Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘FDA’ Category

2022 FDA Drug Approval List, 2022 Biological Approvals and Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products

Posted in cell-based therapy, Drug Discovery Chemistry, FDA, FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning - GCP, GLP, ISO 14155, Pharmaceutical Discovery, Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics, Regenerative Biology and Medicine on January 17, 2023| Leave a Comment »

2022 FDA Drug Approval List, 2022 Biological Approvals and Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products

 

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

SOURCE

Tal Bahar’s post on LinkedIn on 1/17/2023

Novel Drug Approvals for 2022

FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

New Molecular Entities (“NMEs”)

  • Some of these products have never been used in clinical practice. Below is a listing of new molecular entities and new therapeutic biological products that CDER approved in 2022. This listing does not contain vaccines, allergenic products, blood and blood products, plasma derivatives, cellular and gene therapy products, or other products that the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research approved in 2022. 
  • Others are the same as, or related to, previously approved products, and they will compete with those products in the marketplace. See Drugs@FDA for information about all of CDER’s approved drugs and biological products. 

Certain drugs are classified as new molecular entities (“NMEs”) for purposes of FDA review. Many of these products contain active moieties that FDA had not previously approved, either as a single ingredient drug or as part of a combination product. These products frequently provide important new therapies for patients. Some drugs are characterized as NMEs for administrative purposes, but nonetheless contain active moieties that are closely related to active moieties in products that FDA has previously approved. FDA’s classification of a drug as an “NME” for review purposes is distinct from FDA’s determination of whether a drug product is a “new chemical entity” or “NCE” within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

INNOVATION   PREDICTABILITY   ACCESS FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

January 2023

Table of Contents

 SOURCE

2022 Biological Approvals

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) regulates products under a variety of regulatory authorities.  See the Development & Approval Process page for a description of what products are approved as Biologics License Applications (BLAs), Premarket Approvals (PMAs), New Drug Applications (NDAs) or 510Ks.

Biologics License Applications and Supplements

New BLAs (except those for blood banking), and BLA supplements that are expected to significantly enhance the public health (e.g., for new/expanded indications, new routes of administration, new dosage formulations and improved safety).

Other Applications Approved or Cleared by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)

Medical devices involved in the collection, processing, testing, manufacture and administration of licensed blood, blood components and cellular products.

Key Resources

SOURCE

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/2022-biological-approvals

 

Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products

Below is a list of licensed products from the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT).

Approved Products

 

Resources For You

SOURCE

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/approved-cellular-and-gene-therapy-products

 

2022 forecast: Cell, gene therapy makers push past regulatory, payer hurdles to set up high hopes for next year

By Arlene Weintraub
Dec 22, 2021 03:00am

There are five FDA-approved CAR-T treatments for blood cancers and two gene therapies to treat rare diseases now on the market in the U.S. The late-stage pipeline could produce several more cancer CAR-Ts and gene therapies to treat a range of diseases.

RELATED: ASH: Bristol Myers’ Breyanzi, Gilead’s Yescarta lock horns in race to move CAR-T therapy to earlier lymphoma

One of the biggest races to watch in the cell therapy space will be that between Gilead Sciences’ Yescarta and Bristol Myers Squibb’s Breyanzi, both of which are gunning to move their CAR-Ts into earlier lines of treatment in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). At ASH, both companies rolled out impressive data from their trials in the second-line setting, but Gilead could have the upper hand by virtue of its three-year head start in the market, analysts said. Gilead expects to hear from the FDA on a label expansion in the second-line setting in April.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

#TUBiol5227: Biomarkers & Biotargets: Genetic Testing and Bioethics

Posted in and Bioethics, Bio-Ethics, BioBanking, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Biological Networks, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, BioSimilars, Biotechnology, BioTechnology - Venture Creation, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, Cancer Genomics, Clinical Diagnostics, Clinical Genomics, Conference Coverage with Social Media, Ethics and Leadership, FDA, FDA Regulatory Affairs, Federal Budget Appropriations, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Health Law Policy, Healthcare costs and reimbursement, Intellectual Property, Innovations, Commercialization, Investment in technological breakthrough, interventional oncology, Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), Patent Law in Biotech, Patents, Patient Experience, Personal Health Applications: Tech Innovations serves HealhCare, Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research, Personalized Medicine Coalition, Precision Cancer Medicine, Regulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues, Voices of Patients and Healthcare Providers, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on September 28, 2021| Leave a Comment »

#TUBiol5227: Biomarkers & Biotargets: Genetic Testing and Bioethics

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The advent of direct to consumer (DTC) genetic testing and the resultant rapid increase in its popularity as well as companies offering such services has created some urgent and unique bioethical challenges surrounding this niche in the marketplace. At first, most DTC companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com offered non-clinical or non-FDA approved genetic testing as a way for consumers to draw casual inferences from their DNA sequence and existence of known genes that are linked to disease risk, or to get a glimpse of their familial background. However, many issues arose, including legal, privacy, medical, and bioethical issues. Below are some articles which will explain and discuss many of these problems associated with the DTC genetic testing market as well as some alternatives which may exist.

‘Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing Market to hit USD 2.5 Bn by 2024’ by Global Market Insights

This post has the following link to the market analysis of the DTC market (https://www.gminsights.com/pressrelease/direct-to-consumer-dtc-genetic-testing-market). Below is the highlights of the report.

As you can see,this market segment appears to want to expand into the nutritional consulting business as well as targeted biomarkers for specific diseases.

Rising incidence of genetic disorders across the globe will augment the market growth

Increasing prevalence of genetic disorders will propel the demand for direct-to-consumer genetic testing and will augment industry growth over the projected timeline. Increasing cases of genetic diseases such as breast cancer, achondroplasia, colorectal cancer and other diseases have elevated the need for cost-effective and efficient genetic testing avenues in the healthcare market.
 

For instance, according to the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), in 2018, over 2 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed across the globe. Also, breast cancer is stated as the second most commonly occurring cancer. Availability of superior quality and advanced direct-to-consumer genetic testing has drastically reduced the mortality rates in people suffering from cancer by providing vigilant surveillance data even before the onset of the disease. Hence, the aforementioned factors will propel the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market overt the forecast timeline.
 

DTC Genetic Testing Market By Technology

Get more details on this report – Request Free Sample PDF
 

Nutrigenomic Testing will provide robust market growth

The nutrigenomic testing segment was valued over USD 220 million market value in 2019 and its market will witness a tremendous growth over 2020-2028. The growth of the market segment is attributed to increasing research activities related to nutritional aspects. Moreover, obesity is another major factor that will boost the demand for direct-to-consumer genetic testing market.
 

Nutrigenomics testing enables professionals to recommend nutritional guidance and personalized diet to obese people and help them to keep their weight under control while maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Hence, above mentioned factors are anticipated to augment the demand and adoption rate of direct-to-consumer genetic testing through 2028.
 

Browse key industry insights spread across 161 pages with 126 market data tables & 10 figures & charts from the report, “Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Market Size By Test Type (Carrier Testing, Predictive Testing, Ancestry & Relationship Testing, Nutrigenomics Testing), By Distribution Channel (Online Platforms, Over-the-Counter), By Technology (Targeted Analysis, Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Chips, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2020 – 2028” in detail along with the table of contents:
https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/direct-to-consumer-dtc-genetic-testing-market
 

Targeted analysis techniques will drive the market growth over the foreseeable future

Based on technology, the DTC genetic testing market is segmented into whole genome sequencing (WGS), targeted analysis, and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips. The targeted analysis market segment is projected to witness around 12% CAGR over the forecast period. The segmental growth is attributed to the recent advancements in genetic testing methods that has revolutionized the detection and characterization of genetic codes.
 

Targeted analysis is mainly utilized to determine any defects in genes that are responsible for a disorder or a disease. Also, growing demand for personalized medicine amongst the population suffering from genetic diseases will boost the demand for targeted analysis technology. As the technology is relatively cheaper, it is highly preferred method used in direct-to-consumer genetic testing procedures. These advantages of targeted analysis are expected to enhance the market growth over the foreseeable future.
 

Over-the-counter segment will experience a notable growth over the forecast period

The over-the-counter distribution channel is projected to witness around 11% CAGR through 2028. The segmental growth is attributed to the ease in purchasing a test kit for the consumers living in rural areas of developing countries. Consumers prefer over-the-counter distribution channel as they are directly examined by regulatory agencies making it safer to use, thereby driving the market growth over the forecast timeline.
 

Favorable regulations provide lucrative growth opportunities for direct-to-consumer genetic testing

Europe direct-to-consumer genetic testing market held around 26% share in 2019 and was valued at around USD 290 million. The regional growth is due to elevated government spending on healthcare to provide easy access to genetic testing avenues. Furthermore, European regulatory bodies are working on improving the regulations set on the direct-to-consumer genetic testing methods. Hence, the above-mentioned factors will play significant role in the market growth.
 

Focus of market players on introducing innovative direct-to-consumer genetic testing devices will offer several growth opportunities

Few of the eminent players operating in direct-to-consumer genetic testing market share include Ancestry, Color Genomics, Living DNA, Mapmygenome, Easy DNA, FamilytreeDNA (Gene By Gene), Full Genome Corporation, Helix OpCo LLC, Identigene, Karmagenes, MyHeritage, Pathway genomics, Genesis Healthcare, and 23andMe. These market players have undertaken various business strategies to enhance their financial stability and help them evolve as leading companies in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry.
 

For example, in November 2018, Helix launched a new genetic testing product, DNA discovery kit, that allows customer to delve into their ancestry. This development expanded the firm’s product portfolio, thereby propelling industry growth in the market.

The following posts discuss bioethical issues related to genetic testing and personalized medicine from a clinicians and scientisit’s perspective

Question: Each of these articles discusses certain bioethical issues although focuses on personalized medicine and treatment. Given your understanding of the robust process involved in validating clinical biomarkers and the current state of the DTC market, how could DTC testing results misinform patients and create mistrust in the physician-patient relationship?

Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer:  Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

Diversity and Health Disparity Issues Need to be Addressed for GWAS and Precision Medicine Studies

Genomics & Ethics: DNA Fragments are Products of Nature or Patentable Genes?

The following posts discuss the bioethical concerns of genetic testing from a patient’s perspective:

Ethics Behind Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: A Webinar by Laura Carfang of survivingbreastcancer.org

Ethical Concerns in Personalized Medicine: BRCA1/2 Testing in Minors and Communication of Breast Cancer Risk

23andMe Product can be obtained for Free from a new app called Genes for Good: UMich’s Facebook-based Genomics Project

Question: If you are developing a targeted treatment with a companion diagnostic, what bioethical concerns would you address during the drug development process to ensure fair, equitable and ethical treatment of all patients, in trials as well as post market?

Articles on Genetic Testing, Companion Diagnostics and Regulatory Mechanisms

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

Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Genome Editing and Regulatory Harmonization: Progress and Challenges

New York Times vs. Personalized Medicine? PMC President: Times’ Critique of Streamlined Regulatory Approval for Personalized Treatments ‘Ignores Promising Implications’ of Field

Live Conference Coverage @Medcitynews Converge 2018 Philadelphia: Early Diagnosis Through Predictive Biomarkers, NonInvasive Testing

Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting

Question: What type of regulatory concerns should one have during the drug development process in regards to use of biomarker testing? From the last article on Protecting Your IP how important is it, as a drug developer, to involve all payers during the drug development process?

Read Full Post »

Science Policy Forum: Should we trust healthcare explanations from AI predictive systems?

Posted in AI Models in Healthcare, AI-assisted Cardiac MRI, Artificial Intelligence - Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies, Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care, Artificial Intelligence in Health Care - Tools & Innovations, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Applications in Therapeutics, Bio-Ethics, BioIT: BioInformatics, Biological Networks, FDA, FDA Regulatory Affairs, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Health Law Policy, Image Processing/Computing, Machine Learning, Personal Health Applications: Tech Innovations serves HealhCare, Regulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 31, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Science Policy Forum: Should we trust healthcare explanations from AI predictive systems?

Some in industry voice their concerns

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Post on AI healthcare and explainable AI

   In a Policy Forum article in Science “Beware explanations from AI in health care”, Boris Babic, Sara Gerke, Theodoros Evgeniou, and Glenn Cohen discuss the caveats on relying on explainable versus interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to make complex health decisions.  The FDA has already approved some AI/ML algorithms for analysis of medical images for diagnostic purposes.  These have been discussed in prior posts on this site, as well as issues arising from multi-center trials.  The authors of this perspective article argue that choice of type of algorithm (explainable versus interpretable) algorithms may have far reaching consequences in health care.

Summary

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms are increasingly developed in health care for diagnosis and treatment of a variety of medical conditions (1). However, despite the technical prowess of such systems, their adoption has been challenging, and whether and how much they will actually improve health care remains to be seen. A central reason for this is that the effectiveness of AI/ML-based medical devices depends largely on the behavioral characteristics of its users, who, for example, are often vulnerable to well-documented biases or algorithmic aversion (2). Many stakeholders increasingly identify the so-called black-box nature of predictive algorithms as the core source of users’ skepticism, lack of trust, and slow uptake (3, 4). As a result, lawmakers have been moving in the direction of requiring the availability of explanations for black-box algorithmic decisions (5). Indeed, a near-consensus is emerging in favor of explainable AI/ML among academics, governments, and civil society groups. Many are drawn to this approach to harness the accuracy benefits of noninterpretable AI/ML such as deep learning or neural nets while also supporting transparency, trust, and adoption. We argue that this consensus, at least as applied to health care, both overstates the benefits and undercounts the drawbacks of requiring black-box algorithms to be explainable.

Source: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6552/284?_ga=2.166262518.995809660.1627762475-1953442883.1627762475

Types of AI/ML Algorithms: Explainable and Interpretable algorithms

  1.  Interpretable AI: A typical AI/ML task requires constructing algorithms from vector inputs and generating an output related to an outcome (like diagnosing a cardiac event from an image).  Generally the algorithm has to be trained on past data with known parameters.  When an algorithm is called interpretable, this means that the algorithm uses a transparent or “white box” function which is easily understandable. Such example might be a linear function to determine relationships where parameters are simple and not complex.  Although they may not be as accurate as the more complex explainable AI/ML algorithms, they are open, transparent, and easily understood by the operators.
  2. Explainable AI/ML:  This type of algorithm depends upon multiple complex parameters and takes a first round of predictions from a “black box” model then uses a second algorithm from an interpretable function to better approximate outputs of the first model.  The first algorithm is trained not with original data but based on predictions resembling multiple iterations of computing.  Therefore this method is more accurate or deemed more reliable in prediction however is very complex and is not easily understandable.  Many medical devices that use an AI/ML algorithm use this type.  An example is deep learning and neural networks.

The purpose of both these methodologies is to deal with problems of opacity, or that AI predictions based from a black box undermines trust in the AI.

For a deeper understanding of these two types of algorithms see here:

https://www.kdnuggets.com/2018/12/machine-learning-explainability-interpretability-ai.html

or https://www.bmc.com/blogs/machine-learning-interpretability-vs-explainability/

(a longer read but great explanation)

From the above blog post of Jonathan Johnson

  • How interpretability is different from explainability
  • Why a model might need to be interpretable and/or explainable
  • Who is working to solve the black box problem—and how

What is interpretability?

Does Chipotle make your stomach hurt? Does loud noise accelerate hearing loss? Are women less aggressive than men? If a machine learning model can create a definition around these relationships, it is interpretable.

All models must start with a hypothesis. Human curiosity propels a being to intuit that one thing relates to another. “Hmm…multiple black people shot by policemen…seemingly out of proportion to other races…something might be systemic?” Explore.

People create internal models to interpret their surroundings. In the field of machine learning, these models can be tested and verified as either accurate or inaccurate representations of the world.

Interpretability means that the cause and effect can be determined.

What is explainability?

ML models are often called black-box models because they allow a pre-set number of empty parameters, or nodes, to be assigned values by the machine learning algorithm. Specifically, the back-propagation step is responsible for updating the weights based on its error function.

To predict when a person might die—the fun gamble one might play when calculating a life insurance premium, and the strange bet a person makes against their own life when purchasing a life insurance package—a model will take in its inputs, and output a percent chance the given person has at living to age 80.

Below is an image of a neural network. The inputs are the yellow; the outputs are the orange. Like a rubric to an overall grade, explainability shows how significant each of the parameters, all the blue nodes, contribute to the final decision.

In this neural network, the hidden layers (the two columns of blue dots) would be the black box.

For example, we have these data inputs:

  • Age
  • BMI score
  • Number of years spent smoking
  • Career category

If this model had high explainability, we’d be able to say, for instance:

  • The career category is about 40% important
  • The number of years spent smoking weighs in at 35% important
  • The age is 15% important
  • The BMI score is 10% important

Explainability: important, not always necessary

Explainability becomes significant in the field of machine learning because, often, it is not apparent. Explainability is often unnecessary. A machine learning engineer can build a model without ever having considered the model’s explainability. It is an extra step in the building process—like wearing a seat belt while driving a car. It is unnecessary for the car to perform, but offers insurance when things crash.

The benefit a deep neural net offers to engineers is it creates a black box of parameters, like fake additional data points, that allow a model to base its decisions against. These fake data points go unknown to the engineer. The black box, or hidden layers, allow a model to make associations among the given data points to predict better results. For example, if we are deciding how long someone might have to live, and we use career data as an input, it is possible the model sorts the careers into high- and low-risk career options all on its own.

Perhaps we inspect a node and see it relates oil rig workers, underwater welders, and boat cooks to each other. It is possible the neural net makes connections between the lifespan of these individuals and puts a placeholder in the deep net to associate these. If we were to examine the individual nodes in the black box, we could note this clustering interprets water careers to be a high-risk job.

In the previous chart, each one of the lines connecting from the yellow dot to the blue dot can represent a signal, weighing the importance of that node in determining the overall score of the output.

  • If that signal is high, that node is significant to the model’s overall performance.
  • If that signal is low, the node is insignificant.

With this understanding, we can define explainability as:

Knowledge of what one node represents and how important it is to the model’s performance.

So how does choice of these two different algorithms make a difference with respect to health care and medical decision making?

The authors argue: 

“Regulators like the FDA should focus on those aspects of the AI/ML system that directly bear on its safety and effectiveness – in particular, how does it perform in the hands of its intended users?”

A suggestion for

  • Enhanced more involved clinical trials
  • Provide individuals added flexibility when interacting with a model, for example inputting their own test data
  • More interaction between user and model generators
  • Determining in which situations call for interpretable AI versus explainable (for instance predicting which patients will require dialysis after kidney damage)

Other articles on AI/ML in medicine and healthcare on this Open Access Journal include

Applying AI to Improve Interpretation of Medical Imaging

Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence #AI: Realizing Precision Medicine One Patient at a Time

LIVE Day Three – World Medical Innovation Forum ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Boston, MA USA, Monday, April 10, 2019

Cardiac MRI Imaging Breakthrough: The First AI-assisted Cardiac MRI Scan Solution, HeartVista Receives FDA 510(k) Clearance for One Click™ Cardiac MRI Package

 

Read Full Post »

Despite heated discussion over whether it works, the FDA has approved Aduhelm, bringing a new ray of hope to the Alzheimer’s patients.

Posted in Alzheimer's Disease, “Antibody–enzyme conjugates”, Cognition, Commercialization, Drug Development Process, FDA, Human Antibody Response, Monoclonal antibody therapy, Neurological Diseases, Neuroscience, New Drug Approval, Patient Experience, Patient-centered Medicine, tagged , , , , , on June 10, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Despite heated discussion over whether it works, the FDA has approved Aduhelm, bringing a new ray of hope to the Alzheimer’s patients.

Curator and Reporter: Dr. Premalata Pati, Ph.D., Postdoc

Despite heated discussion over whether it works, the FDA has approved Aduhelm, bringing a new ray of hope to the Alzheimer’s patients.

On Monday, 7th June 2021, a controversial new Alzheimer’s Disease treatment was licensed in the United States for the first time in nearly 20 years, sparking calls for it to be made available worldwide despite conflicting evidence about its usefulness. The drug was designed for people with mild cognitive impairment, not severe dementia, and it was designed to delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease rather than only alleviate symptoms.

Vhttps://youtu.be/atAhUI6OMnsII

The Controversies

The route to FDA clearance for Aducanumab has been bumpy – and contentious.

Though doctors, patients, and the organizations that assist them are in desperate need of therapies that can delay mental decline, scientists question the efficacy of the new medicine, Aducanumab or Aduhelm. In March 2019, two trials were halted because the medications looked to be ineffective. “The futility analysis revealed that the studies were most likely to fail,” said Isaacson of Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian. Biogen, the drug’s manufacturer revealed several months later that a fresh analysis with more participants found that individuals who got high doses of Aducanumab exhibited a reduction in clinical decline in one experiment. Patients treated with high-dose Aducanumab had 22% reduced clinical impairment in their cognitive health at 18 months, indicating that the advancement of their early Alzheimer’s disease was halted, according to FDA briefing documents from last year.

When the FDA’s members were split on the merits of the application in November, it was rejected. Three of its advisers went public, claiming that there was insufficient evidence that it worked in a scientific journal. They were concerned that if the medicine was approved, it might reduce the threshold for future approvals, owing to the scarcity of Alzheimer’s treatments.

Dr. Caleb Alexander, a drug safety and effectiveness expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was one of the FDA advisers who was concerned that the data presented to the agency was a reanalysis after the experiment was stopped. It was “like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy,” he told the New York Times, “where the sharpshooter blows up a barn and then goes and paints a bullseye around the cluster of holes he loves.”

Some organizations, such as the non-profit Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, claimed that the FDA should not approve Aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease because there is insufficient proof of its efficacy.

The drug is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the formation of amyloid protein plaques in the brain, which are thought to be the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. The majority of Alzheimer’s medications have attempted to erase these plaques.

Aducanumab appears to do this in some patients, but only when the disease is in its early stages. This means that people must be checked to see if they have the disease. Many persons with memory loss are hesitant to undergo testing because there is now no treatment available.

The few Alzheimer’s medications available appear to have limited effectiveness. When Aricept, also known as Donepezil, was approved more than 20 years ago, there was a major battle to get it. It was heralded as a breakthrough at the time – partly due to the lack of anything else. It has become obvious that it slows mental decline for a few months but makes little effect in the long run.

The findings of another trial for some patients backed up those conclusions.

Biogen submitted a Biologics License Application to the FDA in July 2020, requesting approval of the medicine.

The FDA’s decision has been awaited by Alzheimer’s disease researchers, clinicians, and patients since then.

Support for approval of the drug

Other groups, such as the Alzheimer’s Association, have supported the drug’s approval.

The Alzheimer’s Association‘s website stated on Friday, “This is a critical time, regardless of the FDA’s final judgment. We’ve never been this close to approving an Alzheimer’s drug that could affect the disease’s development rather than just the symptoms. We can keep working together to achieve our goal of a world free of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.”

The drug has gotten so much attention that the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis issued a statement on Friday stating that even if it is approved, “it will still likely take several months for the medication to pass other regulatory steps and become available to patients.”

Biogen officials told KGO-TV on Monday that the medicine will be ready to ship in about two weeks and that they have identified more than 900 facilities across the United States that they feel will be medically and commercially suitable.

Officials stated the corporation will also provide financial support to qualifying patients so that their out-of-pocket payments are as low as possible. Biogen has also pledged not to raise the price for at least the next four years.

Most Medicare customers with supplemental plans, according to the firm, will have a limited or capped co-pay.

Case studies connected to the Drug Approval

Case 1

Ann Lange, one of several Chicago-area clinical trial volunteers who received the breakthrough Alzheimer’s treatment, said,

It really offers us so much hope for a long, healthy life.

Lange, 60, has Alzheimer’s disease, which she was diagnosed with five years ago. Her memory has improved as a result of the monthly infusions, she claims.

She said,

I’d forget what I’d done in the shower, so I’d scribble ‘shampoo, conditioner, face, body’ on the door. Otherwise, I’d lose track of what I’m doing “Lange remarked. “I’m not required to do that any longer.

Case 2

Jenny Knap, 69, has been receiving infusions of the Aducanumab medication for about a year as part of two six-month research trials. She told CNN that she had been receiving treatment for roughly six months before the trial was halted in 2019, and that she had recently resumed treatment.

Knap said,

I can’t say I noticed it on a daily basis, but I do think I’m doing a lot better in terms of checking for where my glasses are and stuff like that.

When Knap was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, a clinical precursor to Alzheimer’s disease, in 2015, the symptoms were slight but there.

Her glasses were frequently misplaced, and she would repeat herself, forgetting previous talks, according to her husband, Joe Knap.

Joe added,

We were aware that things were starting to fall between the cracks as these instances got more often

Jenny went to the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for testing and obtained her diagnosis. Jenny found she was qualified to join in clinical trials for the Biogen medicine Aducanumab at the Cleveland Clinic a few years later, in early 2017. She volunteered and has been a part of the trial ever since.

It turns out that Jenny was in the placebo category for the first year and a half, Joe explained, meaning she didn’t get the treatment.

They didn’t realize she was in the placebo group until lately because the trial was blind. Joe stated she was given the medicine around August 2018 and continued until February 2019 as the trial progressed. The trial was halted by Biogen in March 2019, but it was restarted last October, when Jenny resumed getting infusions.

Jenny now receives Aducanumab infusions every four weeks at the Cleveland Clinic, which is roughly a half-hour drive from their house, with Joe by her side. Jenny added that, despite the fact that she has only recently begun therapy, she believes it is benefiting her, combined with a balanced diet and regular exercise (she runs four miles).

The hope of Aducanumab is to halt the progression of the disease rather than to improve cognition. We didn’t appreciate any significant reduction in her condition, Jenny’s doctor, Dr. Babak Tousi, who headed Aducanumab clinical studies at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote to CNN in an email.

This treatment is unlike anything we’ve ever received before. There has never been a drug that has slowed the growth of Alzheimer’s disease, he stated, Right now, existing medications like donepezil and memantine aid with symptoms but do not slow the disease’s progression.

Jenny claims that the medicine has had no significant negative effects on her.

There was signs of some very minor bleeding in the brain at one point, which was quite some time ago. It was at very low levels, in fact, Joe expressed concern about Jenny, but added that the physicians were unconcerned.

According to Tousi, with repeated therapy, “blood vessels may become leaky, allowing fluid and red blood cells to flow out to the surrounding area,” and “micro hemorrhages have been documented in 19.1% of trial participants who got” the maximal dose of therapy”.

Jenny and Joe’s attitude on the future has improved as a result of the infusions and keeping a healthy lifestyle, according to Joe. They were also delighted to take part in the trial, which they saw as an opportunity to make a positive influence in other people’s lives.

There was this apprehension of what was ahead before we went into the clinical trial, Joe recalled. “The medical aspect of the infusion gives us reason to be optimistic. However, doing the activity on a daily basis provides us with immediate benefits.”

The drug’s final commercialization announcement

Aducanumab, which will be marketed as Aduhelm, is a monthly intravenous infusion that is designed to halt cognitive decline in patients with mild memory and thinking issues. It is the first FDA-approved medication for Alzheimer’s disease that targets the disease process rather than just the symptoms.

The manufacturer, Biogen, stated Monday afternoon that the annual list price will be $56,000. In addition, diagnostic tests and brain imaging will very certainly cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The FDA approved approval for the medicine to be used but ordered Biogen to conduct a new clinical trial, recognizing that prior trials of the medicine had offered insufficient evidence to indicate effectiveness.

Biogen Inc said on Tuesday that it expects to start shipping Aduhelm, a newly licensed Alzheimer’s medicine, in approximately two weeks and that it has prepared over 900 healthcare facilities for the intravenous infusion treatment.

Other Relevant Articles

Gene Therapy could be a Boon to Alzheimer’s disease (AD): A first-in-human clinical trial proposed

Reporter: Dr. Premalata Pati, Ph.D., Postdoc

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2021/03/22/gene-therapy-could-be-a-boon-to-alzheimers-disease-ad-a-first-in-human-clinical-trial-proposed/

Alzheimer’s Disease – tau art thou, or amyloid

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/02/15/alzheimers-disease-tau-art-thou-or-amyloid/

Connecting the Immune Response to Amyloid-β Aggregation in Alzheimer’s Disease via IFITM3

Reporter : Irina Robu, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/10/13/connecting-the-immune-response-to-amyloid-%ce%b2-aggregation-in-alzheimers-disease-via-ifitm3/

Ustekinumab New Drug Therapy for Cognitive Decline resulting from Neuroinflammatory Cytokine Signaling and Alzheimer’s Disease

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/02/27/ustekinumab-new-drug-therapy-for-cognitive-decline-resulting-from-neuroinflammatory-cytokine-signaling-and-alzheimers-disease/

Alnylam Announces First-Ever FDA Approval of an RNAi Therapeutic, ONPATTRO™ (patisiran) for the Treatment of the Polyneuropathy of Hereditary Transthyretin-Mediated Amyloidosis in Adults

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/08/13/alnylam-announces-first-ever-fda-approval-of-an-rnai-therapeutic-onpattro-patisiran-for-the-treatment-of-the-polyneuropathy-of-hereditary-transthyretin-mediated-amyloidosis-in-adults/

Recent progress in neurodegenerative diseases and gliomas

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/05/28/recent-progress-in-neurodegenerative-diseases-and-gliomas/

Read Full Post »

Detecting SARS-COV-2 antibodies in serum and plasma samples

Posted in COVID-19, Diagnostics and Lab Tests, FDA, Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical, SAR-Cov-2 a vasculotropic (blood vessels) RNA Virus, SARS-CoV-2, Serology tests for coronavirus antibodies, Treatment Protocols for COVID-19 on October 13, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Detecting SARS-COV-2 antibodies in serum and plasma samples

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

Convalescent plasma therapy is a possible treatment under investigation where antibodies from recovered patients are transfused to current COVID-19 patients with the intent to help them fight the infection and buy time until their immune system can produce antibodies. Yet, not all recovered patients have the same quantity of antibody titers suitable for such transfusions. In some patients it will minimize the severity of the disease length.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized convalescent plasma therapy for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and it permitted to be used during the pandemic because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19. The donated blood is processed to remove cells, leaving behind liquid and antibody.   

Companies like Forte Bío are developing instruments such as Octet HTX Instrument, Octet RED384 Octet RED96e Instrument and Octet K2 Instrument to detect SARS-COV-2 antibodies in serum and plasma samples. The Octet technology allows quantification with high resolution comparable to an HPLC . The instrument utilizes BLI enabling label-free detection for protein quantitation and kinetic characterization at unmatched speed and throughput. The instrument can  measure up to 96 samples simultaneously allowing both unlimited characterization capacity for various applications and custom assay tailoring to maximize analytical throughput or sensitivity and preventing bottlenecks. 

 How are antibodies tested ?

  1. Immobilize a virus protein such as the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS CoV-2 spike protein.
  2. Dip the coronavirus biosensor into diluted patient plasma or serum samples.
  3. Block the biosensor with non-relevant serum or blocking buffer if needed to prevent non-specific binding.

Even the researchers believe that the risk to donors is low, there are additional risks such as allergic reactions, lung damage, difficulty breathing or infections such as HIV, hepatitis B and Donated blood must be tested for safety prior to administering to patients.

What to expect ? It is up to the doctor treating the patient, if convalescent plasma therapy is an option.  Even though data from clinical trials suggest that convalescent plasma may diminish the severity or duration of the COVID19, more research is needed to determine if convalescent plasma therapy is an effective treatment.

SOURCE

https://www.fortebio.com/covid19research19research

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20156281v1

 

Other related articles were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal including the following:

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/05/18/race-to-develop-antibody-drugs-for-covid-19

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/05/18/race-to-develop-antibody-drugs-for-covid-19

 

 

Read Full Post »

Did FDA Reverse Course on Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19?

Posted in Antibody Responses Predict Antigen Exposure, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, Biomarkers: Inflammation, COVID-19, Disease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs, Drug Delivery Platform Technology, Economic Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic, FDA, FDA Regulatory Affairs, Human Antibody Response, Human Circulating Antibody Repertoire, Immune Engineering, Immune-Mediation (independent immunopathology: lung and reticuloendothelial system), Infectious Disease Immunodiagnostics, Pharmacovigilance, Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical, SARS-CoV-2, SARS-COV2 Hijacking the Complement and Coagulation Systems, Serology tests for coronavirus antibodies, Synthetic Immunology: Hacking Immune Cells, Treatment Protocols for COVID-19, Viral diseases, Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV, tagged , , , , on August 26, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Did FDA Reverse Course on Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19?

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

 

Starting with a timeline of recent announcements by the FDA on convalescent plasma therapy

April 16, 2020

FDA STATEMENT

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Encourages Recovered Patients to Donate Plasma for Development of Blood-Related Therapies

 

As part of the all-of-America approach to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been working with partners across the U.S. government, academia and industry to expedite the development and availability of critical medical products to treat this novel virus. Today, we are providing an update on one potential treatment called convalescent plasma and encouraging those who have recovered from COVID-19 to donate plasma to help others fight this disease.

Convalescent plasma is an antibody-rich product made from blood donated by people who have recovered from the disease caused by the virus. Prior experience with respiratory viruses and limited data that have emerged from China suggest that convalescent plasma has the potential to lessen the severity or shorten the length of illness caused by COVID-19. It is important that we evaluate this potential therapy in the context of clinical trials, through expanded access, as well as facilitate emergency access for individual patients, as appropriate.

The response to the agency’s recently announced national efforts to facilitate the development of and access to convalescent plasma has been tremendous. More than 1,040 sites and 950 physician investigators nationwide have signed on to participate in the Mayo Clinic-led expanded access protocol. A number of clinical trials are also taking place to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma and the FDA has granted numerous single patient emergency investigational new drug (eIND) applications as well.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-encourages-recovered-patients-donate-plasma-development-blood

August 23, 2020

 

Recommendations for Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

 

  • FDA issues guidelines on clinical trials and obtaining emergency enrollment concerning convalescent plasma

FDA has issued guidance to provide recommendations to health care providers and investigators on the administration and study of investigational convalescent plasma collected from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma) during the public health emergency.

The guidance provides recommendations on the following:

Because COVID-19 convalescent plasma has not yet been approved for use by FDA, it is regulated as an investigational product.  A health care provider must participate in one of the pathways described below.  FDA does not collect COVID-19 convalescent plasma or provide COVID-19 convalescent plasma.  Health care providers or acute care facilities should instead obtain COVID-19 convalescent plasma from an FDA-registered blood establishment.

Excerpts from the guidance document are provided below.

Background

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) plays a critical role in protecting the United States (U.S.) from threats including emerging infectious diseases, such as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.  FDA is committed to providing timely guidance to support response efforts to this pandemic.

One investigational treatment being explored for COVID-19 is the use of convalescent plasma collected from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19.  Convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is being studied for administration to patients with COVID-19. Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic.

Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe and effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Therefore, it is important to study the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical trials.

Pathways for Use of Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

The following pathways are available for administering or studying the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma:

  1. Clinical Trials

Investigators wishing to study the use of convalescent plasma in a clinical trial should submit requests to FDA for investigational use under the traditional IND regulatory pathway (21 CFR Part 312). CBER’s Office of Blood Research and Review is committed to engaging with sponsors and reviewing such requests expeditiously. During the COVID-19 pandemic, INDs may be submitted via email to CBERDCC_eMailSub@fda.hhs.gov.

  1. Expanded Access

An IND application for expanded access is an alternative for use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 disease who are not eligible or who are unable to participate in randomized clinical trials (21 CFR 312.305). FDA has worked with multiple federal partners and academia to open an expanded access protocol to facilitate access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma across the nation. Access to this investigational product may be available through participation of acute care facilities in an investigational expanded access protocol under an IND that is already in place.

Currently, the following protocol is in place: National Expanded Access Treatment Protocol

  1. Single Patient Emergency IND

Although participation in clinical trials or an expanded access program are ways for patients to obtain access to convalescent plasma, for various reasons these may not be readily available to all patients in potential need. Therefore, given the public health emergency that the COVID-19 pandemic presents, and while clinical trials are being conducted and a national expanded access protocol is available, FDA also is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections through the process of the patient’s physician requesting a single patient emergency IND (eIND) for the individual patient under 21 CFR 312.310. This process allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization, if the applicable regulatory criteria are met.  Note, in such case, a licensed physician seeking to administer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to an individual patient must request the eIND (see 21 CFR 312.310(b)).

To Obtain a Single Patient Emergency IND  

The requesting physician may contact FDA by completing Form FDA 3926 (https://www.fda.gov/media/98616/download) and submitting the form by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

FACT SHEET FOR PATIENTS AND PARENTS/CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF COVID-19 CONVALESCENT PLASMA FOR TREATMENT OF COVID-19 IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

  • FDA issues fact sheet for patients on donating plasma

August 23, 2020

 

FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Convalescent Plasma as Potential Promising COVID–19 Treatment, Another Achievement in Administration’s Fight Against Pandemic

 

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to fight COVID-19. Based on scientific evidence available, the FDA concluded, as outlined in its decision memorandum, this product may be effective in treating COVID-19 and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

Today’s action follows the FDA’s extensive review of the science and data generated over the past several months stemming from efforts to facilitate emergency access to convalescent plasma for patients as clinical trials to definitively demonstrate safety and efficacy remain ongoing.

The EUA authorizes the distribution of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the U.S. and its administration by health care providers, as appropriate, to treat suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Alex Azar, Health and Human Services Secretary:
“The FDA’s emergency authorization for convalescent plasma is a milestone achievement in President Trump’s efforts to save lives from COVID-19,” said Secretary Azar. “The Trump Administration recognized the potential of convalescent plasma early on. Months ago, the FDA, BARDA, and private partners began work on making this product available across the country while continuing to evaluate data through clinical trials. Our work on convalescent plasma has delivered broader access to the product than is available in any other country and reached more than 70,000 American patients so far. We are deeply grateful to Americans who have already donated and encourage individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 to consider donating convalescent plasma.”

Stephen M. Hahn, M.D., FDA Commissioner:
“I am committed to releasing safe and potentially helpful treatments for COVID-19 as quickly as possible in order to save lives. We’re encouraged by the early promising data that we’ve seen about convalescent plasma. The data from studies conducted this year shows that plasma from patients who’ve recovered from COVID-19 has the potential to help treat those who are suffering from the effects of getting this terrible virus,” said Dr. Hahn. “At the same time, we will continue to work with researchers to continue randomized clinical trials to study the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma in treating patients infected with the novel coronavirus.”

Scientific Evidence on Convalescent Plasma

Based on an evaluation of the EUA criteria and the totality of the available scientific evidence, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research determined that the statutory criteria for issuing an EUA criteria were met.

The FDA determined that it is reasonable to believe that COVID-19 convalescent plasma may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients. The agency also determined that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to treat COVID-19, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product and that that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative treatments.

 

August 24, 2020

Donate COVID-19 Plasma

 

  • FDA posts video and blog about how to donate plasms if you had been infected with COVID

 

https://youtu.be/PlX15rWdBbY

 

 

Please go to https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/donate-covid-19-plasma

to read more from FDA

 

 

August 25, 2020

 

CLINICAL MEMORANDUM From: , OBRR/DBCD/CRS To: , OBRR Through: , OBRR/DBCD , OBRR/DBCD , OBRR/DBCD/CRS Re: EUA 26382: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Request (original request 8/12/20; amended request 8/23/20) Product: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Items reviewed: EUA request Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers Fact Sheet for Recipients Sponsor: Robert Kadlec, M.D. Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP), an unapproved biological product, is proposed for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act),(21 USC 360bbb-3) as a passive immune therapy for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a serious or life-threatening disease. There currently is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to CCP for treating COVID-19. The sponsor has pointed to four lines of evidence to support that CCP may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: 1) History of convalescent plasma for respiratory coronaviruses; 2) Evidence of preclinical safety and efficacy in animal models; 3) Published studies of the safety and efficacy of CCP; and 4) Data on safety and efficacy from the National Expanded Access Treatment Protocol (EAP) sponsored by the Mayo Clinic. Considering the totality of the scientific evidence presented in the EUA, I conclude that current data for the use of CCP in adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 supports the conclusion that CCP meets the “may be effective” criterion for issuance of an EUA from section 564(c)(2)(A) of the Act. It is reasonable to conclude that the known and potential benefits of CCP outweigh the known and potential risks of CCP for the proposed EUA. Current data suggest the largest clinical benefit is associated with high-titer units of CCP administered early course of the disease.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/141480/download

 

And Today August 26, 2020

  • A letter, from Senator Warren, to Commissioner Hahn from Senate Committee asking for documentation for any communication between FDA and White House

August 25, 2020 Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. Commissioner of Food and Drugs U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Dear Commissioner Hahn: We write regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) troubling decision earlier this week to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for convalescent plasma as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1 Reports suggests that the FDA granted the EUA amid intense political pressure from President Trump and other Administration officials, despite limited evidence of convalescent plasma’s effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment.2 To help us better understand whether the issuance of the blood plasma EUA was motivated by politics, we request copies of any and all communications between FDA and White House officials regarding the blood plasma EUA.

Source: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.08.25%20Letter%20to%20FDA%20re%20Blood%20Plasma%20EUA.pdf

…….. which may have been a response to this article

FDA chief walks back comments on effectiveness of coronavirus plasma treatment

 

From CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/25/fda-chief-walks-back-comments-on-effectiveness-of-coronavirus-plasma-treatment.html

PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 25 202010:45 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, AUG 25 20204:12 PM EDT

Berkeley Lovelace Jr.@BERKELEYJR

Will Feuer@WILLFOIA

KEY POINTS

  • The authorization will allow health-care providers in the U.S. to use the plasma to treat hospitalized patients with Covid-19.
  • The FDA’s emergency use authorization came a day after President Trump accused the agency of delaying enrollment in clinical trials for vaccines or therapeutics.
  • The criticism from Trump and action from the FDA led some scientists to believe the authorization, which came on the eve of the GOP national convention, was politically motivated.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn is walking back comments on the benefits of convalescent plasma, saying he could have done a better job of explaining the data on its effectiveness against the coronavirus after authorizing it for emergency use over the weekend.

Commisioners responses over Twitter

https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1298071603675373569?s=20

https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1298071619236245504?s=20

August 26, 2020

In an interview with Bloomberg’s , FDA Commissioner Hahn reiterates that his decision was based on hard evidence and scientific fact, not political pressure.  The whole interview is at the link below:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-25/fda-s-hahn-vows-to-stick-to-the-science-amid-vaccine-pressure?sref=yLCixKPR

Some key points:

  • Dr. Hahn corrected his initial statement about 35% of people would be cured by convalescent plasma. In the interview he stated:

I was trying to do what I do with patients, because patients often understand things in absolute terms versus relative terms. And I should’ve been more careful, there’s no question about it. What I was trying to get to is that if you look at a hundred patients who receive high titre, and a hundred patients who received low titre, the difference between those two particular subset of patients who had these specific criteria was a 35% reduction in mortality. So I frankly did not do a good job of explaining that.

  • FDA colleagues had frank discussion after the statement was made.  He is not asking for other people in HHS to retract their statements, only is concerned that FDA has correct information for physicians and patients
  • Hahn is worried that people will not enroll due to chance they may be given placebo
  • He gave no opinion when asked if FDA should be an independent agency

 

For more articles on COVID19 please go to our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

Read Full Post »

National Public Radio interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci on his optimism on a COVID-19 vaccine by early 2021

Posted in Biomarkers: Inflammation, Coronavirus Gene Expression, Drug Development Process, Economic Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic, FDA, FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning - GCP, GLP, ISO 14155, Inflammatory Pathophysiology, number of asymptomatic infections, Pharmaceutical Discovery, Population genetics, SARS-CoV-2, Systemic Inflammatory Response Related Disorders, Treatment Protocols for COVID-19, Vaccinology, Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV, tagged , , , , , , , , , on July 19, 2020| Leave a Comment »

National Public Radio interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci on his optimism on a COVID-19 vaccine by early 2021

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Below I am giving a link to an important interview by NPR’s Judy Woodruff with Dr. Anthony Fauci on his thoughts regarding the recent spikes in cases, the potential for a COVID-19 vaccine by next year, and promising therapeutics in the pipeline.  The interview link is given below however I will summarize a few of the highlights of the interview.

 

Some notes on the interview

Judy Woodruff began her report with some up to date news regarding the recent spike and that Miami Florida has just ordered the additional use of facemasks.  She asked Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAD), about if the measures currently in use are enough to bring this spike down.  Dr. Fauci said that we need to reboot our efforts, mainly because people are not doing three things which could have prevented this spike mainly

  1. universal wearing of masks
  2. distancing properly from each other
  3. close the bars and pubs (see Wisconsin bars packed after ruling)

It hasn’t been a uniform personal effort

Dr. Fauci on testing

We have to use the tests we have out there efficiently and effectively And we have to get them out to the right people who can do the proper identification, isolation, and do proper contract tracing and need to test more widely in a surveillance way to get a feel of the extent and penetrance of this community spread.  there needs to be support and money for these testing labs

We have a problem and we need to admit and own it but we need to do the things we know are effective to turn this thing around.

On Vaccines

“May be later this year”

His response to Merck’s CEO Ken Frazer who said officials are giving false hop if they say ‘end of year’ but Dr. Fauci disagrees.  He says a year end goal is not outlandish.

What we have been doing is putting certain things in line with each other in an unprecedented way.

Dr. Fauci went on to say that, in the past yes, it took a long time, even years to develop a vaccine but now they have been able to go from sequence of virus to a vaccine development program in days, which is unheard of.  Sixty two days later we have gone into phase 1 trials. the speed at which this is occurring is so much faster.  He says that generally it would take a couple of years to get a neutralizing antibody but we are already there.  Another candidate will be undergoing phase 3 trials by end of this month (July 2020).

He is “cautiously optimistic” that we will have one or more vaccines to give to patients by end of year because given the amount of cases it will be able to get a handle on safety and efficacy by late fall.

Now he says the game changer is that the government is working with companies to ramp up the production of doses of the candidate vaccines so when we find which one works we will have ample doses on hand.  He is worried about the anti vaccine movement derailing vaccine testing and vaccinations but says if we keep on informing the public we can combat this.

Going back to school

Dr. Fauci is concerned for the safety of the vulnerable in schools, including students and staff.  He wants the US to get down to a reasonable baseline of cases but in the US that baseline after the first wave was still significantly higher than in most countries, where the baseline was more like tens of cases not hundreds of cases.

For more information on COVID-19 Please go to our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

Read Full Post »

Updates on the Oxford, AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine

Posted in COVID-19, Drug Delivery Platform Technology, FDA, SAR-Cov-2 a vasculotropic (blood vessels) RNA Virus, SARS-CoV-2, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs, Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV, tagged , , , , , on June 16, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Updates on the Oxford, AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

AstraZeneca’s CEO states that their COVID-19 vaccine, codeveloped with Oxford University, should provide protection for a year.

AstraZeneca’s potential coronavirus vaccine is likely to provide protection against contracting Covid-19 for about a year, the company’s chief executive told a Belgian radio station on Tuesday.

The British drugmaker has already begun human trials of the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford, with a phase I trial in Britain due to end soon and a phase III trial already begun, Pascal Soriot told broadcaster Bel RTL.

“We think that it will protect for about a year,” Soriot said.

AstraZeneca said on Saturday that it had signed contracts with France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands to supply the European Union with up to 400 million doses of the potential vaccine.

It has also agreed deals with Britain and the United States.

“If all goes well, we will have the results of the clinical trials in August/September. We are manufacturing in parallel. We will be ready to deliver from October if all goes well,” Soriot said.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/16/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-likely-to-protect-for-a-year-ceo-says.html

 

 

From In The Pipeline (Derek Lowe’s regular column in Science)

Criticism of the Oxford Coronavirus Vaccine

By Derek Lowe 18 May, 2020

This piece at Forbes by Bill Haseltine has set off a lot of comment – it’s a look at the Oxford group’s vaccine candidate as compared to the SinoVac candidate, and you may recall (background here) that these are the two teams that have separately reported that their vaccines appear to protect rhesus monkeys from infection after exposure to the coronavirus. Haseltine has some criticisms of the Oxford data, and as you will see from that link to his name, his opinions deserve to be taken seriously. So what’s going on? Update: here’s the take on this at BioCentury.

Looking at the preprint on the Oxford results, Haseltine has a problem with the claim that the monkeys were protected from infection by a dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. The key data are in the preprint’s Figure 3. The Oxford team checked for viral RNA several different ways. One was using bronchoaveolar lavage (BAL fluid), a sampling technique that involves running a bronchoscope down into the lungs and washing out aveolar spaces – a pretty darn invasive assay, which is why you don’t hear about it all that much compared to the still-not-so-nonivasive nose swabs. BAL fluid of the virus-exposed unvaccinated animals showed coronavirus genomic RNA throughout the study, and viral subgenomic RNA (more indicative of active replication) at days 3 and 5 after exposure. Meanwhile, the vaccinated animals showed the genomic RNA in only two monkeys, and no subgenomic RNA at all.

So far, so good. But both vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys showed the same amount of viral genomic RNA from nose swab samples (Figure 3c). That’s the test that’s used out in the human population, and that means that the vaccinated animals would still be declared as positive for the coronavirus after being exposed to it. And the other thing that Haseltine notes is that the amount (the “titer”, in the lingo) of neutralizing antibodies in the blood of the vaccinated animals does not appear to be that high. You’d like to be able to dilute the blood antibody samples down by hundreds of times or even a thousandfold and still see antiviral activity in an in vitro assay, but in the Oxford case the activity started disappearing at about fortyfold dilution (Figure 2b).

On the positive side, 2/3 of the unvaccinated animals showed clear evidence of viral pneumonia at autopsy, but none of the vaccinated ones did. The conclusion is that the vaccinated animals were indeed infected – the vaccine did not protect against that – but that the disease was definitely less severe. But these results mean that the virus might well still be transmissible from people who had been so vaccinated, even if the disease course itself was not as deadly. You’d want to do better than that, if you can. Haseltine’s take is “Time will tell if this is the best approach. I wouldn’t bet on it.”

Haseltine compares these results to the SinoVac inactivated virus vaccine, and finds that that one looks better – at its highest dose, no viral RNA was recovered from the tissues of the vaccinated animals, for example. This sort of “sterilizing immunity” is what you’d want to aim for – it gives the virus nowhere to go in the human population if you can vaccinate enough people. But it’s worth noting that the SinoVac results were from three doses of their vaccine (versus one of the Oxford candidate), and the viral exposure challenge was about half as strong (total viral particles) as what the Oxford paper used. The Oxford group also inoculated their monkeys in both the upper and lower respiratory tract, while the SinoVac team used a single inoculation in the trachea. So I agree with that tweet linked from AndyBiotech; I don’t think that a head-to-head comparison is fair. But Haseltine’s point stands, that the results as we have them from the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not actually protect monkeys from infection.

Source: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/18/criticism-of-the-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine

 

Please see other Articles on COVID-19 on our Coronavirus Portal Including Late Breaking News at:

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

Read Full Post »

Updated listing of COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutic trials from NIH Clinical Trials.gov

Posted in Biomarkers: Inflammation, Clinical Diagnostics, Clinical Genomics, COVID-19, COVID-19: Pandemic Surgery Guidance, Drug Development Process, Economic Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic, FDA, FDA Regulatory Affairs, Immune-Mediation (independent immunopathology: lung and reticuloendothelial system), Infectious Disease & New Antibiotic Targets, Infectious Disease Immunodiagnostics, number of asymptomatic infections, Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery, SAR-Cov-2 a vasculotropic (blood vessels) RNA Virus, SARS-CoV-2, Seasonality & Environmental Factors in Resurgence, Treatment Protocols for COVID-19, Viral diseases, tagged , , , , , on April 16, 2020| Leave a Comment »

Updated listing of COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutic trials from NIH Clinical Trials.gov

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

 

The following file contains an updated list (search on 4/15/2020) of COVID-19 related clinical trials from https://clinicaltrials.gov/

 

The Excel file can be uploaded here: Current Covid-19 Trials

 

Each sheet in the workbook is separated by current COVID-19 vaccine trials, currents COVID-19 trials with the IL6R (interleukin 6 receptor) antagonist tocilizumab, and all COVID related trials.  The Excel spreadsheet also contains links to more information about the trials.

 

As of April 15, 2020 the number of listed trials are as follows:

 

clinicaltrials.gov search terms Number of results Number of completed  trials Number of trials currently recruiting
COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 410 5 completed

5 withdrawn  

 192
1st row terms + vaccine 28 0 15
1st row terms + tocilizumab 16 0 10
1st row terms + hydroxychloroquine 61 1 22

 

A few highlights of the COVID related trials on clinicaltrials.gov

 

Withdrawn trials

 

Recombinant Human Angiotensin-converting Enzyme 2 (rhACE2) as a Treatment for Patients With COVID-19 (NCT04287686)

Study Description

Go to 

Brief Summary:

This is an open label, randomized, controlled, pilot clinical study in patients with COVID-19, to obtain preliminary biologic, physiologic, and clinical data in patients with COVID-19 treated with rhACE2 or control patients, to help determine whether a subsequent Phase 2B trial is warranted.

 

Condition or disease  Intervention/treatment  Phase 
COVID-19 Drug: Recombinant human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (rhACE2) Not Applicable

 

Detailed Description:

This is a small pilot study investigating whether there is any efficacy signal that warrants a larger Phase 2B trial, or any harm that suggests that such a trial should not be done. It is not expected to produce statistically significant results in the major endpoints. The investigators will examine all of the biologic, physiological, and clinical data to determine whether a Phase 2B trial is warranted.

Primary efficacy analysis will be carried only on patients receiving at least 4 doses of active drug. Safety analysis will be carried out on all patients receiving at least one dose of active drug.

It is planned to enroll more than or equal to 24 subjects with COVID-19. It is expected to have at least 12 evaluable patients in each group.

Experimental group: 0.4 mg/kg rhACE2 IV BID and standard of care Control group: standard of care

Intervention duration: up to 7 days of therapy

No planned interim analysis.

Study was withdrawn before participants were enrolled.

Washed Microbiota Transplantation for Patients With 2019-nCoV Infection (NCT04251767)

Study Description

Go to 

Brief Summary:

Gut dysbiosis co-exists in patients with coronavirus pneumonia. Some of these patients would develop secondary bacterial infections and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). The recent study on using washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) as rescue therapy in critically ill patients with AAD demonstrated the important clinical benefits and safety of WMT. This clinical trial aims to evaluate the outcome of WMT combining with standard therapy for patients with 2019-novel coronavirus pneumonia, especially for those patients with dysbiosis-related conditions.

 

Detailed Description:

An ongoing outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus was reported in Wuhan, China. 2019-nCoV has caused a cluster of pneumonia cases, and posed continuing epidemic threat to China and even global health. Unfortunately, there is currently no specific effective treatment for the viral infection and the related serious complications. It is in urgent need to find a new specific effective treatment for the 2019-nCoV infection. According to Declaration of Helsinki and International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, the desperately ill patients with 2019-nCov infection during disease outbreaks have a moral right to try unvalidated medical interventions (UMIs) and that it is therefore unethical to restrict access to UMIs to the clinical trial context.

There is a vital link between the intestinal tract and respiratory tract, which was exemplified by intestinal complications during respiratory disease and vice versa. Some of these patients can develop secondary bacterial infections and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). The recent study on using washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) as rescue therapy in critically ill patients with AAD demonstrated the important clinical benefits and safety of WMT. Additionally, the recent animal study provided direct evidence supporting that antibiotics could decrease gut microbiota and the lung stromal interferon signature and facilitate early influenza virus replication in lung epithelia. Importantly, the above antibiotics caused negative effects can be reversed by fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) which suggested that FMT might be able to induce a significant improvement in the respiratory virus infection. Another evidence is that the microbiota could confer protection against certain virus infection such as influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus by priming the immune response to viral evasion. The above results suggested that FMT might be a new therapeutic option for the treatment of virus-related pneumonia. The methodology of FMT recently was coined as WMT, which is dependent on the automatic facilities and washing process in a laboratory room. Patients underwent WMT with the decreased rate of adverse events and unchanged clinical efficacy in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. This clinical trial aims to evaluate the outcome of WMT combining with standard therapy for patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia, especially for those patients with dysbiosis-related conditions.

 

Responsible Party: Faming Zhang, Director of Medical Center for Digestive Diseases, The Second Hospital of Nanjing Medical University
Identifier NCT04251767     History of Changes

Study was withdrawn before participants were enrolled.

 

Therapy for Pneumonia Patients iInfected by 2019 Novel Coronavirus (NCT04293692)

Study Description

Go to 

Brief Summary:

The 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia outbroken in Wuhan, China, which spread quickly to 26 countries worldwide and presented a serious threat to public health. It is mainly characterized by fever, dry cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. Some patients may develop into rapid and deadly respiratory system injury with overwhelming inflammation in the lung. Currently, there is no effective treatment in clinical practice. The present clinical trial is to explore the safety and efficacy of Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells (UC-MSCs) therapy for novel coronavirus pneumonia patients.

Detailed Description:

Since late December 2019, human pneumonia cases infected by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) were firstly identified in Wuhan, China. As the virus is contagious and of great epidemic, more and more cases have found in other areas of China and abroad. Up to February 24, a total of 77, 779 confirmed cases were reported in China. At present, there is no effective treatment for patients identified with novel coronavirus pneumonia. Therefore, it’s urgent to explore more active therapeutic methods to cure the patients.

Recently, some clinical researches about the 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine suggested that massive inflammatory cell infiltration and inflammatory cytokines secretion were found in patients’ lungs, alveolar epithelial cells and capillary endothelial cells were damaged, causing acute lung injury. It seems that the key to cure the pneumonia is to inhibit the inflammatory response, resulting to reduce the damage of alveolar epithelial cells and endothelial cells and repair the function of the lung.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are widely used in basic research and clinical application. They are proved to migrate to damaged tissues, exert anti-inflammatory and immunoregulatory functions, promote the regeneration of damaged tissues and inhibit tissue fibrosis. Studies have shown that MSCs can significantly reduce acute lung injury in mice caused by H9N2 and H5N1 viruses by reducing the levels of proinflammatory cytokines and the recruitment of inflammatory cells into the lungs. Compared with MSCs from other sources, human umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) have been widely applied to various diseases due to their convenient collection, no ethical controversy, low immunogenicity, and rapid proliferation rate. In our recent research, we confirmed that UC-MSCs can significantly reduce inflammatory cell infiltration and inflammatory factors expression in lung tissue, and significantly protect lung tissue from endotoxin (LPS) -induced acute lung injury in mice.

The purpose of this clinical study is to investigate safety and efficiency of UC-MSCs in treating pneumonia patients infected by 2019-nCoV. The investigators planned to recruit 48 patients aged from 18 to 75 years old and had no severe underlying diseases. In the cell treatment group, 24 patients received 0.5*10E6 UC-MSCs /kg body weight intravenously treatment 4 times every other day besides conventional treatment. In the control group, other 24 patients received conventional treatment plus 4 times of placebo intravenously. The lung CT, blood biochemical examination, lymphocyte subsets, inflammatory factors, 28-days mortality, etc will be evaluated within 24h and 1, 2, 4, 8 weeks after UC-MSCs treatment.

Sponsor:

Puren Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology

Collaborator:

Wuhan Hamilton Bio-technology Co., Ltd

Study was withdrawn before participants were enrolled.

 

Prognositc Factors in COVID-19 Patients Complicated With Hypertension (NCT04272710)

Study Description

Brief Summary:

There are currently no clinical studies reporting clinical characteristics difference between the hypertension patients with and without ACEI treatment when suffered with novel coronavirus infection in China

Detailed Description:

At present, the outbreak of the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection in Wuhan and Hubei provinces has attracted great attention from the medical community across the country. Both 2019-nCoV and SARS viruses are coronaviruses, and they have a large homology.

Published laboratory studies have suggested that SARS virus infection and its lung injury are related to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in lung tissue. And ACE and ACE2 in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) are vital central links to maintain hemodynamic stability and normal heart and kidney function in vivo.

A large amount of evidence-based medical evidence shows that ACE inhibitors are the basic therapeutic drugs for maintaining hypertension, reducing the risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal adverse events, improving quality of life, and prolonging life in patients with hypertension. Recent experimental studies suggest that treatment with ACE inhibitors can significantly reduce pulmonary inflammation and cytokine release caused by coronavirus infection.

 

ACEI treatment

hypertension patients with ACEI treatment when suffered with novel coronavirus infection in China
Control

hypertension patients without ACEI treatment when suffered with novel coronavirus infection in China

 

Locations

China
The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University Chongqing, China

Sponsors and Collaborators Chongqing Medical University

 

Responsible PI: Dongying Zhang, Associate Professor, Chongqing Medical University

Withdrawn (Similar projects have been registered, and it needs to be withdrawn.)

Read Full Post »

Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Genome Editing and Regulatory Harmonization: Progress and Challenges

Posted in and Bioethics, Biotechnology, Conference Coverage with Social Media, CRISPR applied to Human Germ Line, CRISPR/Cas9 & Gene Editing, FDA, FDA Regulatory Affairs, FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning - GCP, GLP, ISO 14155, Gene Editing Impact on Longevity, Gene Therapy & Gene Editing Development, Health Law & Patient Safety, Health Law Policy, REAL TIME Conference Coverage Twitter's Hashtags and Handles per Presentation/session, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2019| Leave a Comment »

Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Genome Editing and Regulatory Harmonization: Progress and Challenges

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

Genome editing offers the potential of new and effective treatments for genetic diseases. As companies work to develop these treatments, regulators are focused on ensuring that any such products meet applicable safety and efficacy requirements. This panel will discuss how European Union and United States regulators are approaching therapeutic use of genome editing, issues in harmonization between these two – and other – jurisdictions, challenges faced by industry as regulatory positions evolve, and steps that organizations and companies can take to facilitate approval and continued efforts at harmonization.

 

Speakers

CBER:  because of the nature of these gene therapies, which are mainly orphan, there is expedited review.  Since they started this division in 2015, they have received over 1500 applications.

Spark: Most of the issues were issues with the primary disease not the gene therapy so they had to make new endpoint tests so had talks with FDA before they entered phase III.   There has been great collaboration with FDA,  now they partnered with Novartis to get approval outside US.  You should be willing to partner with EU pharmas to expedite the regulatory process outside US.  In China the process is new and Brazil is behind on their gene therapy guidance.  However there is the new issue of repeat testing of your manufacturing process, as manufacturing of gene therapies had been small scale before. However he notes that problems with expedited review is tough because you don’t have alot of time to get data together.  They were lucky that they had already done a randomized trial.

Sidley Austin:  EU regulatory you make application with advance therapy you don’t have a national option, the regulation body assesses a committee to see if has applicability. Then it goes to a safety committee.  EU has been quicker to approve these advance therapies. Twenty five percent of their applications are gene therapies.  Companies having issues with manufacturing.  There can be issues when the final application is formalized after discussions as problems may arise between discussions, preliminary applications, and final applications.

Sarepta: They have a robust gene therapy program.  Their lead is a therapy for DMD (Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy) where affected males die by 25. Japan and EU have different regulatory applications and although they are similar and data can be transferred there is more paperwork required by EU.  The US uses an IND for application. Global feedback is very challenging, they have had multiple meetings around the world and takes a long time preparing a briefing package….. putting a strain on the small biotechs.  No company wants to be either just EU centric or US centric they just want to get out to market as fast as possible.

 

Please follow LIVE on TWITTER using the following @ handles and # hashtags:

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: