Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP, GLP, ISO 14155’ Category

P13K delta-gamma anticancer agent

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

RP 6350, Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A. and Novartis tieup for Rhizen’s inhaled dual Pl3K-delta gamma inhibitor

by DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

 

(A)           and                         (Al)                  and                (A2)

(S)-2-(l-(9H-purin-6-ylamino)propyl)-3-(3-fluorophenyl)-4H-chromen-4-one (Compound A1 is RP 6350).

 

str1

 

RP 6350, RP6350, RP-6350

(S)-2-(l-(9H-purin-6-ylamino)propyl)-3-(3-fluorophenyl)-4H-chromen-4-one

mw 415

Rhizen Pharmaceuticals is developing RP-6530, a PI3K delta and gamma dual inhibitor, for the potential oral treatment of cancer and inflammation  In November 2013, a phase I trial in patients with hematologic malignancies was initiated in Italy ]\. In September 2015, a phase I/Ib study was initiated in the US, in patients with relapsed and refractory T-cell lymphoma. At that time, the study was expected to complete in December 2016

PATENTS……..WO 11/055215 ,  WO 12/151525.

  • Antineoplastics; Small molecules
  • Mechanism of Action Phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase delta inhibitors; Phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase gamma inhibitors
  • Phase I Haematological malignancies
  • Preclinical Multiple myeloma

 

Swaroop K. V. S. Vakkalanka,
COMPANY Rhizen Pharmaceuticals Sa

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02017613

 

PI3K delta/gamma inhibitor RP6530 An orally active, highly selective, small molecule inhibitor of the delta and gamma isoforms of phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K) with potential immunomodulating and antineoplastic activities. Upon administration, PI3K delta/gamma inhibitor RP6530 inhibits the PI3K delta and gamma isoforms and prevents the activation of the PI3K/AKT-mediated signaling pathway. This may lead to a reduction in cellular proliferation in PI3K delta/gamma-expressing tumor cells. In addition, this agent modulates inflammatory responses through various mechanisms, including the inhibition of both the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from neutrophils and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha activity. Unlike other isoforms of PI3K, the delta and gamma isoforms are overexpressed primarily in hematologic malignancies and in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. By selectively targeting these isoforms, PI3K signaling in normal, non-neoplastic cells is minimally impacted or not affected at all, which minimizes the side effect profile for this agent. Check for active clinical trials using this agent. (NCI Thesaurus)

Company Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A.
Description Dual phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) delta and gamma inhibitor
Molecular Target Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) delta ; Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) gamma
Mechanism of Action Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) delta inhibitor; Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) gamma inhibitor
Therapeutic Modality Small molecule

 

Dual PI3Kδ/γ Inhibition By RP6530 Induces Apoptosis and Cytotoxicity In B-Lymphoma Cells
 Swaroop Vakkalanka, PhD*,1, Srikant Viswanadha, Ph.D.*,2, Eugenio Gaudio, PhD*,3, Emanuele Zucca, MD4, Francesco Bertoni, MD5, Elena Bernasconi, B.Sc.*,3, Davide Rossi, MD, Ph.D.*,6, and Anastasios Stathis, MD*,7
 1Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S A, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland, 2Incozen Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, India, 3Lymphoma & Genomics Research Program, IOR-Institute of Oncology Research, Bellinzona, Switzerland, 4IOSI Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland, 5Lymphoma Unit, IOSI-Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland, 6Italian Multiple Myeloma Network, GIMEMA, Italy, 7Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland

RP6530 is a potent and selective dual PI3Kδ/γ inhibitor that inhibited growth of B-cell lymphoma cell lines with a concomitant reduction in the downstream biomarker, pAKT. Additionally, the compound showed cytotoxicity in a panel of lymphoma primary cells. Findings provide a rationale for future clinical trials in B-cell malignancies.

POSTER SESSIONS
Blood 2013 122:4411; published ahead of print December 6, 2013
Swaroop Vakkalanka, Srikant Viswanadha, Eugenio Gaudio, Emanuele Zucca, Francesco Bertoni, Elena Bernasconi, Davide Rossi, Anastasios Stathis
  • Dual PI3K delta/gamma Inhibition By RP6530 Induces Apoptosis and Cytotoxicity
  • RP6530, a novel, small molecule PI3K delta/gamma
  • Activity and selectivity of RP6530 for PI3K delta and gamma isoforms

Introduction Activation of the PI3K pathway triggers multiple events including cell growth, cell cycle entry, cell survival and motility. While α and β isoforms are ubiquitous in their distribution, expression of δ and γ is restricted to cells of the hematopoietic system. Because these isoforms contribute to the development, maintenance, transformation, and proliferation of immune cells, dual targeting of PI3Kδ and γ represents a promising approach in the treatment of lymphomas. The objective of the experiments was to explore the therapeutic potential of RP6530, a novel, small molecule PI3Kδ/γ inhibitor, in B-cell lymphomas.

Methods Activity and selectivity of RP6530 for PI3Kδ and γ isoforms and subsequent downstream activity was determined in enzyme and cell-based assays. Additionally, RP6530 was tested for potency in viability, apoptosis, and Akt phosphorylation assays using a range of immortalized B-cell lymphoma cell lines (Raji, TOLEDO, KG-1, JEKO, OCI-LY-1, OCI-LY-10, MAVER, and REC-1). Viability was assessed using the colorimetric MTT reagent after incubation of cells for 72 h. Inhibition of pAKT was estimated by Western Blotting and bands were quantified using ImageJ after normalization with Actin. Primary cells from lymphoid tumors [1 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 2 diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL), 2 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), 1 splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), and 1 extranodal MZL (EMZL)] were isolated, incubated with 4 µM RP6530, and analyzed for apoptosis or cytotoxicity by Annexin V/PI staining.

Results RP6530 demonstrated high potency against PI3Kδ (IC50=24.5 nM) and γ (IC50=33.2 nM) enzymes with selectivity over α (>300-fold) and β (>100-fold) isoforms. Cellular potency was confirmed in target-specific assays, namely anti-FcεR1-(EC50=37.8 nM) or fMLP (EC50=39.0 nM) induced CD63 expression in human whole blood basophils, LPS induced CD19+ cell proliferation in human whole blood (EC50=250 nM), and LPS induced CD45R+ cell proliferation in mouse whole blood (EC50=101 nM). RP6530 caused a dose-dependent inhibition (>50% @ 2-7 μM) in growth of immortalized (Raji, TOLEDO, KG-1, JEKO, REC-1) B-cell lymphoma cells. Effect was more pronounced in the DLBCL cell lines, OCI-LY-1 and OCI-LY-10 (>50% inhibition @ 0.1-0.7 μM), and the reduction in viability was accompanied by corresponding inhibition of pAKT with EC50 of 6 & 70 nM respectively. Treatment of patient-derived primary cells with 4 µM RP6530 caused an increase in cell death. Fold-increase in cytotoxicity as evident from PI+ staining was 1.6 for CLL, 1.1 for DLBCL, 1.2 for MCL, 2.2 for SMZL, and 2.3 for EMZL. Cells in early apotosis (Annexin V+/PI-) were not different between the DMSO blank and RP6530 samples.

Conclusions RP6530 is a potent and selective dual PI3Kδ/γ inhibitor that inhibited growth of B-cell lymphoma cell lines with a concomitant reduction in the downstream biomarker, pAKT. Additionally, the compound showed cytotoxicity in a panel of lymphoma primary cells. Findings provide a rationale for future clinical trials in B-cell malignancies.

Disclosures:Vakkalanka:Rhizen Pharmaceuticals, S.A.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Incozen Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.: Employment, Equity Ownership.Viswanadha:Incozen Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.: Employment. Bertoni:Rhizen Pharmaceuticals SA: Research Funding.

 

PI3K Dual Inhibitor (RP-6530)


Therapeutic Area Respiratory , Oncology – Liquid Tumors , Rheumatology Molecule Type Small Molecule
Indication Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) , Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma , Asthma , Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) , Rheumatoid Arthritis
Development Phase Phase I Rt. of Administration Oral

Description

Rhizen is developing dual PI3K gamma/delta inhibitors for liquid tumors and inflammatory conditions.

Situation Overview

Dual Pl3K inhibition is strongly implicated as an intervention treatment in allergic and non-allergic inflammation of the airways and autoimmune diseases manifested by a reduction in neutrophilia and TNF in response to LPS. Scientific evidence for PI3-kinase involvement in various cellular processes underlying asthma and COPD stems from inhibitor studies and gene-targeting approaches, which makes it a potential target for treatment of respiratory disease. Resistance to conventional therapies such as corticosteroids in several patients has been attributed to an up-regulation of the PI3K pathway; thus, disruption of PI3K signaling provides a novel strategy aimed at counteracting the immuno-inflammatory response. Given the established criticality of these isoforms in immune surveillance, inhibitors specifically targeting the ? and ? isoforms would be expected to attenuate the progression of immune response encountered in most variations of airway inflammation and arthritis.

Mechanism of Action

While alpha and beta isoforms are ubiquitous in their distribution, expression of delta and gamma is restricted to circulating hematogenous cells and endothelial cells. Unlike PI3K-alpha or beta, mice lacking expression of gamma or delta do not show any adverse phenotype indicating that targeting of these specific isoforms would not result in overt toxicity. Dual delta/gamma inhibition is strongly implicated as an intervention strategy in allergic and non-allergic inflammation of the airways and other autoimmune diseases. Scientific evidence for PI3K-delta and gamma involvement in various cellular processes underlying asthma and COPD stems from inhibitor studies and gene-targeting approaches. Also, resistance to conventional therapies such as corticosteroids in several COPD patients has been attributed to an up-regulation of the PI3K delta/gamma pathway. Disruption of PI3K-delta/gamma signalling therefore provides a novel strategy aimed at counteracting the immuno-inflammatory response. Due to the pivotal role played by PI3K-delta and gamma in mediating inflammatory cell functionality such as leukocyte migration and activation, and mast cell degranulation, blocking these isoforms may also be an effective strategy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis as well.

Given the established criticality of these isoforms in immune surveillance, inhibitors specifically targeting the delta and gamma isoforms would be expected to attenuate the progression of immune response encountered in airway inflammation and rheumatoid arthritis.

 

http://www.rhizen.com/images/backgrounds/pi3k%20delta%20gamma%20ii.png

http://www.rhizen.com/images/backgrounds/pi3k%20delta%20gamma%20ii.pngtps:/

Clinical Trials

Rhizen has identified an orally active Lead Molecule, RP-6530, that has an excellent pre-clinical profile. RP-6530 is currently in non-GLP Tox studies and is expected to enter Clinical Development in H2 2013.

In December 2013, Rhizen announced the start of a Phase I clinical trial. The study entitled A Phase-I, Dose Escalation Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of RP6530, a dual PI3K delta /gamma inhibitor, in patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hematologic Malignancies is designed primarily to establish the safety and tolerability of RP6530. Secondary objectives include clinical efficacy assessment and biomarker response to allow dose determination and potential patient stratification in subsequent expansion studies.

 

Partners by Region

Rhizen’s pipeline consists of internally discovered (with 100% IP ownership) novel small molecule programs aimed at high value markets of Oncology, Immuno-inflammtion and Metabolic Disorders. Rhizen has been successful in securing critical IP space in these areas and efforts are on for further expansion in to several indications. Rhizen seeks partnerships to unlock the potential of these valuable assets for further development from global pharmaceutical partners. At present global rights on all programs are available and Rhizen is flexible to consider suitable business models for licensing/collaboration.

In 2012, Rhizen announced a joint venture collaboration with TG Therapeutics for global development and commercialization of Rhizen’s Novel Selective PI3K Kinase Inhibitors. The selected lead RP5264 (hereafter, to be developed as TGR-1202) is an orally available, small molecule, PI3K specific inhibitor currently being positioned for the treatment of hematological malignancies.

PATENT
WO2014195888, DUAL SELECTIVE PI3 DELTA AND GAMMA KINASE INHIBITORS

This scheme provides a synthetic route for the preparation of compound of formula wherein all the variables are as described herein in above

Figure imgf000094_0001

15 14 10 12 12a

REFERENCES
April 2015, preclinical data were presented at the 106th AACR Meeting in Philadelphia, PA. RP-6530 had GI50 values of 17,028 and 22,014 nM, respectively
December 2014, data were presented at the 56th ASH Meeting in San Francisco, CA.
December 2013, preclinical data were presented at the 55th ASH Meeting in New Orleans, LA.
June 2013, preclinical data were presented at the 18th Annual EHA Congress in Stockholm, Sweden. RP-6530 inhibited PI3K delta and gamma isoforms with IC50 values of 24.5 and 33.2 nM, respectively.
  • 01 Sep 2015 Phase-I clinical trials in Hematological malignancies (Second-line therapy or greater) in USA (PO) (NCT02567656)
  • 18 Nov 2014 Preclinical trials in Multiple myeloma in Switzerland (PO) prior to November 2014
  • 18 Nov 2014 Early research in Multiple myeloma in Switzerland (PO) prior to November 2014

 

WO2011055215A2 Nov 3, 2010 May 12, 2011 Incozen Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. Novel kinase modulators
WO2012151525A1 May 4, 2012 Nov 8, 2012 Rhizen Pharmaceuticals Sa Novel compounds as modulators of protein kinases
WO2013164801A1 May 3, 2013 Nov 7, 2013 Rhizen Pharmaceuticals Sa Process for preparation of optically pure and optionally substituted 2- (1 -hydroxy- alkyl) – chromen – 4 – one derivatives and their use in preparing pharmaceuticals
US20110118257 May 19, 2011 Rhizen Pharmaceuticals Sa Novel kinase modulators
US20120289496 May 4, 2012 Nov 15, 2012 Rhizen Pharmaceuticals Sa Novel compounds as modulators of protein kinases
WO 2011055215

 

 

Read Full Post »

 

FDA Guidance Documents Update

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

You are subscribed to FDA Guidance Documents for U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

This information has recently been updated and is now available.

Recently posted guidance documents

10/14/15: General Considerations for Animal Studies for Medical Devices – Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff

10/14/15: Recommendations for Microbial Vectors Used for Gene Therapy; Draft Guidance for Industry

10/15/15: Draft PDEs for Triethylamine and for Methylisobutylketone

10/15/15: ICH Q3C Maintenance Procedures for the Guidance for Industry Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents

10/19/15: CVM GFI #229 – Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs for the Reduction of Pathogenic Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli in Cattle

10/21/15: Selection of the Appropriate Package Type Terms and Recommendations for Labeling Injectable Medical Products Packaged in Multiple-Dose, Single-Dose, and Single-Patient-Use Containers for Human Use

10/21/15: Manufacturing Site Change Supplements: Content and Submission – Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff

10/26/15: Interim Policy on Compounding Using Bulk Drug Substances Under Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Guidance for Industry

10/26/15: Interim Policy on Compounding Using Bulk Drug Substances Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

10/26/15: Pharmacy Compounding of Human Drug Products Under Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Guidance

10/27/15: Nonclinical Safety Evaluation of Reformulated Drug Products and Products Intended for Administration by an Alternate Route

10/27/15: Product Development Under the Animal Rule

10/28/15: DSCSA Implementation: Product Tracing Requirements for Dispensers — Compliance Policy (Revised) Guidance for Industry

10/29/15: Liposome Drug Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls; Human Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability; and Labeling Documentation

Guidance Document Search

•    Search all FDA official guidance documents and other regulatory guidance

Read Full Post »

Roadmap for Regulatory Success: Navigating the FDA and the IND

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Tuesday, September 29 2015
8:00 am – 10:00 am

Location: MassBio, 300 Technology Sq., 8th Floor, Cambridge, MA

This interactive Forum will help attendees understand the FDA and how to achieve maximum success and avoid common pitfalls when working with the agency in early drug development. Our panel of experts, including a former FDA investigator, will cover the following topics:

  • Overview of the FDA’s structure and function
  • How did we get here? The Evolution of FDA
  • Getting into the Clinic: The IND and Case Studies
  • Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls – Why is CMC is so Important to FDA?

Come join the discussion and take away a deeper understanding of FDA expectations and valuable tips for improved communication.

Speaker:

  • Drew Barlow, M.P.H., Senior Director, Regulatory, Syner-G Pharma CMC Consulting
  • Julia Morteo, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Stealth BioTherapeutics

Moderator:

  • David S. Mantus, Ph.D., Vice President Regulatory Affairs & Quality Assurance, BIND Therapeutics

Bios:

Drew Barlow, M.P.H., Senior Director, Regulatory, Syner-G Pharma CMC Consulting

Drew Barlow has over 15 years of experience in CMC regulatory affairs & quality compliance.  After a stint in clinical research at Wake Forest University, Drew began his tenure with the Food and Drug Administration in the Office of Regulatory Affairs.  With the Agency Drew carried out investigations, inspections and other assignments over FDA regulated industries, specializing in pharmaceutical manufacturers and GMP compliance.  Joining Vertex Pharmaceuticals in 2006, Drew established the post approval CMC regulatory group and oversaw numerous small molecule development projects in a variety of disease areas. He then brought his regulatory CMC strategy expertise to Alkermes plc where he led multiple global late phase programs. Drew joined the Syner-G team in January of 2015. His areas of expertise include devising & implementing CMC strategies for worldwide marketing applications, agency meeting planning & facilitating, post approval regulatory reporting, IND and IMPD preparation, GMP inspection readiness, and Quality by Design implementation.  Drew received a B.S in Biology from Mount Saint Mary’s College in Maryland and a Master’s in Public Health from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

David S. Mantus, Ph.D., Vice President Regulatory Affairs & Quality Assurance, BIND Therapeutics

Dave Mantus has been working in Regulatory Affairs for 23 years both in industry, as a consultant and as a professor. Dr. Mantus served as Vice President, Regulatory Affairs at Cubist Pharmaceuticals and held various regulatory roles at Sention Inc., Shire Biologics, PAREXEL, the Massachusetts Public Health Laboratory, and Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals. He is a co-author of a book on regulatory affairs, “FDA Regulatory Affairs: A Guide for Prescription Drugs, Medical Devices, and Biologics,” that is in its third edition, and has published numerous scientific papers and done presentations around the world. In 2009, Dr. Mantus was named Citizen Schools (www.citizenschools.org) “Citizen Teacher of the Year” for his work teaching at the Edwards Middle School in Charlestown, MA. Dr. Mantus received his B.S. in Chemistry at the College of William and Mary, his M.S. and Ph.D. in Chemistry from Cornell University and was a post-doctoral research fellow in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Washington.

Julia Morteo, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Stealth BioTherapeutics

Julia has nearly 10 years of extensive Regulatory Affairs experience, serving functions in Regulatory Operations, Regulatory-CMC, and Regulatory Strategy.  Julia spent 8 years at Cubist Pharmaceuticals, where she helped bring eCTD submission capabilities in house, was responsible for the CMC content of marketing applications for CUBICIN® in over 50 countries worldwide, and provided Regulatory support on pre- and post-approval programs.  For the past several years, Julia has functioned as the Global Regulatory Strategy lead on more than 10 development programs ranging from pre-clinical to Phase 3 across multiple therapeutic areas.  Julia has led numerous successful IND submissions, IND amendments, and FDA meetings.  Julia has been with Stealth BioTherapeutics since 2014, where she is the Regulatory lead on Stealth’s Phase 2 neurologic rare disease and CV/Renal programs.  Julia graduated from Mount Holyoke College, where she was a double major in Religion and a self-designed major in Science and Medicine in Cultural Perspective.

SOURCE

http://www.massbio.org/events/calendar/3401-roadmap_for_regulatory_success_navigating_the/event_detail

From: MassBio Network <groups-noreply@linkedin.com>

Date: Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 12:42 PM

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

Subject: Don’t miss “Navigating the FDA and the IND” on 9/29!

 

Read Full Post »

Oracle In the Medical Devices Industry

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Medical Devices

20 of the Top 20 Medical Device Companies Run Oracle Applications

Use Oracle’s powerful combination of technology and comprehensive, preintegrated business applications to be first-to-market and address the challenges of regulatory pressures and reimbursement caps.

 

Oracle In the Medical Devices Industry

  • Manage a single view of the product record throughout its lifecycle—from concept to design, source, build, sell, service, and disposal
  • Make large volumes of clinical data well organized, easily accessible, and thoroughly documented
  • Use powerful study layout and design features, full edit check facilities, complete tracking, analysis, and reporting capabilities, remote data collection, and site-based entry
  • Model any kind of clinical study and automatically store components for reuse
  • Employ prebuilt tools that enable electronic signatures and automate regulatory recordkeeping
  • Conduct safety and compliance monitoring by establishing flexible, global workflows enabling CAPA and product complaint resolution
  • Quickly usher a medical device from research and development to testing and product launch using tools that support segmentation, call execution and reporting, guided selling, territory and objectives management, and cross-functional business processes

SOURCE

http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/medical/overview/index.html

More about Oracle Life Sciences

Oracle delivers key functionality built specifically for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device enterprises, so you can maximize innovation and discovery, marketplace agility, and ROI.

Why Oracle Life Sciences solutions?

Oracle’s powerful combination of technology and comprehensive, preintegrated business applications gets you to market first while addressing the challenges of regulatory pressures and reimbursement caps.

 SOURCE

 

Read Full Post »

Antimalarial flow synthesis closer to commercialisation.

Read Full Post »

Kyprolis® (carfilzomib, Amgen ) fails to extend survival in advanced multiple myeloma Phase III

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Amgen(NASDAQ:AMGN) and its subsidiary, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., today announced that the Phase 3 clinical trial FOCUS (CarFilzOmib for AdvanCed Refractory MUltiple Myeloma European Study) did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival (OS) (HR=0.975, 95 percent CI, 0.760, 1.249). The 315-patient, open-label study evaluated single-agent Kyprolis® (carfilzomib) for Injection compared to an active control regimen of low-dose dexamethasone, or equivalent corticosteroids, plus optional cyclophosphamide in patients with relapsed and advanced refractory multiple myeloma. Nearly all patients in the control arm received cyclophosphamide. Patients were heavily pretreated and had received a median of five therapeutic regimens prior to study entry.

 

Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and on-study deaths were comparable between the two arms. The rate of cardiac events observed in the Kyprolis arm was consistent with the current U.S. Kyprolis label. There was an increase in the incidence  of renal adverse events of all grades observed in the Kyprolis arm compared to the active control arm and the label.

Source: www.amgen.com

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular and vascular imaging

Read Full Post »

USPTO Guidance On Patentable Subject Matter

USPTO Guidance On Patentable Subject Matter

Curator and Reporter: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

LH Bernstein

LH Bernstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised 4 July, 2014

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/07/03/uspto-guidance-on-patentable-subject-matter

 

I came across a few recent articles on the subject of US Patent Office guidance on patentability as well as on Supreme Court ruling on claims. I filed several patents on clinical laboratory methods early in my career upon the recommendation of my brother-in-law, now deceased.  Years later, after both brother-in-law and patent attorney are no longer alive, I look back and ask what I have learned over $100,000 later, with many trips to the USPTO, opportunities not taken, and a one year provisional patent behind me.

My conclusion is

(1) that patents are for the protection of the innovator, who might realize legal protection, but the cost and the time investment can well exceed the cost of startup and building a small startup enterprize, that would be the next step.

(2) The other thing to consider is the capability of the lawyer or firm that represents you.  A patent that is well done can be expected to take 5-7 years to go through with due diligence.   I would not expect it to be done well by a university with many other competing demands. I might be wrong in this respect, as the climate has changed, and research universities have sprouted engines for change.  Experienced and productive faculty are encouraged or allowed to form their own such entities.

(3) The emergence of Big Data, computational biology, and very large data warehouses for data use and integration has changed the landscape. The resources required for an individual to pursue research along these lines is quite beyond an individuals sole capacity to successfully pursue without outside funding.  In addition, the changed designated requirement of first to publish has muddied the water.

Of course, one can propose without anything published in the public domain. That makes it possible for corporate entities to file thousands of patents, whether there is actual validation or not at the time of filing.  It would be a quite trying experience for anyone to pursue in the USPTO without some litigation over ownership of patent rights. At this stage of of technology development, I have come to realize that the organization of research, peer review, and archiving of data is still at a stage where some of the best systems avalailable for storing and accessing data still comes considerably short of what is needed for the most complex tasks, even though improvements have come at an exponential pace.

I shall not comment on the contested views held by physicists, chemists, biologists, and economists over the completeness of guiding theories strongly held.  Only history will tell.  Beliefs can hold a strong sway, and have many times held us back.

I am not an expert on legal matters, but it is incomprehensible to me that issues concerning technology innovation can be adjudicated in the Supreme Court, as has occurred in recent years. I have postgraduate degrees in  Medicine, Developmental Anatomy, and post-medical training in pathology and laboratory medicine, as well as experience in analytical and research biochemistry.  It is beyond the competencies expected for these type of cases to come before the Supreme Court, or even to the Federal District Courts, as we see with increasing frequency,  as this has occurred with respect to the development and application of the human genome.

I’m not sure that the developments can be resolved for the public good without a more full development of an open-access system of publishing. Now I present some recent publication about, or published by the USPTO.

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO

Dr. Melvin Castro - Organic Chemistry and New Drug Development

Dr. Melvin Castro – Organic Chemistry and New Drug Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THIS BLOG You are following this blog, along with 1,014 other amazing people (manage).

patentimages.storage.goog…

USPTO Guidance On Patentable Subject Matter: Impediment to Biotech Innovation

Joanna T. Brougher, David A. Fazzolare J Commercial Biotechnology 2014 20(3):Brougher

jcbiotech-patents

jcbiotech-patents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision upending more than three decades worth of established patent practice when it ruled that isolated gene sequences are no longer patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.While many practitioners in the field believed that the USPTO would interpret the decision narrowly, the USPTO actually expanded the scope of the decision when it issued its guidelines for determining whether an invention satisfies Section 101.

The guidelines were met with intense backlash with many arguing that they unnecessarily expanded the scope of the Supreme Court cases in a way that could unduly restrict the scope of patentable subject matter, weaken the U.S. patent system, and create a disincentive to innovation. By undermining patentable subject matter in this way, the guidelines may end up harming not only the companies that patent medical innovations, but also the patients who need medical care.  This article examines the guidelines and their impact on various technologies.

Keywords:   patent, patentable subject matter, Myriad, Mayo, USPTO guidelines

Full Text: PDF

References

35 U.S.C. Section 101 states “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

” Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 566 U.S. ___ (2012)

Association for Molecular Pathology et al., v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. ___ (2013).

Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., 189 F. 95, 103 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1911)

USPTO. Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf

Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948)

USPTO. Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf

Courtney C. Brinckerhoff, “The New USPTO Patent Eligibility Rejections Under Section 101.” PharmaPatentsBlog, published May 6, 2014, accessed http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2014/05/06/the-new-patent-eligibility-rejections-section-101/

Courtney C. Brinckerhoff, “The New USPTO Patent Eligibility Rejections Under Section 101.” PharmaPatentsBlog, published May 6, 2014, accessed http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2014/05/06/the-new-patent-eligibility-rejections-section-101/

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5912/jcb664

 

Science 4 July 2014; 345 (6192): pp. 14-15  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.345.6192.14
  • IN DEPTH

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Biotech feels a chill from changing U.S. patent rules

A 2013 Supreme Court decision that barred human gene patents is scrambling patenting policies.

PHOTO: MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

A year after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that human genes cannot be patented, the biotech industry is struggling to adapt to a landscape in which inventions derived from nature are increasingly hard to patent. It is also pushing back against follow-on policies proposed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to guide examiners deciding whether an invention is too close to a natural product to deserve patent protection. Those policies reach far beyond what the high court intended, biotech representatives say.

“Everything we took for granted a few years ago is now changing, and it’s generating a bit of a scramble,” says patent attorney Damian Kotsis of Harness Dickey in Troy, Michigan, one of more than 15,000 people who gathered here last week for the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO’s) International Convention.

At the meeting, attorneys and executives fretted over the fate of patent applications for inventions involving naturally occurring products—including chemical compounds, antibodies, seeds, and vaccines—and traded stories of recent, unexpected rejections by USPTO. Industry leaders warned that the uncertainty could chill efforts to commercialize scientific discoveries made at universities and companies. Some plan to appeal the rejections in federal court.

USPTO officials, meanwhile, implored attendees to send them suggestions on how to clarify and improve its new policies on patenting natural products, and even announced that they were extending the deadline for public comment by a month. “Each and every one of you in this room has a moral duty … to provide written comments to the PTO,” patent lawyer and former USPTO Deputy Director Teresa Stanek Rea told one audience.

At the heart of the shake-up are two Supreme Court decisions: the ruling last year in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. that human genes cannot be patented because they occur naturally (Science, 21 June 2013, p. 1387); and the 2012 Mayo v. Prometheus decision, which invalidated a patent on a method of measuring blood metabolites to determine drug doses because it relied on a “law of nature” (Science, 12 July 2013, p. 137).

Myriad and Mayo are already having a noticeable impact on patent decisions, according to a study released here. It examined about 1000 patent applications that included claims linked to natural products or laws of nature that USPTO reviewed between April 2011 and March 2014. Overall, examiners rejected about 40%; Myriad was the basis for rejecting about 23% of the applications, and Mayo about 35%, with some overlap, the authors concluded. That rejection rate would have been in the single digits just 5 years ago, asserted Hans Sauer, BIO’s intellectual property counsel, at a press conference. (There are no historical numbers for comparison.) The study was conducted by the news service Bloomberg BNA and the law firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciseri in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

USPTO is extending the decisions far beyond diagnostics and DNA?

The numbers suggest USPTO is extending the decisions far beyond diagnostics and DNA, attorneys say. Harness Dickey’s Kotsis, for example, says a client recently tried to patent a plant extract with therapeutic properties; it was different from anything in nature, Kotsis argued, because the inventor had altered the relative concentrations of key compounds to enhance its effect. Nope, decided USPTO, too close to nature.

In March, USPTO released draft guidance designed to help its examiners decide such questions, setting out 12 factors for them to weigh. For example, if an examiner deems a product “markedly different in structure” from anything in nature, that counts in its favor. But if it has a “high level of generality,” it gets dinged.

The draft has drawn extensive criticism. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything as complicated as this,” says Kevin Bastian, a patent attorney at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton in San Francisco, California. “I just can’t believe that this will be the standard.”

USPTO officials appear eager to fine-tune the draft guidance, but patent experts fear the Supreme Court decisions have made it hard to draw clear lines. “The Myriad decision is hopelessly contradictory and completely incoherent,” says Dan Burk, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. “We know you can’t patent genetic sequences,” he adds, but “we don’t really know why.”

Get creative in using Draft Guidelines!

For now, Kostis says, applicants will have to get creative to reduce the chance of rejection. Rather than claim protection for a plant extract itself, for instance, an inventor could instead patent the steps for using it to treat patients. Other biotech attorneys may try to narrow their patent claims. But there’s a downside to that strategy, they note: Narrower patents can be harder to protect from infringement, making them less attractive to investors. Others plan to wait out the storm, predicting USPTO will ultimately rethink its guidance and ease the way for new patents.

 

Public comment period extended

USPTO has extended the deadline for public comment to 31 July, with no schedule for issuing final language. Regardless of the outcome, however, Stanek Rea warned a crowd of riled-up attorneys that, in the world of biopatents, “the easy days are gone.”

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Today we published and made electronically available a new edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). Manual of Patent Examining Procedure uspto.gov http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html Summary of Changes

PDF Title Page
PDF Foreword
PDF Introduction
PDF Table of Contents
PDF Chapter 600 –
PDF   Parts, Form, and Content of Application Chapter 700 –
PDF    Examination of Applications Chapter 800 –
PDF   Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting Chapter 900 –
PDF   Prior Art, Classification, and Search Chapter 1000 –
PDF  Matters Decided by Various U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Officials Chapter 1100 –
PDF   Statutory Invention Registration (SIR); Pre-Grant Publication (PGPub) and Preissuance Submissions Chapter 1200 –
PDF    Appeal Chapter 1300 –
PDF   Allowance and Issue Appendix L –
PDF   Patent Laws Appendix R –
PDF   Patent Rules Appendix P –
PDF   Paris Convention Subject Matter Index 
PDF Zipped version of the MPEP current revision in the PDF format.

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)Ninth Edition, March 2014

The USPTO continues to offer an online discussion tool for commenting on selected chapters of the Manual. To participate in the discussion and to contribute your ideas go to:
http://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com.

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Ninth Edition, March 2014
The USPTO continues to offer an online discussion tool for commenting on selected chapters of the Manual. To participate in the discussion and to contribute your ideas go to: http://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com.

Note: For current fees, refer to the Current USPTO Fee Schedule.
Consolidated Laws – The patent laws in effect as of May 15, 2014. Consolidated Rules – The patent rules in effect as of May 15, 2014.  MPEP Archives (1948 – 2012)
Current MPEP: Searchable MPEP

The documents updated in the Ninth Edition of the MPEP, dated March 2014, include changes that became effective in November 2013 or earlier.
All of the documents have been updated for the Ninth Edition except Chapters 800, 900, 1000, 1300, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2300, 2400, 2500, and Appendix P.
More information about the changes and updates is available from the “Blue Page – Introduction” of the Searchable MPEP or from the “Summary of Changes” link to the HTML and PDF versions provided below. Discuss the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Welcome to the MPEP discussion tool!

We have received many thoughtful ideas on Chapters 100-600 and 1800 of the MPEP as well as on how to improve the discussion site. Each and every idea submitted by you, the participants in this conversation, has been carefully reviewed by the Office, and many of these ideas have been implemented in the August 2012 revision of the MPEP and many will be implemented in future revisions of the MPEP. The August 2012 revision is the first version provided to the public in a web based searchable format. The new search tool is available at http://mpep.uspto.gov. We would like to thank everyone for participating in the discussion of the MPEP.

We have some great news! Chapters 1300, 1500, 1600 and 2400 of the MPEP are now available for discussion. Please submit any ideas and comments you may have on these chapters. Also, don’t forget to vote on ideas and comments submitted by other users. As before, our editorial staff will periodically be posting proposed new material for you to respond to, and in some cases will post responses to some of the submitted ideas and comments.Recently, we have received several comments concerning the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Please note that comments regarding the implementation of the AIA should be submitted to the USPTO via email t aia_implementation@uspto.gov or via postal mail, as indicated at the America Invents Act Web site. Additional information regarding the AIA is available at www.uspto.gov/americainventsact  We have also received several comments suggesting policy changes which have been routed to the appropriate offices for consideration. We really appreciate your thinking and recommendations!

FDA Guidance for Industry:Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations

Electronic Source Data

Electronic Source Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The FDA published its new Guidance for Industry (GfI) – “Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations” in September 2013.
The Guidance defines the expectations of the FDA concerning electronic source data generated in the context of clinical trials. Find out more about this Guidance.
http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_4288_FDA%20Guidance%20for%20Industry%3A%20Electronic%20Source%20Data%20in%20Clinical%20Investigations
_8534,8457,8366,8308,Z-COVM_n.html

After more than 5 years and two draft versions, the final version of the Guidance for
Industry (GfI) – “Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations” was published in
September 2013. This new FDA Guidance defines the FDA’s expectations for sponsors,
CROs, investigators and other persons involved in the capture, review and retention of
electronic source data generated in the context of FDA-regulated clinical trials.In an
effort to encourage the modernization and increased efficiency of processes in clinical
trials, the FDA clearly supports the capture of electronic source data and emphasizes
the agency’s intention to support activities aimed at ensuring the reliability, quality,
integrity and traceability of this source data, from its electronic source to the electronic
submission of the data in the context of an authorization procedure. The Guidance
addresses aspects as data capture, data review and record retention. When the
computerized systems used in clinical trials are described, the FDA recommends
that the description not only focus on the intended use of the system, but also on
data protection measures and the flow of data across system components and
interfaces. In practice, the pharmaceutical industry needs to meet significant
requirements regarding organisation, planning, specification and verification of
computerized systems in the field of clinical trials. The FDA also mentions in the
Guidance that it does not intend to apply 21 CFR Part 11 to electronic health records
(EHR). Author: Oliver Herrmann Q-Infiity Source: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
Guidances/UCM328691.pdf
Webinar: https://collaboration.fda.gov/p89r92dh8wc

 

Read Full Post »

Good and Bad News Reported for Ovarian Cancer Therapy

Reporter, Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

In a recent Fierce Biotech report

FDA review red-flags AstraZeneca’s case for ovarian cancer drug olaparib”,

John Carroll reports on a disappointing ruling by the FDA on AstraZeneca’s PARP1 inhibitor olaparib for maintenance therapy in women with cisplatin refractory ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation.   Early clinical investigations had pointed to efficacy of PARP inhibitors in ovarian tumors carrying the BRCA mutation. The scientific rationale for using PARP1 inhibitors in BRCA1/2 deficiency was quite clear:

  1. DNA damage can result in

1. double strand breaks (DSB)

  1.  DSB can be repaired by efficient homologous recombination (HR) or less efficient non-homologous end joining (NHEJ)

b. BRCA1 involved in RAD51 dependent HR at DSB sites

  1. In BRCA1 deficiency DSB repaired by less efficient NHEJ

 

 

2. single strand breaks, damage (SSB)

  1. PARP1 is activated by DNA damage and poly-ADP ribosylates histones and other proteins marking DNA for SSB repair
  2. SSB repair usually base excision (BER) or sometimes nucleotide excision repair (NER)

B. if PARP inhibited then SSB gets converted to DSB

C. in BRCA1/2 deficient background repair is forced to less efficient NHEJ thereby perpetuating some DNA damage pon exposure to DNA damaging agent

 

A good review explaining the pharmacology behind the rationale of PARP inhibitors in BRCA deficient breast and ovarian cancer is given by Drs. Christina Annunziata and Susan E. Bates in PARP inhibitors in BRCA1/BRCA2 germline mutation carriers with ovarian and breast cancer

(http://f1000.com/prime/reports/b/2/10/) and below a nice figure from their paper:

 

parpbrcadnadamage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(from Christina M Annunziata and Susan E Bates. PARP inhibitors in BRCA1/BRCA2 germline mutation carriers with ovarian and breast cancer.  F1000 Biol Reports, 2010; 2:10.)  Creative Commons

Dr. Sudipta Saha’s post BRCA1 a tumour suppressor in breast and ovarian cancer – functions in transcription, ubiquitination and DNA repair discusses how BRCA1 affects the double strand DNA repair process, augments histone modification, as well as affecting expression of DNA repair genes.

Dana Farber’s Dr. Ralph Scully, Ph.D., in Exploiting DNA Repair Targets in Breast Cancer (http://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/news/news/article/5402/), explains his research investigating why multiple DNA repair pathways may have to be targeted with PARP therapy concurrent with BRCA1 deficiency.

 

However FDA investigators voiced their skepticism of AstraZeneca’s clinical results, namely

  • Small number of patients enrolled
  • BRCA1/2 cohort were identified retrospectively
  • results skewed by false benefit from “underperforming” control arm
  • possible inadvertent selection bias
  • hazard ratio suggesting improvement in progression free survival but higher risk/benefit

The FDA investigators released their report two days before an expert panel would be releasing their own report (reported in the link below from FierceBiotech)

UPDATED: FDA experts spurn AstraZeneca’s pitch for ovarian cancer drug olaparib

in which the expert panel reiterated the findings of the FDA investigators.   The expert panel’s job was to find if there was any clinical benefit for continuing consideration of olaparib, basically stating

“This trial has problems,” noted FDA cancer chief Richard Pazdur during the panel discussion. If investigators had “pristine evidence of a 7-month advantage in PFS, we wouldn’t be here.”

The expert panel was concerned for the above reasons as well as the reported handful of lethal cases of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia in the study, although the panel noted these patients had advanced disease before entering the trial, raising the possibility that prior drugs may have triggered their deaths.

 

This was certainly a disappointment as ….

it was at last year’s ASCO (2013) that investigators at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel presented data showing that in 193 cisplatin-refractory ovarian cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, 31% had a partial or complete tumor regression. In addition the study also showed good response in pancreatic and prostate cancer with tolerable side effects.

 

See here for study details: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/05/domchek/

 

As John Carrol from FierceBiotech notes, the decision may spark renewed interest by Pfizer of a bid for AstraZeneca as the potential FDA rejection would certainly dampen AstraZeneca’s future growth and profit plans. Last month AstraZeneca’s CEO made the case to shareholders to reject the Pfizer offer by pointing to AstraZeneca’s potential beefed-up pipeline. AstraZeneca had projected olaparib as a potential $2 billion-a-year seller, although some industry analysts see sales at less than half that amount.

A company spokeswoman said the monotherapy use of olaparib for ovarian cancer assessed by the U.S. expert panel this week was only one element of a broad development program.

 

 

Please see a table of current oncology clinical trials with PARP1 inhibitors

at end of this post

 

However, on the same day, FierceBiotechreports some great news (at least in Europe) on the ovarian cancer front:

 

EU backs Roche’s Avastin for hard-to-treat ovarian cancer

As Arlene Weintraub   of FierceBiotech reports:

EU Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) handed down a positive ruling on Avastin, recommending that the European Commission approve the drug for use in women with ovarian cancer that’s resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy. It’s the first biologic to receive a positive opinion from the CHMP for this hard-to-treat form of the disease.

Please see here for official press release: CHMP recommends EU approval of Roche’s Avastin for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer

 

EU had been getting pressure from British doctors to approve Avastin based on clinical trial results although it may be important to note that the EU zone seems to have an ability to recruit more numbers for clinical trials than in US. For instance an EU women’s breast cancer prevention trial had heavy recruitment in what would be considered a short time frame compared to recruitment times for the US.

 

Below is a table on PARP1 inhibitors in current clinical trials (obtained from NewMedicine’s Oncology KnowledgeBase™). nm|OK is a relational knowledgeBASE covering all major aspects of product development in oncolology. The database comprises 6 modules each dedicated in a specific sector within the oncology field.

 

PARP1 Inhibitors Currently in Clinical Trials for Ovarian Cancer

 

Developer and

Drug Name

Development Status & Location
– Indications
AbbVie

Current as of: March 27, 2014

PARP inhibitor: ABT-767

Phase I (begin 5/11, ongoing 2/14) Europe (Netherlands) – solid tumors with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, locally advanced or metastatic • ovarian cancer, advanced or metastatic • fallopian tube cancer, advanced or metastatic • peritoneal cancer, advanced or metastatic
AstraZeneca
Affiliate(s):
· Myriad GeneticsCurrent as of: June 26, 2014Generic Name: Olaparib
Brand Name: Lynparza
Other Designation: AZD2281, KU59436, KU-0059436, NSC 747856
Phase I (begin 7/05, closed 9/08) Europe (Netherlands, UK, Poland); phase II (begin 6/07, closed 2/08, completed 5/09) USA, Australia, Europe (Germany, Spain, Sweden, UK), phase II (begin 7/08, closed 2/09) USA, Australia, Europe (Belgium, Germany, Poland, Spain, UK), Israel, phase II (begin 8/08, closed 12/09, completed 3/13) USA, Australia, Canada, Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ukraine, UK), Israel, Russia; phase II (begin 2/10, closed 7/10) USA, Australia, Canada, Europe (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, UK), Japan, Panama, Peru (combination); MAA (accepted 9/13) EU, NDA (filed 2/14) USA – ovarian cancer, advanced or metastatic, BRCA positive • ovarian cancer, recurrent, platinum sensitive • ovarian cancer, advanced, refractory, BRCA1 or BRCA2-associatedPhase I (begin 5/08, ongoing 5/12) USA; phase II (begin 7/08, closed 10/09) Canada – breast cancer, locally advanced, BRCA1/BRCA2-associated or hereditary metastatic or inoperable • ovarian cancer, locally advanced, BRCA1/BRCA2-associated or hereditary metastatic or inoperable • breast cancer, triple-negative, BRCA-positive • ovarian cancer, high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated, BRCA-positive

Phase I (begin 10/10, ongoing 1/13) USA (combination) – ovarian cancer, inoperable or metastatic, refractory • breast cancer, inoperable or metastatic, refractory

Phase III (begin 8/13) USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe (France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, UK), Israel, South Korea, phase III (begin 9/13) USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, UK), Israel – ovarian cancer, serous, high grade, BRCA mutated, platinum-sensitive, relapsed, third line, maintenance • ovarian cancer, serous or endometrioid, high grade, BRCA mutated, platinum responsive (PR or CR), maintenance, first line • primary peritoneal cancer, high grade, BRCA mutated, platinum responsive (PR or CR), maintenance • fallopian tube cancer, high grade, BRCA mutated, platinum responsive (PR or

BioMarin Pharmaceutical

Current as of: June 14, 2014

PARP inhibitor:

BMN-673, BMN673, LT-673

Phase I/II (begin 1/11, ongoing 3/14) USA – solid tumors, advanced, recurrent

Phase I (begin 2/13, closed 4/13, completed 5/14) USA – healthy volunteers

Phase I/II (begin 11/13) USA – solid tumors, relapsed or refractory, BRCA mutated, second line

BiPar Sciences

Current as of: April 16, 2009

Parp inhibitor:

BSI-401

Preclin (ongoing 4/09) – solid tumors
Clovis Oncology
Affiliate(s):
· University of Newcastle Upon Tyne
· Cancer Research Campaign Technology
· PfizerCurrent as of: June 21, 2014Generic Name: Rucaparib
Brand Name: Rucapanc
Other Designation: AG140699, AG014699, AG-14,699, AG-14669, AG14699, AG140361, AG-14361, AG-014699, CO-338, PF-01367338
Phase I (begin 03, completed 05) Europe (UK) (combination), phase I (begin 2/10, closed 11/13) Europe (France, UK) (combination) – solid tumors, advanced

Phase II (begin 12/07, closed 10/13) Europe (UK) – breast cancer, advanced or metastatic, in patients carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations • ovarian cancer, advanced or metastatic, in patients carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations

Phase I/II (begin 11/11, ongoing 6/14) USA, Europe (UK) – solid tumors, metastatic, with mutated BRCA • breast cancer, metastatic, HEr2 negative, with mutated BRCA

Sanofi

Current as of: June 03, 2013

Generic Name: Iniparib
Brand Name: Tivolza
Other Designation: BSI-201, NSC 746045, SAR240550

Phase I/Ib (begin 3/06, closed 3/10) USA (combination), phase I (begin 7/10, closed 11/10) USA, phase I (begin 9/10, ongoing 2/11) Japan (combination); phase Ib (begin 1/07, ongoing 1/11) USA (combination) – solid tumors, advanced, refractory
Phase II (begin 5/08, closed 1/09) USA – ovarian cancer, advanced, refractory, BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 associated • fallopian tube cancer, advanced, refractory, BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 associated • peritoneal cancer, advanced, refractory, BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 associated
Tesaro
Affiliate(s):
· MerckCurrent as of: May 18, 2014Generic Name: Niraparib
Other Designation: MK-4827, MK4827
Phase I (begin 9/08, closed 2/11) USA, Europe (UK) – solid tumors, locally advanced or metastatic • ovarian cancer, locally advanced or metastatic, BRCA mutant • chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), relapsed or refractory • prolymphocytic leukemia, T cell, relapsed or refractory
Phase Ib (begin 11/10, closed 3/11, terminated 10/12) USA (combination) – solid tumors, locally advanced or metastatic • ovarian cancer, serous, high grade, platinum resistant or refractoryPhase III (begin 5/13, ongoing 5/14) USA – ovarian cancer, platinum-sensitive, high grade serous or BRCA mutant, chemotherapy responsive • fallopian tube cancer • primary peritoneal cancer
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries

Current as of: May 04, 2013

Designation:

CEP-9722

Phase I (begin 5/11, closed 11/12, terminated 10/13) USA, phase I (begin 6/09, closed 7/12, completed 1/12) Europe (France and UK) (combination) – solid tumors, advanced, third line
Phase I (begin 5/11, completed 1/13) Europe (France) (combination) – solid tumors, advanced • mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), advanced

 

 

Summary of Combination Ovarian Cancer Trials with Avastin (current and closed)

 

Indication in Development ovarian cancer, advanced, recurrent, persistent • ovarian cancer, progressive, platinum resistant, second line • fallopian tube cancer, progressive, platinum resistant, second line • primary peritoneal cancer, progressive, platinum resistant, second line
Latest Status Phase II (begin 4/02, closed 8/04) USA, phase II (begin 11/04, closed 10/05) USA; phase III (begin 10/09) Europe (Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden), Turkey
Clinical History Refer to the Combination Trial Module for trials of Avastin in combination with various chemotherapeutic regimens.According to results from the AURELIA clinical trial (protocol ID: MO22224; 2009-011400-33; NCT00976911), the median PFS in women with progressive platinum resistant ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer treated with Avastin in combination with chemotherapy, was 6.7 months compared to 3.4 months in those treated with chemotherapy alone for an HR of 0.48 (range =0.38–0.60).. In addition, the objective response rate was 30.9% in women treated with Avastin compared to 12.6% in those on chemotherapy (p=0.001). Certain AE (Grade 2 to 5) that occurred more often in the Avastin arm compared to the chemotherapy alone arm were high blood pressure (20% versus 7%) and an excess of protein in the urine (11% versus 1%). Gastrointestinal perforations and fistulas occurred in 2% of women in the Avastin arm compared to no events in the chemotherapy arm (Pujade-Lauraine E, etal, ASCO12, Abs. LBA5002).A multicenter (n=124), randomized, open label, 2-arm, phase III clinical trial (protocol ID: MO22224; 2009-011400-33; NCT00976911; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=NCT00976911 ), dubbed AURELIA, was initiated in October 2009, in Europe (Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden), and Turkey, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Avastin added to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer with disease progression within 6 months of platinum therapy in the first line setting. The trials primary outcome measure is PFS. Secondary outcome measures include objective response rate, biological PFS interval, OS, QoL, and safety and tolerability. According to the protocol, all patients are treated with standard chemotherapy with IV paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of each 4-week cycle; or IV topotecan at a dose of 4 mg/m² on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 4-week cycle, or 1.25 mg/kg on days 1-5 of each 3-week cycle; or IV liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m²) every 4 weeks. Patients (n=179) randomized to arm 2 of the trial are treated with IV Avastin at a dose of 10 mg/kg twice weekly or 15 mg/kg thrice weekly concomitantly with the chemotherapy choice. Treatment continues until disease progression. Subsequently, patients are treated with the standard of care. Patients in arm 1 (n=182), on chemotherapy only may opt to be treated with IV Avastin (15 mg/kg) three times weekly. The trial was set up in cooperation with the Group d’Investigateurs Nationaux pour l’Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO) and was conducted by the international network of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) and the pan-European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups (ENGOT), under PI Eric Pujade-Lauraine, MD, Hopitaux Universitaires, Paris Centre, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu (Paris, France). The trial enrolled 361 patients and was closed as of May 2012..Results were presented from a phase II clinical trial (protocol ID: CDR0000068839; GOG-0170D; NCT00022659) of bevacizumab in patients with persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer or primary peritoneal cancer that was performed by the Gynecologic Oncology Group to determine the ORR, PFS, and toxicity for this treatment. Patients must have been administered 1-2 prior cytotoxic regimens. Treatment consisted of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) IV every 3 weeks until disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Between April 2002 and August 2004, 64 patients were enrolled, of which 2 were excluded for wrong primary and borderline histology and 62 were evaluable (1 previous regimen=23, 2 previous regimens=39). The median disease free interval from completion of primary cytotoxic chemotherapy to first recurrence was 6.5 months. Early results demonstrated that some patients had confirmed objective responses and PFS in some was at least 6 months. Observed Grade 3 or 4 toxicities included allergy (Grade 3=1), cardiovascular (Grade 3=4; Grade 4=1), gastrointestinal (Grade 3=3), hepatic (Grade 3=1), pain (Grade 3=2), and pulmonary (Grade 4=1). As of 11/04, 36 patients were removed from the trial, including 29 for disease progression and 1 for toxicity in 33 cases reported. Preliminary evidence exists for objective responses to bevacizumab (Burger R, et al, ASCO05, Abs. 5009).An open label, single arm, 2-stage, phase II clinical trial (protocol ID: AVF2949g, NCT00097019) of bevacizumab in patients with platinum resistant, advanced (Stage III or IV), ovarian cancer or primary peritoneal cancer for whom subsequent doxorubicin or topotecan therapy also has failed was initiated in November 2004 at multiple locations in the USA to determine the safety and efficacy for this treatment.A multicenter phase II clinical trial was initiated in April 2002 to determine the 6-month PFS of patients with persistent or recurrent ovarian epithelial or primary peritoneal cancer treated with bevacizumab (protocol ID: GOG-0170D, CDR0000068839, NCT00022659). IV bevacizumab is administered over 30-90 minutes on day 1. Treatment is repeated every 21 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients are followed every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months for 3 years, and then annually thereafter. A total of 22-60 patients will be accrued within 12-30 months. Robert A. Burger, MD, of Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center is Trial Chair.This trial was closed in August 2004.

 

 

Sources

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/fda-review-red-flags-astrazenecas-case-ovarian-cancer-drug-olaparib/2014-06-23

 

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/fda-experts-spurn-astrazenecas-pitch-ovarian-cancer-drug-olaparib/2014-06-25

 

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/eu-backs-roches-avastin-hard-treat-ovarian-cancer/2014-06-27

 

In a followup to this original posting A Report From the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine entitled

Evolving Approaches in Research and Care for Ovarian Cancers

was generated in a ViewPoint piece in JAMA which discussed their Congressional mandated report on the State of the Science in Ovarian Cancer Research, titled

Ovarian Cancers: Evolving Paradigms in Research and Care 

highlights some of the research gaps felt by the committee in the current state of ovarian cancer research including:

  • consideration in research protocols of the multitude of histologic and morphologic subtypes of ovarian cancer, including the feeling of the committee that high grade serous OVCA originates from the distal end of the fallopian tube (espoused by Dr. Doubeau and Dr. Christopher Crum) versus originating from the ovarian surface epithelium
  • a call for expanded screening and prevention research with mutimodal screening including CA125 with secondary transvaginal screen
  • better patient education of the risk/benefit of genetic testing including BRCA1/2 as well as in consideration for PARP inhibitor therapy
  • treatments should be standardized and disseminated including more research in health outcomes and decision support for personalized therapy

This Perspective article can be found here: jvp160038

Some other posts relating to OVARIAN CANCER on this site include

Efficacy of Ovariectomy in Presence of BRCA1 vs BRCA2 and the Risk for Ovarian Cancer

Testing for Multiple Genetic Mutations via NGS for Patients: Very Strong Family History of Breast & Ovarian Cancer, Diagnosed at Young Ages, & Negative on BRCA Test

Ultrasound-based Screening for Ovarian Cancer

Dasatinib in Combination With Other Drugs for Advanced, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

BRCA1 a tumour suppressor in breast and ovarian cancer – functions in transcription, ubiquitination and DNA repair

 

Read Full Post »

Medical Applications and FDA regulation of Sensor-enabled Mobile Devices: Apple and the Digital Health Devices Market

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Digital health: Inside Apple’s meeting with the FDA

FDA reveals details from Apple’s 2013 meeting with the agency, during which the tech giant discussed medical applications and FDA regulation of sensor-enabled mobile devices.

Digital health: Inside Apple's meeting with the FDA

FDA regulators finally opened up about last year’s chat with consumer technology giant Apple (NSDQ:AAPL), opening the books on a meeting that spurred a lot of speculation about the company’s healthcare prospects.

According to meeting minutes obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by 9to5Mac.com, Apple spoke with the FDA about its “moral obligation to do more” with its technology, especially given the capability of its smartphones to support sensors that may have implications for how users track and view their health.

Sign up to get our free newsletters delivered right to your inbox.

“For instance, Apple’s devices have cameras and accelerometers,” according to the meeting memorandum provided by the FDA. “There is still an opportunity to innovate, but Apple wants to make sure they are on the side of the FDA.”

The meeting also lingered on regulatory oversight of mobile healthcare products, with Apple apparently lauding the FDA for its “fair” and “balanced” approach and FDA appearing to assuage the company’s concerns about oversight of the technology used in new healthcare applications.

Even a glucometer would not need FDA oversight, the agency told Apple, unless the device was explicitly marketed for medical use. The agency may get involved after the fact, however, if it sees the device making its way into medical use regardless of how it’s marketed.

 

“FDA will regulated [sic] based on the intended use of a device. Using the glucometer example, the glucometer may be unregulated if the intent is for a user to follow their blood sugar for the purposes of better nutrition,” according to the meeting memo. “If the glucometer is marketed for diabetics, however, it would more likely be regulated as a medical device. FDA looks at how devices are actually used. If the manufacturer advertises the device for an unapproved use of FDA sees a lot of off-label use that is potentially dangerous, FDA may regulate after the fact.”

The December 2013 meeting generated a lot of buzz from tech industry analysts who spotted Apple’s emerging interest in the healthcare space, which has also drawn rival consumer electronics companies such as LG Electronics (KRX:066570) and Samsung (LON:BC94).

Apple has been nabbing up experts from companies in the health, fitness and sensor space, and even took a couple along to the FDA meeting, including former Masimo (NSDQ:MASI) chief medical officer Michael O’Reilly. Apple also recently hired a couple of other medical sensor experts, including  Nancy Dougherty, formerly involved with transdermal drug delivery devices and wearable vital signs monitoring, and Ravi Narasimhan, who also worked with personal vital signs monitoring.

The company early this year also landed a patent for a smartphone heart sensor, although that application laid out plans to use the sensor primarily for personalization and authentication.

Months of speculation came to a head last week when Apple finally unveiled its rumored “HealthKit” project and “Health” app, which aims to become a mobile silo for personal health and fitness information, including patient-generated data and information generated through various physician portals.

The secretive company has not yet commented on ongoing rumors that its interest in sensor technology will include a new “iWatch” wearable device, which would further feed data into the Health app. Analysts with RBC Capital said in a note to investors this month that Apple may announce a wearable product in October or November this year, and that such a technology represents a “material opportunity” for the company.

Rival phone-maker Samsung has also been making major moves in digital health with the launch of its wearables platform, including the ‘Simband’ hardware and ‘SAMI’ software, made open to developers. Samsung president and chief strategy officer has called digital health the “single greatest opportunity of our generation,” adding that the company is on the lookout for new ways to meld technology and health.

 

SOURCE

http://www.massdevice.com/news/digital-health-inside-apples-meeting-with-fda?page=show

Read Full Post »

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Contributor

Article ID #143: The Discovery and Properties of Avemar – Fermented Wheat Germ Extract: Carcinogenesis Suppressor. Published on 6/7/2014

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/5-6-2014/larryhbern/ The Discovery_and_Properties_of_Avemar – Fermented_ Wheat_Germ_Extract:_Carcinogenesis_Suppressor

The following discussion will be a review of the current interest in Avemar, a nontoxic, fermentation product of wheat germ extract, garnering interest with respect to alternative and complementary medicinal use.

Extracts from an interview by Sandra Cascio with Mate Hidvegi

Mate’s Transylvania Professor Lajos David was the organizer of the Department of Pharmacy of the University of Szeged in the 1920’s. He was elected as the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, the first and only pharmacist who reached this high position at the University since. Dr. Hidvegy’s grandfather was a devout Roman catholic, who publicly opposed Nazi persecution of Jews during the Holocaust. One of his colleagues and, perhaps his best friend, was Albert Szent­Gyorgyi, the Nobel laureate who discovered vitaminC. Szent­Gyorgyi moved to the United States after World War II, where he turned to studies of muscle biochemistry. In his later years he turned to cancer research. He  theorized that a revolutionary anticancer drug could be based upon vitamin C combined with methoxy­substituted benzoquinones, the precursors of which can be found in wheat germ. After completion of the PhD, Dr. Hidvegi spent two years with the Wheat Grain Trust in Winnipeg, Canada, before returning to Hungary in 1990.  He decided to followthepathwaythat Szent­Gyorgyi was now engaged intocompletehisgoals.He contacted anoldfriend,GaborFodor, a brilliantchemist, also a collaborator withSzent­Gyorgyiincancerresearch.

He wasinvited by Hermann Esterbauer, the head of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Graz, to work in his laboratory. Thanks to the generosity of Professor Esterbauer,  he accomplished much at Graz  together with his student, Dr. Rita Farkas.  It was soon after Szent­-Gyorgyi’s death when, with the help of Dr. Fodor, they prepared the chemicals to make the drug Szent­-Gyorgyi had intended to make, with encouragement from the great quantum­ biochemist, Janos Ladik.  They made wheat germ extracts with the highest free benzoquinone content.This required a  fermentation process to liberate the benzoquinone moieties from the chemical bonds which keep them in natural forms: in glycosides. He recalls the purple colored active molecules in the fermentation liquid. Living cells with their exo­ and endo­enzymes are used to split bonds and make new molecules. This is also true for the manufacturing process of Avemar. This extract contains new molecules which cannot be found elsewhere.

“WhenAvemar was voted by the majority of the more than 50,000 professionals for NutrAward, it became obvious that this product is of biological efficacy  plus safety, and it is based on good science.” It received the financial support needed. From this, he was able to complete the experiments and get the approval for the registration. The time arrived when he really had to give a name to the product which had only had a code name. One late night it just came: Avemar, from the Latin prayer: Ave Maria.

Avemar with widely used chemotherapeutic drugs completely inhibited the development of metastases. Exploring its whole activity profile might even take a lifetime of research. So far he has supervised Avemar research done in Hungary, Israel, the United States, Austria, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany,the United Kingdom, Russia, Australia, Korea, Vietnam. It has been a good experience to see the scientific interest it has generated worldwide. In 2009, Dr. Hidvegy received an invitation from the Nobel laureate, James Watson, co­discoverer of DNA’s double helix. It was a great honor. Avemar, he hopes,will be a significant cancer drug.

Mate Hidvegi was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1955. He studied, then  taughat what is now Budapest University of Technology  and Economics.  After finishing university, he worked in the cereal industry and was co­developer of patented feed advisory system based on near infrared ingredient      data. In Hungary, Hidvegi was one of the pioneers in the development of           technologies for large ­scale production of instantized extracts for  therapeutic use.

 

Carcinogenesis vol.22 no.10 pp.1649–1652, 2001

Wheat germ extract inhibits experimental colon carcino-genesis in F-344 rats

Attila Zalatnai, Karoly Lapis, Bela Szende, Erzsebet Raso, Andros Telekes, Akos Resetar, and Mate Hidvegi

 

It has been demonstrated for the first time that a wheat germ extract prevents colonic cancer in laboratory animals. Four-week-old inbred male F-344 rats were used in the study. Colon carcinogenesis was induced by azoxy-methane (AOM). Ten rats served as untreated controls (group 1). For the treatment of the animals in group 2, AOM was dissolved in physiologic saline and the animals were given three weekly subcutaneous injections at 15 mg/kg body weight (b/w). In two additional groups Avemar (MSC), a fermented wheat germ extract standardized to 2,6-dimethoxy-p-benzoquinone was administered as a tentative chemo-preventive agent. MSC was dissolved in water and was given by gavage at a dose of 3 g/kg b/w once a day. In group 3, animals started to receive MSC 2 weeks prior to the first injection of AOM daily and continuously thereafter until they were killed 32 weeks later. In group 4 only the basal diet and MSC were administered. At the end of the experiment all the rats were exsanguinated under a light ether anesthesia and necropsied. Percentage of animals developing colon tumors and number of tumors per animals: group 1 – 0 and 0; group 2– 83.0 and 2.3; group 3 – 44.8 (P ≤ 0.001) and 1.3 (P ≤ 0.004); group 4 – 0 and 0. All the tumors were histologically neoplastic. The numbers of the aberrant crypt foci (ACF) per area (cm2) in group 2 were 4.85 while in group 3 the ACF numbers were 2.03 only (P ≤ 0.0001).
Table I. Macroscopic findings in the large intestines of F-344 rats treated with MSC or MSC +  AOM
No. of animals     w/tumorw   Average
# tumors
Average
diameter

N

1 Untreated
controls (10)
0/10 0/10
2.  AOM (47) 39/47
(83.0%)
2.3 ­+ 0.21
(range 1–8)
2.35 +
0.25
3.   MSC +
AOM (29)
13/29
(44.8%)
1.3 + 0.17
(range 1–3)
2.21 +
0.12
4.  MSC (9) 0/9 0/9
Fig. 1. Experimental schedule. Colon carcinogenesis was induced by three consecutive s.c. doses of AOM 1 week apart in F-344 rats. Oral administration of MSC was started 2 weeks before the carcinogen treatments. All the animals were killed at the end of the experiment, e.g. on the 32nd week.  (not shown)

 

Summing up, although the chemoprevention of colon cancers (and their pre-neoplastic lesions) has well and long been established and could be achieved by totally different compounds, the mechanisms have still remained to be clarified. This is also true for MSC.

The exact mechanism by which the fermented wheat germ concentration can prevent colon cancer is still partly unknown. MSC did inhibit the AOM-induced ACF and colon neoplasm formation, the multiplicity of the tumors, apparently acting in the initiation phase. Regarding this, we can hypothesize that MSC acts as an immunomodulator.

 

Wheat Germ Extract Decreases Glucose Uptake and RNARibose Formation but Increases Fatty Acid Synthesis in MIAPancreatic Adenocarcinoma Cell

LG Boros, K Lapis, B Szende, R Tömösközi-Farkas, Ádám Balogh, …., and M Hidvégi

UCLA School of Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Research and Education Institute, Torrance, Ca.; First Institute of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis  Medical University, Budapest, Hungary; Central Food Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Surgery, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi Medical and Pharmaceutical Center, School of General Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; andDepartment of Biochemistryand Food Technology, Technical University of Budapest and Biromedicina Company, Budapest, Hungary

Pancreas 2001; 23 (2), pp. 141–147

Summary: The fermented wheat germ extract with standardized composition has potent tumor inhibitory properties. The fermented wheat germ extract controls tumor propagation. The authors show that this extract induces profound metabolic changes in cultured MIA pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells when the [1,2- 13C2] glucose isotope is used as the single tracer with biologic gas chromatography–mass spectrometry.

MIA cells treated with 0.1, 1, and 10 mg/mL wheat  germ extract showed a dose-dependent decrease in cell glucose consumption, consumption, uptake of isotope into ribosomal RNA (2.4%, 9.4%, and 8.0%), and release of 13CO2 . Conversely, direct glucose oxidation and ribose recycling in the pentose cycle showed a dose-dependent increase of 1.2%, 20.7%, and 93.4%. The newly synthesized fraction of cell palmitate and the 13C enrichment of acetyl units were also increased with all doses of wheat germ extract.

The fermented wheat germ extract controls tumor propagation primarily by regulating glucose carbon redistribution between cell proliferation–related and cell differentiation–related macromolecules. Wheat germ extract treatment is likely associated with the phosphor-ylation and transcriptional regulation of metabolic enzymes that are involved in glucose carbon redistribution between cell the direct oxidative degradation of glucose,proliferation–related structural and functional macromolecules(RNA, DNA) and the direct oxidative degradation and survival of pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells in culture.

Key Words: Pentose cycle—Ribose synthesis—Fermented wheat germ extract—Nonoxidative glucose metabolism—Cell proliferation—Avemar.

 

Fig 1 glu consumption of MIA pancreatic carcinoma cells in response to WGE

Fig 1 glu consumption of MIA pancreatic carcinoma cells in response to WGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Glucose consumption of MIA pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells in response to increasing doses of fermented wheat germ extract (Avemar) treatment after 72 hours of culture. Glucose consumption (measured in milligrams) was estimated by the difference in media glucose content between Avemar-treated and control cultures. MIA cell glucose consumption was significantly inhibited in the presence of either 1 mg/mL (*p < 0.05) or 10 mg/mL (**p < 0.01) Avemar (x + SD;  n = 6).

 

fig-3-rna-syn-of-mia-pancreatic-carcinoma-cells-in-response-to-wge.jpg

fig-3-rna-syn-of-mia-pancreatic-carcinoma-cells-in-response-to-wge.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Ribosomal RNA synthesis of MIA pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells in response to increasing doses of fermented wheat germ extract (Avemar) treatment after 72 hours of culture. Glucose carbon incorporation into ribose isolated from ribosomal RNA is expressed as molar enrichment. The dose-dependent decrease in of rRNA after Avemar treatment indicates that ribosomal RNA synthesis is the primary site significantly affected by all doses of Avemar treatment with a maximum decrease of 29% after 10 mg/mL treatment (x + SD; n = 9; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01).

changes in metabolic activity indicate that Avemar treatment affects cell metabolism primarily by decreasing glucose uptake and nucleic acid ribose synthesis while increasing glucose oxidation through the oxidative reactions of the pentose cycle and fatty acid  synthesis from glucose carbon. The effect of Avemar treatment on lactate production and TCA cycle anapleurotic flux compared with glucose oxidation is less prominent

 

Fermented wheat germ extract induces apoptosis and downregulation of major histocompatibility complex class I proteins in tumor T and B cell lines

R FAJKA-BOJA, M HIDVÉGI, Y SHOENFELD, G  ION, D DEMYDENKO, R TÖMÖSKÖZI-FARKAS, et al.

INTL J ONCOLOGY 2002; 20: 563-570.

Lymphocyte Signal Transduction Laboratory, Institute of Genetics, and Cytokine Group, Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Center of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Szeged; Department of Biochemistry and Food Technology, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Medicine ‘B’, Center for Autoimmune Diseases, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel; Central Food Research Institute; National Institute of Oncology; Biromedicina Co., Budapest, Hungary
Abstract. The fermented wheat germ extract (code name:  on cyto-fluorimeter using a monoclonal antibody to the  MSC, trade name: Avemar), with standardized benzoquinone non-polymorphic region of the human MHC class I. MSC  content has been shown to inhibit tumor propagation and stimulated tyrosine phosphorylation of intracellular proteins metastases formation in vivo. The aim of this study was to  understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms of the anti-tumor effect of MSC. Therefore, we have designed in vitro model experiments using T and B tumor lymphocytic cell lines. As a result of the MSC treatment, cell surface MHC class I proteins was downregulated by 70-85% compared to the non-stimulated control.

Prominent apoptosis of and the influx of extracellular Ca2+ resulted in elevation of the amount of the intracellular Ca2+ concentration. 20-40% was detected upon 24 h of MSC treatment of the cell lines. Apoptosis was measured with cytofluorimetry by staining the DNA with propidium iodide and detecting the ‘sub-G ’ cell population.

Tyrosine phosphorylation of intra-cellular proteins and elevation of the intracellular Ca2+ concentration were examined using immunoblotting with anti-phosphotyrosine antibody and cytofluorimetry by means of Ca2+ sensitive fluorescence dyes, Fluo-3AM and FuraRed-AM, respectively. MSC did not induce a similar degree of apoptosis in healthy peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Inhibition of the cellular tyrosine phosphatase activity or Ca2+ influx resulted in the opposite effect – increasing or diminishing the Avemar induced apoptosis as well as the MHC class I downregulation. The level of the cell surface MHC class I molecules was analysed with indirect immunofluorescence. The benzoquinone component (2,6-dimethoxi-p-benzoquinone) in MSC induced similar apoptosis and downregulation of the MHC class I molecules in the tumor T and B cell lines to that of MSC. These results suggest that MSC acts on lymphoid tumor cells by reducing MHC class I expression and selectively promoting apoptosis of tumor cells on a tyrosine phosphorylation and Ca2+ influx dependent way.  One of the components in MSC, 2,6-dimethoxi-p-benzoquinone was shown to be an important factor in MSC mediated cell response.

 

Abbreviations:MHC, major histocompatibility complex;NK, natural killer;DMBQ, 2,6-dimethoxi-p-benzoquinone; FCS, fetal calf serum;PBMC, peripheral bloodmononuclear cells; TCR, T cell receptor;BCR, B cell receptor; mAb, monoclonal antibody;PMSF,phenylmethyl-sulfonylfluoride;pNPP, para-nitrophenyl-phosphate; PHA,phytohemagglutinineKey words: fermented wheat germ extract, Avemar, MSC, 2+ benzoquinone, tyrosine phosphorylation, intracellular Ca , CD45, tyrosine phosphatase, MHC class I downregulation, apoptosis

 

fig-4-apoptosis-of-t-cell-lines-induced-by-avamer.jpg

fig-4-apoptosis-of-t-cell-lines-induced-by-avamer.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Apoptosis of tumor T cell lines and healthy lymphocytes upon MSC treatment. Jurkat cells were treated with 1 mg/ml MSC or .3 µg/ml DMBQ and PBMC were treated with 1 mg/ml
MSC for 24 h (A) or Jurkat cells were treated for 12 h (thick line in panel B). Control cells were left unstimulated (black bars in panel A or thin line on panel B). Apoptotic cells were enumerated
with the DNA analysis of the ‘sub-G ’ population (A) or with staining the cells with FITC1 labeled Annexin V
(B). Representative experiments are shown. The difference between the % of apoptosis in the case of treated and non-treated Jurkat cells was significant (MSC, p<0.001, n=14; DMBQ, p<0.05, n=3,
using  paired, two-tailed t-test). No difference was found for PBMC (n=2).

MSC treatment causes prominent apoptosis in lymphoid tumor cells but it does not induce apoptosis of healthy resting mononuclear cells. Moreover, although MSC blocks the proliferation of PBM cells stimulated with PHA, it does not induce apoptosis in PHA stimulated cells (data not shown).

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »