Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘FDA Regulatory Affairs’ Category


NHLBI decision to halt Heart Stem-Cell Study (CONCERT-HF trial) due to concerns about Anversa’s Animal Studies, not due to any Data generated by the Clinical trial itself, no compromised patient safety by trial

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Doubts about Anversa’s work arose in the early 2000s after other researchers failed to replicate his findings and questioned whether cardiac stem cells existed2,3,4.

Paper of Former HMS Prof. Withdrawn, Clinical Trial Paused after Harvard Requests Retractions

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/31/medical-school-paper-retracted/

NHLBI NEWS

Statement

Statement on NHLBI decision to pause the CONCERT-HF trial

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of the National Institutes of Health, is pausing the CONCERT-HF trialexternal link, which involves patients with chronic heart failure. Recent calls for the retraction of journal articles in related fields of cell therapy research have raised concerns about the scientific foundations of this trial.  While none of the articles in question derive from the CONCERT-HF trial itself, the NHLBI convened CONCERT-HF’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) out of an abundance of caution to ensure the study continues to meet the highest standards for participant safety and scientific integrity. Informed by the DSMB recommendations of October 25, 2018, the NHLBI is pausing the trial. While the DSMB did not have any participant safety concerns, this pause enables the DSMB to complete its review.

The safety of all clinical trial participants is paramount to NHLBI. NHLBI will honor its commitment to CONCERT-HF participants and continue the follow-up protocol during this pause for all participants who have already been treated in the study. Participants are being notified of the status of the trial and how to request additional information.

The CONCERT-HF trial seeks to determine whether c-kit+ cells, either alone or in combination with mesenchymal stem cells derived from the bone marrow, are safe and benefit patients with chronic heart failure, who have very limited treatment options. Despite significant medical and surgical advances, patients with heart failure continue to experience a low quality of life and about half of them will die within five years of receiving a diagnosis.

The scientific basis of CONCERT-HF is supported by a body of evidence in several preclinical models in a number of studies in a variety of laboratories and was reviewed by a Protocol Review Committee (PRC) independent of the trial. The cell therapies that CONCERT-HF is testing are under an investigational new drug (IND) designation which is overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The cells are produced by an accredited laboratory independent of the clinical sites. In addition, as part of standard oversight of clinical trials, the DSMB routinely reviews and monitors CONCERT-HF to ensure participant safety and that the study continues to ask compelling scientific questions with implications for patient care.

The DSMB’s review will be conducted as expeditiously as possible and will inform NHLBI’s future actions that will ensure the highest standards of participant safety and scientific integrity.

SOURCE

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2018/statement-nhlbi-decision-pause-concert-hf-trial

References

  1. Quaini, F. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 5–15 (2002).
  1. Murry, C. E. et al. Nature 428, 664–668 (2004).
  1. Balsam, L. B. Nature 428, 668–673 (2004).
  1. Nygren, J. M. et al. Nature Med. 10, 494–501 (2004).

Download references

RELATED ARTICLES

SUBJECTS

SOURCE

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Innovators in Therapeutics: John Maraganore, the CEO of Alnylam, and Sara Nochur, Alnylam’s Senior VP Regulatory Affairs, November 15, 2018, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM, HMS

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

Innovators in Therapeutics, a Student Speaker Series

by Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science

Free

Actions and Detail Panel

Innovators in Therapeutics, a Student Speaker Series

Thu, November 15, 2018, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM EST

LOCATION

Cannon Room, Building C, Harvard Medical School

240 Longwood Ave

Boston, MA 02115

View Map

 

Free

 

REGISTER

Event Information

DESCRIPTION

Please join us for the Innovators in Therapeutics student speaker series organized by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science and the Harvard Program in Therapeutic Science. The first installment of this series will feature John Maraganore, the CEO of Alnylam, and Sara Nochur, Alnylam’s Senior Vice President for Regulatory Affairs. Dr. Maraganore and Dr. Nochur will describe Alnylam’s path through development and FDA approval of the first RNAi therapeutic, ONPATTRO™ (patisiran), for the treatment of polyneuropathy of hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis. Dr. Maraganore and Dr. Nochur will focus on the regulatory science aspects of gaining approval for this innovative therapeutic.

Prior to the seminar, please join us for a networking session that brings together faculty, students and trainees who are interested in translational research, pharmacology, biotechnology, and regulatory science. Following the speaking program, there will be a small group discussion for students and trainees to engage directly with the expert about the topic at hand. Participation in the small group discussion is limited to students who register and are confirmed prior to the event.

This event is free and open to the Boston research community. Please help us to plan by RSVPing here!

 

AGENDA

4:30 – 5:00pm: Pre-event reception (outside Cannon Room)

5:00 – 5:45pm: Innovators in Therapeutics with Alnylam’s John Maraganore & Sara Nochur (Cannon Room)

5:45 – 6:15pm: [Limited Space] Student and Trainee Q&A with John Maraganore & Sara Nochur (Folin Wu Room)

SOURCE

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/innovators-in-therapeutics-a-student-speaker-series-tickets-50806305026

Read Full Post »


NIH SBIR Funding Early Ventures: September 26, 2018 sponsored by Pennovation

Stephen J. Williams PhD, Reporter

Penn Center for Innovation (Pennovation) sponsored a “Meet with NCI SBIR” program directors at University of Pennsylvania Medicine Smilow Center for Translational Research with a presentation on advice on preparing a successful SBIR/STTR application to the NCI as well as discussion of NCI SBIR current funding opportunities.   Time was allotted in the afternoon for one-on-one discussions with NCI SBIR program directors.

To find similar presentations and one-on-one discussions with NCI/SBIR program directors in an area nearest to you please go to their page at:

https://sbir.cancer.gov/newsevents/events

For more complete information on the NCI SBIR and STTR programs please go to their web page at: https://sbir.cancer.gov/about

A few notes from the meeting are given below:

  • In 2016 the SBIR/STTR 2016 funded $2.5 billion (US) of early stage companies; this is compared to the $6.6 billion invested in early  stage ventures by venture capital firms so the NCI program is very competitive with alternate sources of funding
  • It was stressed that the SBIR programs are flexible as far as ownership of a company; SBIR allows now that >50% of the sponsoring company can be owned by other ventures;  In addition they are looking more favorably on using outside contractors and giving leeway on budgetary constraints so AS THEY SUGGEST ALWAYS talk to the program director about any questions you may have well before (at least 1 month) you submit. More on eligibility criteria is found at: https://sbir.cancer.gov/about/eligibilitycriteria
  • STTR should have strong preliminary data since more competitive; if don’t have enough go for  an R21 emerging technologies grant which usually does not require preliminary data
  • For entities outside the US need a STRONG reason for needing to do work outside the US

Budget levels were discussed as well as  the waiver program, which allows for additional funds to be requested based on criteria set by NCI (usually for work that is deemed high priority or of a specialized nature which could not be covered sufficiently under the standard funding limits) as below:

Phase I: 150K standard but you can get waivers for certain work up to 300K

Phase II: 1M with waiver up to 2M

Phase IIB waiver up to 4M

You don’t need to apply for the waiver but grant offices may suggest citing a statement requesting a waiver as review panels will ask for this information

Fast Track was not discussed in the presentation but for more information of the Fast Track program please visit the website  

NCI is working hard to cut review times to 7 months between initial review to funding however at beginning of the year they set pay lines and hope to fund 50% of the well scored grants

NCI SBIR is a Centralized system with center director and then program director with specific areas of expertise: Reach out to them

IMAT Program and Low-Resource Setting new programs more suitable for initial studies and also can have non US entities

Phase IIB Bridge funding to cross “valley of death” providing up to 4M for 2-3 years: most were for drug/biological but good amount for device and diagnostics

 

Also they have announced administrative supplements for promoting diversity within a project: can add to the budget

FY18 Contracts Areas

3 on biotherapies

2 imaging related

2 on health IT

4 on radiation therapy related: NOTE They spent alot of time discussing the contracts centered on radiation therapy and seems to be an area of emphasis of the NCI SBIR program this year

4 other varied topics

 

Breakdown of funding

>70% of NCI SBIR budget went to grants (for instance Omnibus grants); about 20-30% for contracts; 16% for phase I and 34 % for phase II ;

ALSO the success rate considerably higher for companies that talk to the program director BEFORE applying than not talking to them; also contracts more successful than Omnibus applications

Take Advantage of these useful Assistance Programs through the NIH SBIR Program (Available to all SBIR grantees)

NICHE ASSESSMENT Program

From the NCI SBIR website:

The Niche Assessment Program is designed to help small businesses “jump start” their commercialization efforts. All active HHS (NIH, CDC, FDA) SBIR/STTR Phase I awardees and Phase I Fast-Track awardees (by grant or contract) are eligible to apply. Registration is on a first-come, first-serve basis!

The Niche Assessment Program provides market insight and data that can be used to help small businesses strategically position their technology in the marketplace. The results of this program can help small businesses develop their commercialization plans for their Phase II application, and be exposed to potential partners. Services are provided by Foresight Science & Technology of Providence, RI.

Technology Niche Analyses® (TNA®) are provided by Foresight, for one hundred and seventy-five (175), HHS SBIR/STTR Phase I awardees. These analyses assess potential applications for a technology and then for one viable application, it provides an assessment of the:

  1. Needs and concerns of end-users;
  2. Competing technologies and competing products;
  3. Competitive advantage of the SBIR/STTR-developed technology;
  4. Market size and potential market share (may include national and/or global markets);
  5. Barriers to market entry (may include but is not limited to pricing, competition, government regulations, manufacturing challenges, capital requirements, etc.);
  6. Market drivers;
  7. Status of market and industry trends;
  8. Potential customers, licensees, investors, or other commercialization partners; and,
  9. The price customers are likely to pay.

Commercialization Acceleration Program  (CAP)

From the NIH SBIR website:

NIH CAP is a 9-month program that is well-regarded for its combination of deep domain expertise and access to industry connections, which have resulted in measurable gains and accomplishments by participating companies. Offered since 2004 to address the commercialization objectives of companies across the spectrum of experience and stage, 1000+ companies have participated in the CAP. It is open only to HHS/NIH SBIR/STTR Phase II awardees, and 80 slots are available each year. The program enables participants to establish market and customer relevance, build commercial relationships, and focus on revenue opportunities available to them.

I-Corps Program

The I-Corps program provides funding, mentoring, and networking opportunities to help commercialize your promising biomedical technology. During this 8-week, hands-on program, you’ll learn how to focus your business plan and get the tools to bring your treatment to the patients who need it most.

Program benefits include:

  • Funding up to $50,000 to cover direct program costs
  • Training from biotech sector experts
  • Expanding your professional network
  • Building the confidence and skills to create a comprehensive business model
  • Gaining years of entrepreneurial skills in only weeks.

 

ICORPS is an Entrepreneurial Program (8 week course) to go out talk to customers, get assistance with business models, useful resource which can guide the new company where they should focus on for the commercialization aspect

THE NCI Applicant Assistance Program (AAP)

The SBIR/STTR Applicant Assistance Program (AAP) is aimed at helping eligible small R&D businesses and individuals successfully apply for Phase I SBIR/STTR funding from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Participation in the AAP will be funded by the NCI, NINDS, and NHLBI with NO COST TO PARTICIPANTS. The program will include the following services:

  • Needs Assessment/Small Business Mentoring
  • Phase I Application Preparation Support
  • Application Review
  • Team/Facilities Development
  • Market Research
  • Intellectual Property Consultation

For more details about the program, please refer to NIH Notice NOT-CA-18-072.

 

These programs are free for first time grant applicants and must not have been awarded previous SBIR

Peer Learning Webinar Series goal to improve peer learning .Also they are starting to provide Regulatory Assistance (see below)

NIH also provides Mentoring programs for CEOS and C level

Application tips

  1. Start early: and obtain letters of collaboration
  2. Build a great team: PI multi PI, consider other partners to fill gaps (academic, consultants, seasoned entrepreneurs (don’t need to be paid)
  3. They will pre review 1 month before due date, use NIH Project Reporter to view previous funded grants
  4. Specify study section in SF to specify areas of expertise for review
  5. Specific aims are very important; some of the 20 reviewers focus on this page (describes goals and milestones as well; spend as much time on this page as the rest of the application
  6. Letters of support from KOLs are important to have; necessary from consultants and collaborators; helpful from clinicians
  7. Have a phase II commercialization plan
  8. Note for non US clinical trials:  They will not fund nonUS clinical trials; the company must have a FWA
  9. SBIR budgets defined by direct costs; can request a 7% fee as an indirect cost; and they have a 5,000 $ technical assistance program like regulatory consultants but if requested can’t participate in NIH technical assistance programs so most people don’t apply for TAP

 

  • They are trying to change the definition of innovation as also using innovative methods (previously reviewers liked tried and true methodology)

10.  before you submit solicit independent readers

NCI SBIR can be found on Twitter @NCIsbir ‏

Discussion with Monique Pond, Ph.D. on Establishment of a Regulatory Assistance Program for NCI SBIR

I was able to sit down with Dr. Monique Pond,  AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, Health Scientist within the NCI SBIR Development Center to discuss the new assistance program in regulatory affairs she is developing for the NCI SBIR program.  Dr Pond had received her PhD in chemistry from the Pennsylvania State University, completed a postdoctoral fellow at NIST and then spent many years as a regulatory writer and consultant in the private sector.  She applied through the AAAS for this fellowship and will bring her experience and expertise in regulatory affairs from the private sector to the SBIR program. Dr. Pond discussed the difficulties that new ventures have in formulating regulatory procedures for their companies, the difficulties in getting face time with FDA regulators and helping young companies start thinking about regulatory issues such as pharmacovigilence, oversight, compliance, and navigating the complex regulatory landscape.

In addition Dr. Pond discussed the AAAS fellowship program and alternative career paths for PhD scientists.

 

A formal interview will follow on this same post.

 

Other articles on this OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL on Funding for Startups and Early Ventures are given below:

 

Mapping Medical Device Startups Across The Globe per Funding Criteria

Funding Oncorus’s Immunotherapy Platform: Next-generation Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus (oHSV) for Brain Cancer, Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)

 

Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research

 

Team Profile: DrugDiscovery @LPBI Group – A BioTech Start Up submitted for Funding Competition to MassChallenge Boston 2016 Accelerator

 

A Message from Faculty Director Lee Fleming on Latest Issue of Crowdfunding; From the Fung Institute at Berkeley

 

PROTOCOL for Drug Screening of 3rd Party Intellectual Property Presented for Funding Representation

 

Foundations as a Funding Source

 

The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: The Bigger Better VC?

 

Read Full Post »


Live Conference Coverage @Medcitynews Converge 2018 @Philadelphia: Promising Drugs and Breaking Down Silos

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Promising Drugs, Pricing and Access

The drug pricing debate rages on. What are the solutions to continuing to foster research and innovation, while ensuring access and affordability for patients? Can biosimilars and generics be able to expand market access in the U.S.?

Moderator: Bunny Ellerin, Director, Healthcare and Pharmaceutical Management Program, Columbia Business School
Speakers:
Patrick Davish, AVP, Global & US Pricing/Market Access, Merck
Robert Dubois M.D., Chief Science Officer and Executive Vice President, National Pharmaceutical Council
Gary Kurzman, M.D., Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Healthcare, Safeguard Scientifics
Steven Lucio, Associate Vice President, Pharmacy Services, Vizient

What is working and what needs to change in pricing models?

Robert:  He sees so many players in the onStevencology space discovering new drugs and other drugs are going generic (that is what is working).  However are we spending too much on cancer care relative to other diseases (their initiative Going Beyond the Surface)

Steven:  the advent of biosimilars is good for the industry

Patrick:  large effort in oncology, maybe too much (750 trials on Keytruda) and he says pharma is spending on R&D (however clinical trials take large chunk of this money)

Robert: cancer has gotten a free ride but cost per year relative to benefit looks different than other diseases.  Are we overinvesting in cancer or is that a societal decision

Gary:  maybe as we become more specific with precision medicines high prices may be a result of our success in specifically targeting a mutation.  We need to understand the targeted drugs and outcomes.

Patrick: “Cancer is the last big frontier” but he says prices will come down in most cases.  He gives the example of Hep C treatment… the previous only therapeutic option was a very toxic yearlong treatment but the newer drugs may be more cost effective and safer

Steven: Our blockbuster drugs could diffuse the expense but now with precision we can’t diffuse the expense over a large number of patients

President’s Cancer Panel Recommendation

Six recommendations

  1. promoting value based pricing
  2. enabling communications of cost
  3. financial toxicity
  4. stimulate competition biosimilars
  5. value based care
  6. invest in biomedical research

Patrick: the government pricing regime is hurting.  Alot of practical barriers but Merck has over 200 studies on cost basis

Robert:  many concerns/impetus started in Europe on pricing as they are a set price model (EU won’t pay more than x for a drug). US is moving more to outcomes pricing. For every one health outcome study three studies did not show a benefit.  With cancer it is tricky to establish specific health outcomes.  Also Medicare gets best price status so needs to be a safe harbor for payers and biggest constraint is regulatory issues.

Steven: They all want value based pricing but we don’t have that yet and there is a challenge to understand the nuances of new therapies.  Hard to align all the stakeholders together so until some legislation starts to change the reimbursement-clinic-patient-pharma obstacles.  Possibly the big data efforts discussed here may help align each stakeholders goals.

Gary: What is the data necessary to understand what is happening to patients and until we have that information it still will be complicated to determine where investors in health care stand at in this discussion

Robert: on an ICER methods advisory board: 1) great concern of costs how do we determine fair value of drug 2) ICER is only game in town, other orgs only give recommendations 3) ICER evaluates long term value (cost per quality year of life), budget impact (will people go bankrupt)

4) ICER getting traction in the public eye and advocates 5) the problem is ICER not ready for prime time as evidence keeps changing or are they keeping the societal factors in mind and they don’t have total transparancy in their methodology

Steven: We need more transparency into all the costs associated with the drug and therapy and value-based outcome.  Right now price is more of a black box.

Moderator: pointed to a recent study which showed that outpatient costs are going down while hospital based care cost is going rapidly up (cost of site of care) so we need to figure out how to get people into lower cost setting

Breaking Down Silos in Research

“Silo” is healthcare’s four-letter word. How are researchers, life science companies and others sharing information that can benefit patients more quickly? Hear from experts at institutions that are striving to tear down the walls that prevent data from flowing.

Moderator: Vini Jolly, Executive Director, Woodside Capital Partners
Speakers:
Ardy Arianpour, CEO & Co-Founder, Seqster @seqster
Lauren Becnel, Ph.D., Real World Data Lead for Oncology, Pfizer
Rakesh Mathew, Innovation, Research, & Development Lead, HealthShareExchange
David Nace M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Innovaccer

Seqster: Seqster is a secure platform that helps you and your family manage medical records, DNA, fitness, and nutrition data—all in one place. Founder has a genomic sequencing background but realized sequence  information needs to be linked with medical records.

HealthShareExchange.org :

HealthShare Exchange envisions a trusted community of healthcare stakeholders collaborating to deliver better care to consumers in the greater Philadelphia region. HealthShare Exchange will provide secure access to health information to enable preventive and cost-effective care; improve quality of patient care; and facilitate care transitions. They have partnered with multiple players in healthcare field and have data on over 7 million patients.

Innovacer

Data can be overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be this way. To drive healthcare efficiency, we designed a modular suite of products for a smooth transition into a data-driven world within 4 weeks. Why does it take so much money to move data around and so slowly?

What is interoperatibility?

Ardy: We knew in genomics field how to build algorithms to analyze big data but how do we expand this from a consumer standpoint and see and share your data.

Lauren: how can we use the data between patients, doctors, researchers?  On the research side genomics represent only 2% of data.  Silos are one issue but figuring out the standards for data (collection, curation, analysis) is not set. Still need to improve semantic interoperability. For example Flatiron had good annotated data on male metastatic breast cancer.

David: Technical interopatabliltiy (platform), semantic interopatability (meaning or word usage), format (syntactic) interopatibility (data structure).  There is technical interoperatiblity between health system but some semantic but formats are all different (pharmacies use different systems and write different prescriptions using different suppliers).  In any value based contract this problem is a big issue now (we are going to pay you based on the quality of your performance then there is big need to coordinate across platforms).  We can solve it by bringing data in real time in one place and use mapping to integrate the format (need quality control) then need to make the data democratized among players.

Rakesh:  Patients data should follow the patient. Of Philadelphia’s 12 health systems we had a challenge to make data interoperatable among them so tdhey said to providers don’t use portals and made sure hospitals were sending standardized data. Health care data is complex.

David: 80% of clinical data is noise. For example most eMedical Records are text. Another problem is defining a patient identifier which US does not believe in.

 

 

 

 

Please follow on Twitter using the following #hash tags and @pharma_BI

#MCConverge

#cancertreatment

#healthIT

#innovation

#precisionmedicine

#healthcaremodels

#personalizedmedicine

#healthcaredata

And at the following handles:

@pharma_BI

@medcitynews

Read Full Post »


Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that the federal healthcare program will cover the costs of cancer gene tests that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

genetic testing just became routine care for patients with advanced cancers. And that means precision medicine has finally broken into the mainstream.

Any tests that gain FDA clearance in the future will automatically receive full coverage.

In 3/2018 there are three FDA approved Genetic Tests for Cancer:

UNDER development and not included in the agreement , above, includes:

  • Olivier Elemento, Director of the Caryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine at Cornell, the team at Cornell, for example, has developed a whole exome test that compares mutations in tumors against healthy cells across 22,000 genes. To date, it’s been used to help match more than 1,000 patients in New York state with the best available treatment options.

Under the final decision, doctors are still free to order non-FDA approved tests, but coverage isn’t guaranteed; each case will be evaluated by local Medicare administrative contractors. Which means Elemento’s test could still be covered. “To me this is a vote of confidence that next generation sequencing is useful for cancer patients,” says Elemento.

So far, CMS is only covering these tests for stage three and stage four metastatic cancer sufferers. Most of them aren’t going to be cured. They might get a few more good months, maybe a year, tops.

Cancerous Genes

SOURCE

WITH MEDICARE SUPPORT, GENETIC CANCER TESTING GOES MAINSTREAM

https://www.wired.com/story/with-medicare-support-genetic-cancer-testing-goes-mainstream/?mbid=social_twitter_onsiteshare

Read Full Post »


FDA: Rejects NDA filing: “clinical and non-clinical pharmacology sections of the application were not sufficient to complete a review”: Celgene’s Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Drug – Ozanimod

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Celgene Provides Regulatory Update on Ozanimod for the Treatment of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

Conference call scheduled for today at 5:30 p.m. ET

SUMMIT, N.J.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Celgene Corporation (NASDAQ:CELG) today announced that it has received a Refusal to File letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding its New Drug Application (NDA) for ozanimod in development for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Ozanimod is a novel, oral, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 (S1PR1) and 5 (S1PR5) receptor modulator.

Upon its preliminary review, the FDA determined that the nonclinical and clinical pharmacology sections in the NDA were insufficient to permit a complete review. Celgene intends to seek immediate guidance, including requesting a Type A meeting with the FDA, to ascertain what additional information will be required to resubmit the NDA.

“We remain confident in ozanimod’s clinical profile demonstrated in the pivotal program in relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis,” said Jay Backstrom, M.D., Chief Medical Officer and Head of Global Regulatory Affairs for Celgene. “We will work with the FDA to expeditiously address all outstanding items and bring this important medicine to patients.”

Conference Call Information

Celgene will hold a conference call to discuss this update today at 5:30 p.m. ET. The conference call may be accessed by dialing 1-866-428-9517 for U.S.callers and 1-224-357-2194 for international callers. The passcode for the call is 9179457. The call can also be accessed via an audio webcast in the Investor Relations section of the company website at www.celgene.com. An audio replay will be available through March 6, 2018 by calling 1-855-859-2056 or 1-404-537-3406 and entering access code 9179457.

About Ozanimod

Ozanimod is a novel, oral, selective, sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 (S1PR1) and 5 (S1PR5) receptor modulator in development for immune-inflammatory indications, including relapsing multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Selective binding with S1PR1 is believed to inhibit a specific sub set of activated lymphocytes from migrating to sites of inflammation. The result is a reduction of circulating T and B lymphocytes that leads to anti-inflammatory activity. Importantly, immune surveillance is maintained.

Selective binding with S1PR5 is thought to activate specific cells within the central nervous system (CNS). This has the potential to enhance remyelination and prevent synaptic defects. Ultimately, neurological damage may be prevented.

Ozanimod is an investigational compound that is not approved for any use in any country.

About Celgene

Celgene Corporation, headquartered in Summit, New Jersey, is an integrated global pharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases through next‐generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno‐oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro‐inflammation. For more information, please visit www.celgene.com. Follow Celgene on Social Media: @CelgenePinterestLinkedInFacebook and YouTube.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements, which are generally statements that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the words “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “plans,” “will,” “outlook” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current plans, estimates, assumptions and projections, and speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement in light of new information or future events, except as otherwise required by law. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and are generally beyond our control. Actual results or outcomes may differ materially from those implied by the forward-looking statements as a result of the impact of a number of factors, many of which are discussed in more detail in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Hyperlinks are provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. Celgene bears no responsibility for the security or content of external websites.

Celgene
Investors:
Patrick E. Flanigan III, 908-673-9969
Corporate Vice President, Investor Relations
or
Media:
Catherine Cantone, 908-897-4256
Senior Director, Corporate Communications

Source: Celgene Corporation

SOURCE

http://ir.celgene.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1058943

 

DIVE INTERPRETATION

Celgene’s ozanimod hit with Refusal to File in latest

Read Full Post »


In 2017, FDA approved a record number of 19 personalized medicines — 16 new molecular entities and 3 gene therapies – PMC’s annual analysis, titled Personalized Medicine at FDA: 2017 Progress Report

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

Contact: Christopher J. Wells

Personalized Medicine Coalition

cwells@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org

202-580-9780

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

FDA Approves Record Number of Personalized Medicines, Spearheads Six Regulatory Precedents in Field in 2017

Personalized Medicines Now Account for More Than One in Four New Drug Approvals

WASHINGTON (January 30, 2018) — The Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) today released a report documenting the record number of new personalized medicines the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved last year, making 2017 the fourth consecutive year that personalized medicines accounted for more than 20 percent of all new drug approvals.

The annual analysis, titled Personalized Medicine at FDA: 2017 Progress Report, shows that FDA approved a record number of 19 personalized medicines — 16 new molecular entities and three gene therapies — in 2017. The report lists a total of six regulatory precedents FDA set last year, as follows:

  1. Record number of 16 personalized medicines approved as new molecular entities
  2. Approval of first three gene therapies
  3. First approval of a tissue agnostic indication for cancer therapy
  4. First authorization for marketing of health-related genetic tests directly to consumers
  5. First approval of a personalized medicine biosimilar
  6. First FDA/CMS joint approval and coverage decision for a next-generation sequencing test

PMC President Edward Abrahams, Ph.D., said the precedents demonstrate how personalized medicine has reshaped drug development in the decade since 2007, when targeted therapies accounted for less than 10 percent of new drug approvals. An influential article published in 2007 in the Harvard Business Review titled “Realizing the Promise of Personalized Medicine,” for example, suggested that FDA was not yet committed to the paradigm. The pharmaceutical industry, the article noted, was at that time hesitant to develop medicines for smaller patient populations, preferring instead to develop “blockbuster” medications that could earn approval for one-size-fits-all applications.

This obviously is no longer true, though there remain many obstacles — notably regarding regulation, reimbursement, access and clinical adoption — that complicate the commercialization of personalized medicine products.

“Despite myriad challenges, the diagnostic and pharmaceutical industries are deeply invested in making health care more effective and efficient by developing products that guide treatments to only those patients who will benefit from them,” Abrahams explained. “As this report shows, FDA is increasingly committed to supporting that effort.”

Laura Koontz, Ph.D., Personalized Medicine Staff Member at FDA, will discuss FDA’s direction in personalized medicine with PMC members during its next Policy Committee Meeting on February 20, 2018.

###

About the Personalized Medicine Coalition:
The Personalized Medicine Coalition, representing innovators, scientists, patients, providers and payers, promotes the understanding and adoption of personalized medicine concepts, services and products to benefit patients and the health system. For more information, please visit
www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org.

 

SOURCE

From: Personalized Medicine Coalition <messages@app.production.membersuite.com>

Reply-To: “Christopher Wells (PMC)” <cwells@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org>

Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:03 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: PMC Report: FDA Approves Record Number of Personalized Medicines, Spearheads Six Regulatory Precedents in Field in 2017

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »