covered by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield who are newly diagnosed with stage IV adenocarcinoma of the lung and have taken a FoundationOne test. The FoundationOne data will be combined with clinical cost and electronic medical record data that COTA collects to provide a longitudinal portrait of care.

The result, Foundation Medicine hopes, will be a data-based case study proving the test’s utility and cost-effectiveness, ideally convincing more payers to set policies of coverage.

The resulting dataset is designed to provide healthcare providers and payers with the supporting clinical outcomes and costs evidence that inform value-based reimbursement decisions and cancer treatment, the company said. “The combination of genomic data, clinical information, outcomes data and economic data will provide critical insights for both payers and physicians to fully endorse the clinical and economic benefits associated with the application of comprehensive genomic profiling in this disease setting.

 

 

SOURCE

http://www.clinicalinformaticsnews.com/2014/11/6/foundation-medicine-data-experiment-prove-clinical-utility.html

 

Read Full Post »

FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg on HealthCare for 310Million Americans and the Role of Personalized Medicine

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Article ID #161: FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg on HealthCare for 310Million Americans and the Role of Personalized Medicine. Published on 11/17/2014

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

 

This article has two parts:

Part 1:  , interview with Margaret A. Hamburg, MD on Balancing the Risks, Benefits for 310M Patients

Part 2:  Margaret A. Hamburg, MD –  Special Guest Keynote Speaker – The Future of Personalized Medicine @10th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at the Harvard Medical School, Boston, 11/12/2014

Part 1:

 , interview with Margaret A. Hamburg, MD on Balancing the Risks, Benefits for 310M Patients

VIEW VIDEO

FDA’s Hamburg on Balancing the Risks, Benefits for 310M Patients Eric J. Topol, MD, Margaret A. Hamburg, MD. 11/12/2014

Read the Interview

A Distinguished Start to a Distinguished Career

Eric J. Topol, MD: Hello. I am Eric Topol, Editor-in-Chief of Medscape. Joining me today is Dr Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I am interviewing Dr Hamburg as part of our series on the most interesting people in medicine.

You have a remarkable history. Your parents were both physicians. Your mother was the first African American to graduate from Vassar and Yale Medical School. Your father was president of the Institute of Medicine (IOM). You are perhaps the only family whose members have all been elected to the IOM.

Dr Topol: On your children’s birth certificates, you are listed not just as their mother but as the New York City health commissioner.

Dr Hamburg: That’s right. They may be the only two kids in the history of New York whose mother signed their birth certificates in two places. We are very proud of that, although when I looked at their birth certificates, I realized that we needed to upgrade them because they aren’t suitable for framing.

Dr Topol: You graduated from Harvard Medical School?

Dr Hamburg: Yes, and I did my residency in internal medicine at what is now New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center.

Dr Topol: You have spent time in both neuropharmacology and infectious diseases.

Dr Hamburg: I had very strong interests in neuroscience and endocrinology, and I did research at the National Institute of Mental Health on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus before I started medical school and the first summer after medical school. I was able to do some research in neuroscience at Rockefeller University while I was a medical resident next door at New York Hospital. Those were very powerful, strong interests. I thought that I wanted to subspecialize and do academic medicine and follow in the footsteps of my parents, who were professors and physician-scientists at Stanford Medical School when I was growing up. I took a different path, but then like them I ended up broadening into areas of policy and public service as well.

A Laser Focus on Science

Dr Topol: Maybe you had an influence on them, too. You have quite a rich background in public service, government, and in health and human services at different levels. You were at the NIH and also spent 6 years as the New York City commissioner of health. Did you interact with Rudy Giuliani?

Dr Hamburg: I did. I had the privilege of working as the city’s health commissioner for 3 years under Mayor Dinkins and 3 years under Mayor Giuliani. I take great pride in that because I believe that jobs such as health commissioner of New York City or FDA commissioner should be very much professions driven by science, medical care needs, and the best public health practice. To be able to serve under a liberal Democrat and a visible Republican speaks to the ability to serve in a professional role regardless of the more complex politics of the environment, and the importance of these roles in terms of continuity regardless of political party.

Dr Topol: You accomplished a great deal during your tenure in the areas of tuberculosis and HIV.

Dr Hamburg: It was a fascinating time.

Dr Topol: Before you came to the FDA, you were at the Nuclear Threat Initiative for several years. Tell us about that.

Dr Hamburg: It was called the Nuclear Threat Initiative, but it was focused on reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. It was a new foundation started in January 2001 by Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn. They asked me to come on board to help start up the foundation and a program on biological threats. I said that I would participate if we could focus not only on biological weapons and biological terrorism, but also on naturally occurring biological threats, including such threats as Ebola, because we all recognize that Mother Nature can be a pretty effective terrorist in her own way. I developed these interests when I was the New York City health commissioner. I was in that position the first time the World Trade Center was bombed. I started taking domestic terrorism very seriously and began to focus on the areas of responsibility for a public health agency and the need for better public health preparedness against a range of threats.

New York City was also a hub for international travel, and this meant that we had to be aware of what was happening elsewhere in the world in terms of imported disease and strategies to address those. It was very similar to what is going on with Ebola now. We were dealing with very serious epidemics of disease in New York City, including HIV and the resurgence of tuberculosis, which now has more frightening forms, including the development of drug-resistant tuberculosis. I became deeply committed to the area of biological threats and the role of public health preparedness in addressing them.

At the Helm of the FDA

Dr Topol: Speaking of prepared, no one could have been better prepared to take on the role of FDA commissioner. Has this been a dream job for you?

Dr Hamburg: Not at all. I joke that if someone had asked me even a month before I was approached for the FDA job, “Could you see yourself as FDA commissioner?” I probably would have put down a large sum of money with the answer “No.” But it has been a terrific opportunity and it is an inspiring place to work in terms of its critical and unique mission. We are a science-based regulatory agency with a mission to promote and protect the health of the public. We are unique. We matter in peoples’ lives every day. The products that we regulate and oversee range from the safety and effectiveness of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and other biologic and medical products to the safety of the blood supply, the safety of most of the US food supply, dietary supplements, cosmetics, and most recently tobacco products. We regulate products that are estimated to account for a little more than 20 cents of every dollar that consumers spend on products. We matter in terms of impact on the lives of individuals, families, and communities, and, more broadly, on the economy.

Past Challenges and Outcomes

Dr Topol: You are overseeing $1 trillion of the economy every year. That is a lot to look after.

Let’s discuss some of the challenges that you have had to face along the way—for example, Plan B back in 2011. You had an entire emergency contraception drug set up and ready to go over-the-counter, and then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “No, we are not going to do that.” Was that experience upsetting to go through?

Dr Hamburg: It was a difficult situation, but it was a situation where I knew what I needed to do as commissioner and that was quite clear. Our job is to look at the science and the data. The company that made this product (Plan B) had approached us with an application for an over-the-counter product that would lower the age of access to this product. They had completed the studies, and the science clearly supported approval of their application. That is the compass that we need to use for decision-making.

Dr Topol: It seemed to get trumped by politics.

Dr Hamburg: It is a complex political and emotional issue. We all wish that we lived in a world where 14-year-olds didn’t need access to emergency contraception, and if they did find themselves in that situation, they would have a trusted adult, either a parent or a healthcare provider, to help them make that decision. However, in that moment of crisis, there also are clear health and behavioral benefits to being able to access this product. We knew from having a long experience with this product, and from the data that had been presented from the studies done by the company, that it was safe and effective and could be used appropriately in the over-the-counter setting by the individuals.

Dr Topol: It eventually got straightened out.

Dr Hamburg: It is now in the marketplace.

Dr Topol: What about the drug compounding issue, trying to regulate these rogue compounding pharmacies? That must have been a tough issue.

Dr Hamburg: This was another complicated area for the FDA and certainly an area that had a strong impact on the health and well-being of the American people. It is an issue that we continue to be deeply involved in. There are compounding pharmacies in almost every neighborhood of this country that are very legitimate pharmacies regulated by the state in terms of pharmacy practice and are available to compound products that people need. If you are in need of a product but you have a swallowing problem, the compounding pharmacy can take the pharmaceutical that you need and prepare it in a way that you can use it. Many pediatric treatment needs are compounded to make them more usable by younger children. That has clear benefits.

The problem was that the industry was evolving as the medical care system was evolving. Some of the compounding pharmacies had shifted into a different mode. Rather than being the “neighborhood compounder” that makes a product with a specific prescription for a specific patient, they were making large quantities of often complex products, such as the sterile injectables that are of particular concern because compounding that is not done correctly can create real quality risks and concerns for patients. These products were being marketed across the country. This had been an area of concern for a while—the gray areas in terms of practice and ensuring the best products for people who need them—but the situation came to a head when there was a contaminated steroid product that led to the deaths of more than 70 people and illness in hundreds more.

Balancing Benefit and Risk in Pain Management

Dr Topol: What about opiates? There is a big concern about opiate abuse. Could you comment on that?

Dr Hamburg: The FDA is always working in an environment in which complex decisions must be made, balancing risks and benefits and working within a legal regulatory framework. The opiate issue is a huge area of concern in terms of the public health epidemic that we are facing with opiate addiction, abuse and misuse, overdose, and preventable death. At the same time, many patients need effective pain management either for acute postsurgical pain or for the treatment of chronic conditions. We need to balance those issues. We need to ensure access to safe and effective pain medication but recognize that there is a broader context of abuse.

We are doing several things related to this issue. We are working with the research community and with product sponsors to try to develop opiate drugs that are more resistant to abuse, and that is a challenge. The science and technology are evolving, but there are approaches to making some of these less easily abused. For example, if crushed, they turn into a gel, so they can’t be injected or snorted. Other interesting and more sophisticated technologies are in development. It’s a difficult challenge. Most of the abuse is with oral products, and that is the hardest to address because you want to have the drug be available to the patient when they take it for the treatment of pain.

We are also trying to work with the scientific community and product developers to find other pain medications, especially in the chronic disease arenas. Opiates are often not the most appropriate treatment, but they may end up being the only available treatment for patients. We are seeing new categories of treatment for certain kinds of pain. That will make a difference in providing better care for patients and also reducing the public health epidemic of opiate abuse.

Dr Topol: That sounds like a great solution.

Dr Hamburg: We need to do a better job with treatment. We don’t have the best drugs for the treatment of addiction. As physicians, we are not always adequately trained about how to recognize addiction, and we don’t have the addiction treatment networks that we need when referrals need to be made. We all need to learn more about appropriate use of these powerful opiate drugs.

e-Cigarettes: FDA’s Proposal to Regulate

Dr Topol: You touched on tobacco and addiction. That brings me to e-cigarettes. Do you have any thoughts about those?

Dr Hamburg: Legislation was passed several years ago that, for the first time, gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products, but it was cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco, and some tobacco products that are currently in the marketplace weren’t included in that initial legislation. We have undertaken a process to extend our regulatory authority over these other tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. That is a critical first step.

Then we will need to look very hard at e-cigarettes. The public health and medical communities are divided on the appropriate role of e-cigarettes. Many people are deeply concerned (and I can understand why) about the attractiveness of these new products, especially to young people. We are seeing an uptake in use in adolescent populations, but the numbers are still relatively small. These products are flavored. You can buy mint Oreo-flavored e-cigarettes and other flavors that are clearly targeted to attract children. We don’t want to see young people start a nicotine addiction and then go on to combustible cigarettes and other tobacco products that have not only nicotine but other carcinogens and toxins as well.

Many people are encouraged that e-cigarettes can be a useful tool for smoking cessation and shifting away from the harms of traditional combustible cigarettes. The FDA is putting a lot of money into research to better understand e-cigarettes and other tobacco products and their uses. We are working with academic institutions, doing grants, and working with the NIH on a major longitudinal study that will give us a lot more important information as we continue to address the critical challenge of tobacco use and smoking, which remains the leading preventable cause of death in this country.

Dietary Supplements: Postmarket Role Only

Dr Topol: It’s amazing. We still don’t seem to be in touch with that fact. Speaking of a lot of money, supplements are a $30-$40 billion/year industry. Does the FDA have authority over supplements?

Dr Hamburg: We do not review dietary supplements for safety and effectiveness before they go into the marketplace the way that we do for medical drugs and devices.

Dr Topol: Is that because that industry has lobbied to prevent that?

Dr Hamburg: The legal constructs and the regulatory framework that we have been given by Congress asks us to monitor the safety of dietary supplements in the marketplace. Companies are required to report serious adverse events to us. We have the power, when there is a problem, to recall dietary supplements, and we have the authority to monitor the production of dietary supplements in terms of the quality of manufacturing, but that is only one aspect. Many American consumers assume that the FDA is doing more in the regulatory oversight of these products and that we are engaged in assessing the premarket safety and efficacy of these products.

Personal Genetics and Genomics: Doing It Right

Dr Topol: Another area that is somewhat controversial is consumer genomics and such companies as 23andMe and others. Some people want to get their genomic data, and a lot of other companies are marketing some very questionable genomic-type data. Do you have any thoughts about where that might be headed over time?

Dr Hamburg: Obviously we have entered an entirely new era, thanks to advances in science and technology. We are very enthusiastic about the opportunities that precision medicine present to develop better drugs that can target individuals in new and important ways by focusing on individual characteristics, disease characteristics, and patient needs. Diagnostics, genomics, and next-generation sequencing are very important components of what is already happening and what will happen in the future.

We support the notion of consumers and their healthcare providers having access to this kind of information, but we feel strongly—whether it is a genetic test or any other kind of a diagnostic test—that the test be accurate and reliable. If important decisions are going to be made, if that information is going to be actionable in critical ways, consumers deserve accurate and reliable information.

Dr Topol: It’s such a broad issue. You have to inspect facilities not only in the United States but throughout the whole world. Your responsibilities are beyond comprehension.

Time for a National Drug-Cost Debate?

Dr Topol: The last thing that I want to ask you about is the cost of drugs. In other countries, cost is reviewed by government. In this country we have been immune to that. The FDA reviews everything independently of the cost. Now we have runaway specialty drug costs, such as cancer drugs, and many new approvals, but we don’t have any system of checks-and-balances on the cost of these drugs. In other countries, drug costs are a fraction of what Americans are paying. Will we ever get to a time when the cost of drugs is reined in?

 

 

Dr Hamburg: We do have a very different system in many ways from other countries. The FDA is prohibited by law from taking cost into account when we do our scientific reviews.

Dr Topol: Can we change the law?

Dr Hamburg: It’s a complex question and one that is worthy of discussion. There is value in the FDA focusing on the science. That has been a very important, if not essential, compass for our work, but we have to recognize the broader context in which these products will be used. We have an agency (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) that makes decisions about reimbursement, and they have a very powerful role in terms of setting costs and what they are willing to pay. They also influence other private payers. There is a reimbursement framework that is active in this ecosystem. We have reached a point where we have to have a national debate on these issues. We have to sort out how we are going to deal with all of this.

My hope is that advances in science and technology will continue to bring us new and better drugs, and perhaps the development costs will be lowered by the increasing sophistication of the drug development process. At the same time, we have to look at the whole ecosystem and recognize that we just can’t continue to provide the care that American patients expect without addressing the broader cost issues.

The Rewards of Public Service: 310 Million Patients

Dr Topol: You have been incredibly dedicated to public service and are a great inspiration to the medical community, and also to women in science. Can we close with what you would like to say to the physician audience about what you have learned and what impact you have had on others?

Dr Hamburg: I hope that all physicians and others in the broader medical community will think about public service as an important application of their knowledge, skills, and expertise. Public service is incredibly rewarding. It’s a bit of a shift from the care and commitment that you give to an individual patient, to stepping back and doing that for an entire population. When I first became health commissioner of New York City, my great Aunt Winnie was very upset because she wanted me to be a “real doctor.” She couldn’t understand why I was throwing away my medical education. My father tried to calm her down by saying, “She is a real doctor. She just has about 8 million patients.” Now I have more than 310 million patients as FDA commissioner.

Dr Topol: That is a pretty big practice.

Dr Hamburg: Public service is enormously rewarding, and you feel that every day you are making a difference. We need to recognize in medicine that we are working in a much more complex environment, and we have to think about and deal with patients in terms of all of the influences on their lives and all of the different policies and programs that affect them—all of the real-world circumstances, whether it’s poverty or other pressures. Being engaged in health policy has made me look at things in a much more textured way. All of the problems before us are complex and multidetermined, and the solutions have to be multifaceted. Most of the real problems that underlie medical care and our desire to promote health are not going to be resolved simply in a doctor’s office or in a hospital setting. We have to step back and look at all of the determinants of health.

Dr Topol: We are all grateful to you, not just for your willingness to have this conversation but for all that you have done to look after the American public and set a great standard for the FDA. Thank you so much for joining us for this interesting discussion.

 

Part 2:

Margaret A. Hamburg, MD – 8:20AM 11/12/2014 – Special Guest Keynote Speaker – The Future of Personalized Medicine @10th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at the Harvard Medical School, Boston

REAL TIME Coverage of the Conference by Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – Director and Founder of LEADERS in PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, Boston http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

 

Special Guest Speaker

Margaret Hamburg, M.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration

[Her Father was President of IOM was said at the introduction to the Keynote]

How to ask the right question is what HMS taught me best 

Increasing the knowledge of Biology, response to disease, preventive strategies.

2004 — Monumental year — One year after completion of sequencing the Genome

2008/9 – Breast Cancer – pharmacotherapy approved, a protein involved in triggering the disease.Target therapy – risk of disease identified

WHAT FDA is doing on Genetics Information as PARTNERS in Medicine

25% of drugs approved are Targeted therapies

LABELING drugs on genetic information

diagnostics test — identify good respondents

Companion Diagnostics – should be used in Targeted therapies. IGF1, HER2 expression and amplification

PM more important in ONCOLOGY , HepB, Cystic Fibrosis, differential response, CVD – expansion, more to be done

In 2002 — a Program to discuss Genetic information VSDS – New Genomics Program, National Center for Toxicology Research a participants

Translational Scientist are added.

Completion Genome sequencing — push to PM 2011 – Genomics evaluation Team for Safety.

Challenge – Drug, Biologics – interaction need coordination by Agency to discuss challenges and collaboration with out side Group.

Developers of Targeted therapies: Orphan Drugs, Biomarkers – expedited review to promote innovations, fast track breakthrough therapies. Opportunities of Scientist to engage discussion with FDA

 – ALL hands on Deck Approach at FDA – making products available, i.e. SCLC (small cell lung cancer)

Since 2005 – 25 Guidance Reports, i.e., Orphan Drugs and on Companion Diagnostics to be developed in tandem with drug development.

Companion Diagnostics – 3 month review, enforcement and direction – in the framework

FDA — needs to keep up with development in the Diagnostics and in the disease ares.

Illumina – Assays using SNIPS – FDA assesses a shared curated DB on mutation, reduce the review time significantly

FDA – NGS – reference libraries, Genomics Reference and Storage of genomics data

Tools and Capabilities  – support regulatory and science, statistical methods of analysis — implemented for Breast Cancer — signaled the way of new Partnerships and New Clinical Trials formats and methods in its development.

New diagnostics – AMP Program Alzheimer’s Disease, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBS)

What Science is needed for the Regulators to effectively HELP spar innovation.

Pharmacogenomics, Pharmacogenetics — MAPPING the Human Genome and all other areas of “OMICS” – moving from Lab to bedside — requires expertise in Disease prevention, Difference in patients life, Standard medical practice

  • Biology and Pathways
  • Biomarkers
  • New diagnostics
  • Increased communication Universities, new paradigms models and continual effort of SHARING and coordination of shared resources

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Implantable Medical Devices to 2015 – Industry Market Research, Market Share, Market Size, Sales, Demand Forecast, Market Leaders, Company Profiles, Industry Trends

Reporter: William Harrison Zurn

US demand for implantable medical devices is forecast to increase 7.7 percent annually to $52 billion in 2015. Orthopedic implants will remain the largest segment and be one of the fastest growing. Pacing devices will lead gains among cardiovascular implants. Other implants expected to do well include neurostimulators and drug implants.

This study analyzes the $36 billion US implantable medical device industry. It presents historical demand data for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010, and forecasts for 2015 and 2020 by implant procedure, material and type (e.g., joint, spinal, orthobiologics, trauma, dental, pacing devices, stents, valves, ophthalmic, gynecological, drug, cosmetic).

The study also considers market environment factors, details industry structure, evaluates company market share and profiles 24 industry players, including Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific.

 

Medical Device Technology Forecast: Discussion

Although a large number of topics emerged from this survey, six major trend categories circumscribe all of the product-type examples. These same categories encompass all of the generic technologies except “infection control” (which elicited responses too heterogeneous for analysis), and “virtual reality” (which participants viewed as an educational tool, not a clinical one). These trend categories are:

  1. Computer-related technology
  2. Molecular medicine
  3. Home- and self-care
  4. Minimally invasive procedures
  5. Combination device/drug products
  6. Organ replacements and assists

The first two of these trend categories comprise developments grounded in scientific advances; the second two in growing delivery modalities; and the last two in specific product-types.

  1. Computer-related Technology

Computer-related technologies cited in the survey include computer-aided diagnosis, intelligent devices, biosensors and robotics (which panelists associated with intelligent devices), and networks of devices. (“Telemedicine” and self-diagnosis technologies are discussed under “Home- and self-care” below.)

Specific product-types cited by participants as examples of these technologies are integrated patient medical information systems, patient smart-cards, clinical lab robotics, computer-aided clinical lab systems, biosensors, and robotic surgery.

 

 

Historical background
Current computer systems began with the vacuum tube (1907) which enabled the first automatic electronic digital computer, the Eniac (1946). Similarly, the transistor (1948) enabled the integrated circuit microchip (1959), the microprocessor comprising an entire computer processor on one chip (1971), and the first miniaturized ‘personal’ computers by Altair (1975) and Apple (1977). The resulting applications in the clinical community were administrative patient data bases (1970s), computerized medical diagnosis programs (ca. 1970), and ‘computerized’ medical devices (1960s and 1970s).

Future trends
All of the technologies encompassed by this category were judged likely to experience significant development within the next five (and ten) years that would result in new products for clinical use.

On a ‘systems’ level, the survey participants projected very significant developments regarding integrated patient medical data bases (including patient ‘smart cards’). The driving forces were described as cost-reduction pressures, business and financial planning, interest in clinical ‘outcomes’ data, and computer support for clinical decision making. These views are supported by other analyses in the literature.

Participants, however, had divided expectations regarding the future of computers in clinical decision making. Clinicians’ projections were generally more conservative than engineers’. Similarly, the literature reflects some moderation evolving among researchers in this field, suggesting a support role for future computer models rather than the full-fledged automatic consultations envisioned by some early exponents. On the other hand, participants did generally anticipate an increasing trend toward reliance on automated analysis in the clinical laboratory.

An escalating trend toward microprocessor-based intelligent devices was generally anticipated. Commonly cited examples were cardiac and drug-delivery implants, as well as ‘smart’ robotics used in minimally invasive surgery. The accelerating prospects for such medical devices are ultimately grounded in the doubling of microprocessor power approximately every 18 months in accordance with “Moore’s Law”. The chip technology described by “Moore’s Law” will probably continue to grow in this exponential manner for at least another decade, after which limitations may arise due to quantum effects. The growth of intelligent devices is likely to mirror that growth in microprocessor technology.

Survey participants also anticipated miniaturized biochemical and optical biosensors in these intelligent devices, sometimes in integrated “sensor fusion” configurations. The literature, too, reflects a substantial research interest in bioanalytic, electrochemical, and optical sensors in intelligent biomedical applications. (“Robotics” are discussed under “Minimally Invasive Procedures” below.) Finally, some participants noted the potential for microprocessor-based intelligence to promote a trend toward customizing device performance to the needs of individuals and of specialized patient groups with common clinical characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Molecular Medicine

The technologies cited in the survey under this category are genetic diagnostics, genetic therapy, and tissue-engineered devices. Except for tissue-engineered devices (discussed chiefly under “Organ Substitutes” below), the only specific medical-device example of those technologies in is biosensors.

Historical background
Current developments in genetics were anticipated in a number of developments including Nobel prize-winning research on the role of chromosomes in heredity (1933), and on the structure of DNA (1953). Seminal landmarks include the development of amniocentesis to detect genetic disorders (1952), the demonstration that eukaryotic DNA fragments could be inserted into bacterial cells and reproduced (1973), the development of hybridoma technology to produce unlimited quantities of monoclonal antibodies (1975), the use of antisense DNA to modulate gene expression (1978), the initiation of the Human Genome Project (1986), the discovery of a gene associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (1986), the development of automated DNA sequencing methods combining fluorescence-based enzyme techniques with laser instrumentation and programmable pipetting robots (1990s), and the first published account of successful gene therapy for a cholesterol-related disorder (1994).

Future trends
In scoring the technologies, participants expected significant developments leading to clinical applications in both genetic diagnosis and tissue-engineered devices over the next five to ten years. This expectation clearly derives from the ongoing Human Genome Project which has targeted the goal of sequencing the 3,000,000,000 monomers comprising the 80,000 genes in the human genome by 2005. Participants were much more guarded about the prospects for clinical delivery of genetic therapy even over a ten year period, however.

For genetic diagnosis, participants’ interviews projected accelerating growth especially for single-gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis. The primary medical hardware cited was the DNA microchip sensor device.

Genetic therapy elicited somewhat less optimism in interviews and group discussions. With over 4000 known human genetic diseases, participants did expect an intense interest in this field during the next decade, but most believed the likelihood of a major clinical impact during that period to be only moderate. Some participants noted the potential for in vivo delivery of tissue-engineered genetic therapies through implantation of sequestered tissue-engineered cells in encapsulated form. Investigation of such polymer-cell implants is discussed in the literature, as well.

Cancer was cited by participants as a likely focus of both diagnostic and therapeutic genetic techniques, partly because of the large patient population. The literature, too, reflects research interest in genetic techniques such as tumor vaccines, “suicide” genes, and tumor suppressor genes to treat diseases including certain leukemias, brain tumors, carcinomas, melanomas, and retinoblastomas.

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Home- and Self-Care

Generic technology areas included in this trend are home/self monitoring and diagnosis, home/self therapy, and telemedicine. Specific product examples encompassed by this category are home diagnostics and telemedicine for patients in the home.

Historical background
This trend encompasses such milestones as the introduction of home dialysis (1964) and a broad variety of other devices. More fundamental, though, is the fact that nearly all U.S. health care was performed at home by nonprofessionals until around 1900. Before then most medical care was provided at home by relatives and neighbors; physicians played a small role in the care of the average patient. Indeed, until state licensing boards appeared in the 1880’s anybody could call him or herself a ‘doctor’ in the U.S. It was also not until around 1900 that hospitals began to grow into their modern form, due to the emerging need for specialized facilities to house antiseptic surgical suites with anesthetic equipment, and the unique requirements of the new field of radiology. Today, home- and self-care are re-emerging in response to cost-containment pressures resulting both from the explosive growth of medical science since 1950, and from Medicare and Medicaid funding legislation in 1965. This return to decentralized care is being catalyzed by the emergence of the Internet as an unprecedented conduit of health information to patients, and by the diffusion of inexpensive computer technology as an aid to medical decision making by individual consumers.

 

Future trends
Participants’ scores indicate their expectation for significant developments leading to new products in each of the technologies in this category in both five- and ten-year intervals.

During discussions, participants generally envisioned this trend as important but unlikely to produce significant technical advances. It was perceived to be driven by considerations of cost and, to a lesser extent, convenience. The types of home diagnostics commonly envisioned were tests involving urine and blood chemistry, as well as drug concentrations — particularly for elderly patients. Improved monitoring of glucose levels for diabetics was frequently mentioned. The most common form of home therapy cited was drug administration using simplified delivery techniques. Some participants noted the prospect of using home-based intelligent devices to modulate therapies and to “coach” patients. Several participants noted the possible use of relatively simple forms of telemedicine for home care, especially within the confines of a local or regional medical system. Interestingly, participants anticipated greater significance for this “low-technology” telemedicine application than for some other “high-end” versions, perhaps because of potential interstate jurisdictional difficulties during the time period addressed by this study.

  1. Minimally Invasive Procedures

Technology groups related to this category include minimally invasive devices, medical imaging, microminiaturized devices, laser diagnosis and therapy, robotic surgical devices and non-implanted sensory aids. The specific examples cited by participants were minimally invasive cardiovascular and neurosurgery, laser surgery, robotic surgery, nanotechnology, endoscopy, functional and multimodality imaging, MRI, PET, and image contrast agents.

Historical background
The invention of the stethoscope (1816) began a landmark change from diagnostic reliance on surface observations and patient reports to collecting data on internal events using nontraumatic methods. It was followed by such devices as ophthalmoscopes (1850), clinical thermometers (ca. 1850), sphygmomanometers (1896), ECG devices (1901), and EEG instruments (1929).

Noninvasive radiologic imaging began immediately after the discovery of x-rays (1895), and eventually included PET (1951), ultrasonography (1968), CT (1971), and MRI (early 1980s).

The early examples of modern optical endoscopy were laryngoscopes (1857), scopes for the rectum and vagina (1860s), cystocopes for the urinary bladder (1877), and arthrocopes (1918). Development of fiber optic imaging bundles (1950s) made possible the first really flexible endoscopes and revolutionized endoscopy, including a host of emerging therapeutic techniques (1950s) which would eventually include laparoscopic appendectomies, herniotomies, cholecystectomies and hysterectomies. After the invention of the laser (1960) and its introduction as a revolutionary surgical tool (1962), those optic fiber developments transformed its use, as well.

Early developments in minimally invasive cardiac surgery included the cardiac catheter (1929), the intra-aortic balloon pump (1961), and balloon angioplasty (1968). Landmarks in laparoscopic surgery include the first laparoscopic appendectomy (1983) and the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1987).

Future trends
The survey participants’ strong view that every technology in this category will experience significant new developments during the next five and ten year periods leading to new clinical products, with two exceptions. Substantial developments were anticipated for microminiaturized devices, but only on a ten-year time scale. For nonimplanted sensory devices, participants generally envisioned only a modest chance for major innovations throughout the next decade (except for the specific example of hearing aids).

In interviews and group discussions, survey participants expressed an expectation of continuing advancements in endoscopic procedures including fiber optic laser surgery and optical diagnosis, smart miniaturized robotic devices, and a range of miniaturized devices. Clinically, most participants expected an emphasis on minimally invasive cardiovascular surgery and minimally invasive neurosurgery.

While increasing miniaturization of components was broadly anticipated, nanotechnology was seen as a separate issue. Although some participants believed nanotechnology might eventually alter the clinical landscape profoundly, views were divided on the likelihood of significant developments over the ten year period covered by this survey.

Participants also predicted continuing advances in noninvasive medical imaging, including a trend to image-guided procedures. The most pronounced expectations were for developments in functional and multimodality imaging.

Finally, some participants observed that longer term trends might ultimately lead to non-invasive technologies. Such technologies would seek to direct energy (not material devices) transdermally to internal body structures for therapeutic interventions. Existing techniques that may point toward such future developments include ultrasonic lithotripsy and gamma knife technology.

 

 

  1. Combination Device/Drug Products

Table 1 includes a single technology area in this category — device/drug/biological products. Two specific examples were cited by participants and included in these are implanted drug delivery systems (whose primary function is drug delivery) and drug impregnated devices (in which drug delivery is an adjunct to the device function).

Historical background
The history of this category includes a variety of product-types, dating at least from the perfection of the hypodermic needle (1855). There are many modern examples of implanted delivery systems, such as the insulin pump (1980). One fundamental driving force for delivery systems has been the growth of new pharmaceutical products, especially since the dramatic expansion of drug research after 1945. That research has led to the synthesis and testing of millions of compounds for pharmacological and antimicrobial properties. Indeed, today much of that development is performed in automated computer-controlled systems, leading to an even greater acceleration of the process.

 

 

Future trends
Participants anticipated a strong likelihood of developments in this category over both five- and ten-year periods leading to new clinical products.

In the interviews, several survey participants characterized this as a very important area having major importance to a large group of patients. Generally, participants expected three types of developments. First, they anticipated development of new products designed for implanted delivery of insulin and other drugs. They pointed toward new implanted pumps, possibly intelligent devices with improved biosensors to monitor concentrations in body fluids and make dynamic adjustments in delivery rates. They also suggested the likely development of new polymeric timed-release devices which could improve the delivery of long-acting pharmaceuticals at optimized locations and rates.

Second, participants projected new developments in drug-impregnated devices. Examples included new types of cardiac implants with antithrombogenic drugs, as well as orthopedic implants with bacteriostatic coatings.

Finally, survey participants expected new developments in drug delivery systems to simplify reliable use by unsophisticated patients in home settings, including the growing elderly population. Examples included nasal and inhalation products.

  1. Organ Substitutes and Assists

The technologies subsumed under this category are artificial organs, tissue engineered organs, and electrical stimulation. Specific product examples include bone, heart valves, heart pumps, cartilage, pancreas, blood vessels, kidney, skin, liver, eye, and regenerated nerve cells. Also included in the examples were cardiac, neural and neuromuscular stimulation.

Historical background
There were few significant replacement or assistive devices before 1950 other than wooden legs, corrective glasses, dental prostheses, and (relatively unsuccessful) attempts to stabilize bone fractures with metallic implants. The few exceptions included the Drinker respirator, or “iron lung” (1927), and the first artificial kidney (1944). Even the latter was developed into a practical device only later for chronic use in a hospital setting (1959) and, later still, for home use (1964).

Artificial replacement implants largely began with the same development that enabled an explosion of donor-organ transplants — the cardiopulmonary bypass unit (1951). This device, together with heparin and hypothermic surgical techniques, opened the way for donor-organ transplants of the kidney (1954), liver (1963), and heart (1967), and eventually even the intestines & pancreas (1990s).

Important early replacement and assistive devices included mechanical heart valves (1952) synthetic arterial grafts (1957), implantable pacemakers (1959), cemented total artificial hips (1960), pulsatile ventricular assist devices (1963), xenograft bioprosthetic heart valves (1965), and artificial hearts (1969). The development of many of these replacement and assistive devices has been motivated mainly by the severe shortage of natural donor organs. It has been estimated that each year at least 2 million U.S. patients receive artificial body parts while only 20,000 donor organs are available for transplant.

 

 

 

Future trends
The survey participants expected electrical stimulation technologies to continue to yield new developments in cardiac, neural, and neuromuscular applications leading to new clinical products over the next five to ten years. Significant new developments were also deemed likely for artificial (i.e., hardware) and tissue-engineered organs but only over the longer ten-year period.

Many future developments will be driven by the continuing dearth of natural donor organs. For the 260,000 potential liver transplant candidates in the U.S. approximately 3,500 receive liver transplants annually, and 25,000 liver patients die each year. About 10,000 renal transplants occur each year in the U.S. for a dialysis population exceeding 200,000, while approximately 40,000 kidney patients die. Many of these patients are transplant candidates.

 

Survey participants projected a variety of specific products in this category, although most of these products would replace only a few of the most critical functions of the target organ. Some products were envisioned as primarily hardware-based devices such as the electrical stimulation devices, miniaturized assistive heart pumps, and portable hemodialysis units. Others were primarily tissue-derived products including cartilage and blood vessels, as well as improved bioprosthetic heart valves.

Many of the predicted examples, however, were hybrid hardware-tissue products including implantable bone and pancreas, and, eventually, kidney and heart valve replacements. Participant predictions and the scientific literature both reflect research on these devices using implanted filters, polymer-tissue composites, polymer- or hydrogel encapsulated cells, and cell-seeded synthetic scaffolds or hollow fibers with and without additional enzymes or pharmacological agents. Several participants predicted that such hybrid products were likely to play a dominant role in this category over the next decade.

Finally, participants identified three applications which they deemed important, but not likely to generate developments leading to new clinical products in the next decade. They were electronic ocular prosthetics, artificial livers, and nerve regeneration products. The latter two areas were envisioned as hybrid hardware-tissue devices.

This category poses especially difficult challenges in predicting the timing of new developments. Experience suggests that the difficulties entailed in developing artificial organs are often underestimated. These difficulties include the effort and the technical advances needed to pass from a ‘proof of principle’ prototype for animal evaluation to fabrication of a clinically acceptable system for human use. Among the bottlenecks frequently cited are full-scale design, cell procurement, cell survival, and device storage.

 

 

 

Discussion Summary

In aggregate, these projections support a vision of the next decade with four discernible characteristics. First, medical hardware seems certain to become smarter. Devices and systems are likely to reflect a more sophisticated capability for intelligent behavior, and more mature information data bases to guide product performance. Second, smarter and simpler products will facilitate a growing trend to decentralization of care. Technology will support the cost- and convenience-driven diffusion of health care from the clinic to the home. Third, product development will increasingly blur the boundaries between biological systems on the one hand, and physical and engineering designs on the other. Integrated and hybrid approaches will play an expanding role. Fourth, technological developments will help to catalyze a trend toward greater precision in clinical interventions, both spatially and temporally. Reductions in invasiveness will probably mirror advances in miniaturization and improvements in early diagnosis.

 

Source: Freedonia – Implantable Medical Devices to 2015 – Demand and Sales Forecasts, Market Share, Market Size, Market Leaders

Study #: 2852

Published: 03/2012

 

Read Full Post »

Merck and Pfizer Announces Global Strategic Alliance on Anti-PD-L1 to Accelerate Presence in Immuno-Oncology

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

  • Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer will jointly develop and commercialize Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany,’s anti-PD-L1
  • Joint investment and combined strengths and capabilities will further maximize potential of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany,’s asset in the highly competitive anti-PD-1 / anti-PD-L1 space
  • Up to 20 high priority immuno-oncology clinical development programs expected to commence in 2015, including pivotal registration studies
  • Alliance accelerates Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany,’s entry into the US oncology market
November 17, 2014 03:40 AM Eastern Standard Time

DARMSTADT, Germany–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (MRK GY) announced today that it has entered into a global agreement with Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) to co-develop and co-commercialize MSB0010718C, an investigational anti-PD-L1 antibody currently in development by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, as a potential treatment for multiple tumor types to accelerate the two companies’ presence in immuno-oncology.

“On top of that, the global alliance will enable Merck to gain an early entry into the US oncology market as well as to strengthen our existing oncology business in several other important global markets.”

The asset will be developed as a single agent as well as in various combinations with Pfizer’s and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany,’s broad portfolio of approved and investigational pipeline candidates. The two companies will also combine resources and expertise to advance Pfizer’s anti-PD-1 antibody into Phase 1 trials. As part of the agreement, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, will co-promote Pfizer’s XALKORI, a medicine to treat non-small cell lung cancer, in the United States and several other key markets.

Karl-Ludwig Kley, Chairman of the Executive Board of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, stated: “We live up to our promise to strengthen all three pillars of our business: Healthcare, Performance Materials and Life Science. After this year’s acquisition of AZ Electronic Materials and the proposal to acquire Sigma-Aldrich, we have now turned the focus on healthcare. The agreement with Pfizer is a very important milestone in taking our pharma pipeline forward.”

“Collaborating globally with Pfizer will allow us to benefit from the strengths and capabilities of both companies in immuno-oncology, further accelerating this promising asset in the race to address the needs of cancer patients across multiple tumor types. Up to 20 high priority immuno-oncology clinical development programs are expected to commence in 2015, including pivotal registration studies,” continued Belén Garijo, President and Chief Executive Officer of the biopharmaceutical division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Executive Board Member Elect. “On top of that, the global alliance will enable Merck to gain an early entry into the US oncology market as well as to strengthen our existing oncology business in several other important global markets.”

There are currently two clinical development programs underway evaluating the anti-PD-L1 antibody of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. In a Phase 1 trial, more than 550 patients have been treated with MSB0010718C across multiple types of cancers. As part of the Analyst and Investor Day hosted by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, on September 18, 2014, interim data were presented from the ongoing Phase 1 study demonstrating a complete response and partial responses in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer. Additional data are expected to be presented at medical congresses in 2015. There is also an ongoing Phase 2 trial evaluating this antibody in patients with m-Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare form of skin cancer. For more information, please visitwww.clinicaltrials.gov.

Under the terms of the agreement, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, will receive an upfront payment of $ 850 million (around € 680 million) and is eligible to receive regulatory and commercial milestone payments up to $ 2.0 billion. Both companies will jointly fund all development and commercialization costs and all revenues obtained from selling any anti-PD-L1 or anti-PD-1 products generated from this collaboration will be shared.

“Our strategic focus in the immuno-oncology space will be significantly enhanced through this global alliance, giving us the financial firepower to fully leverage the potential of our anti-PD-L1-compound” said Stefan Oschmann, Chief Executive Officer Pharma and Vice Chairman Elect of the Executive Board of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. “The success of the anti-PD-L1 program and the value recognised by Pfizer is a clear reflection of the progress we have made on our R&D pipeline in recent years.”

“This global alliance enables Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, to join forces and combine complementary strengths with the goal of meeting the needs of patients with multiple types of cancer,” said Albert Bourla, Group President Vaccines, Oncology and Consumer Healthcare Businesses, Pfizer. “Immuno-oncology is a top priority for Pfizer. Combining this promising anti-PD-L1 antibody with Pfizer’s extensive portfolio of small molecules and antibodies provides an opportunity to potentially broaden the use of immunotherapy for patients with cancer and rapidly expand our oncology business. In addition, this alliance enables us to significantly accelerate the timeframe of our development programs and move into the first wave of potential immuno-oncology based treatment regimens.”

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, invites investors and analysts, as well as media and the general public to view and listen to a webcast of a live conference call at 2 p.m. Central European Time today.

Notes to editors

  • Further information for journalists including a digital press kit is here
  • Interview with Belén Garijo, President and Chief Executive Officer of our biopharmaceutical division and Executive Board Member Elect
  • Our company on Facebook and LinkedIn
  • Photos and video footage can be found here

All Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, press releases are distributed by e-mail at the same time they become available on the EMD Group Website. In case you are a resident of the USA or Canada please go to www.emdgroup.com/subscribe to register again for your online subscription of this service as our newly introduced geo-targeting requires new links in the email. You may later change your selection or discontinue this service.

About Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Merck KGaA of Darmstadt, Germany, is a leading company for innovative and top-quality high-tech products in the pharmaceutical and chemical sectors. Its subsidiaries in Canada and the United States operate under the umbrella brand EMD. Around 39,000 employees work in 66 countries to improve the quality of life for patients, to further the success of customers and to help meet global challenges. The company generated total revenues of € 11.1 billion in 2013 with its four divisions: Biopharmaceuticals, Consumer Health, Performance Materials and Life Science Tools. Merck KGaA of Darmstadt, Germany is the world’s oldest pharmaceutical and chemical company – since 1668, the name has stood for innovation, business success and responsible entrepreneurship. Holding an approximately 70 percent interest, the founding family remains the majority owner of the company to this day.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made herein may be deemed to be solicitation materials in respect of the proposed acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The proposed acquisition will be submitted to the stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich for their consideration on December 5, 2014. In connection therewith, on November 3, 2014, Sigma-Aldrich filed a definitive proxy statement with the SECand began mailing the definitive proxy statement to its stockholders of record as of the close of business on October 29, 2014. BEFORE MAKING ANY VOTING OR ANY INVESTMENT DECISION, INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE DEFINITIVE PROXY STATEMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED OR TO BE FILED WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION. Investors and stockholders may obtain free copies of the proxy statement, any amendments or supplements thereto and other documents containing important information about Sigma-Aldrich, once such documents are filed with the SEC, through the website maintained by the SEC atwww.sec.gov. Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Sigma-Aldrich will be available free of charge on Sigma-Aldrich’s website at http://investor.sigmaaldrich.com under the heading “Financial Information—SEC Filings”. Stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich may also obtain a free copy of the definitive proxy statement by contacting Sigma-Aldrich’s Investor Relations Department at (314) 898-4643.

Sigma-Aldrich and certain of its directors, executive officers and other members of management and employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the proposed transaction. Information about the directors and executive officers of Sigma-Aldrich is set forth in its proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which was filed with the SEC on March 21, 2014, its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, which was filed with the SEC on February 6, 2014, and in subsequent documents filed with the SEC, each of which can be obtained free of charge from the sources indicated above. Other information regarding the participants in the proxy solicitation of the stockholders of Sigma-Aldrich and a description of their direct and indirect interests, by share holdings or otherwise, is contained in the definitive proxy statement and other relevant materials filed with the SEC.

Contacts

Merck KGaA
Nicole Mommsen
+49 6151 72-62445
or
Investor Relations
+49 6151 72-3321
investor.relations@merckgroup.com

SOURCE

 

Read Full Post »

You can put your dissection kits away, kids. Japanese researchers have developed a method that results in extremely detailed images of the insides of individual organs and even entire animals.

Source: io9.com

See on Scoop.it – Cardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

This report provides comprehensive information on the therapeutic development for Myocardial Ischemia, complete with comparative analysis at various stages, therapeutics assessment by drug target, mechanism of action (MoA), route of administration…

Source: www.whatech.com

See on Scoop.it – Cardiovascular Disease: PHARMACO-THERAPY

Read Full Post »

Mesenteric Ischemia: A Power Review – emDocs

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

 

 

 

 

emDocs post containing very useful emergency medicine information

Source: www.emdocs.net

See on Scoop.it – Cardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

Identification and Characterization of a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of Death-Associated Protein Kinase 1 – Wilbek – 2014 – ChemBioChem – Wiley Online Library

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

New small-molecule inhibitor of death-associated protein kinase 1, a target for #stroke and #ischemia http://t.co/ti7jKqp57v

@uni_copenhagen

Source: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

See on Scoop.it – Cardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

Bioheart Announces First Intracoronary Implantation of Adipose Stem Cells in …
Stockhouse
Bioheart, Inc.

Source: www.stockhouse.com

See on Scoop.it – Cardiovascular Disease: PHARMACO-THERAPY

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »