Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘FDA’ Category

Steroids, Inflammation, and CAR-T Therapy [6.3.8] (UPDATED)

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED: 08/31/2020 (CRISPR edited CAR-T clinical trials)

Word Cloud by Daniel Menzin

Corticosteroids have been used as anticancer agents since the 1940s, with activity reported in a wide variety of solid tumors, including breast and prostate cancer, and the lymphoid hematologic malignancies. They are commonly found in regimens for acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, myeloma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

A great review on the mechanism of action of prednisone’s antitumoral activity is seen in

Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Neoplasms Lorraine I. McKay, PhD and John A. Cidlowski, PhD. in Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th edition.

It was first discovered that cortisone caused tumor regression in a transplantable mouse lymphosarcoma,81 a finding soon extended to a wide variety of murine lymphatic tumors. The effects of corticosteroids were also evaluated on many nonendocrine and nonlymphoid transplantable rodent tumors. Pharmacologic doses of steroid inhibited growth of various tumor systems.82 Tissue culture studies confirmed that lymphoid cells were the most sensitive to glucocorticoids, and responded to treatment with decreases in DNA, ribonucleic acid (RNA), and protein synthesis.83 Studies of proliferating human leukemic lymphoblasts supported the hypothesis that glucocorticoids have preferential lymphocytolytic effects. The mechanism of action was initially thought to be caused by impaired energy use via decreased glucose transport and/or phosphorylation; it was later discovered that glucocorticoids induce apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in certain lymphoid cell populations.84,85

–For review on corticosteroids in cancer therapy see more at: http://www.cancernetwork.com/review-article/corticosteroids-advanced-cancer#sthash.IwHbekuI.dpuf

However, as Dana Farber’s Dr. George Canellos, M.D. ponders in Can MOPP be replaced in the treatment of advanced Hodgkin’s disease? Semin Oncol. Canellos GP1. 1990 Feb;17(1 Suppl 2):2-6., many dose-limiting toxicities occur with MOPP (mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) therapy used in advanced Hodgkin’s disease.  Although, at the time, he generally was looking to establish combination therapies with less side effect, the advent of more personalized therapies as well as immunotherapies may indeed replace the older regimens for B-cell malignancies and Hodgkin’s disease, and their panels of toxicities.

Short-term side effects of prednisone (Cancer.gov prednisone description with side effects) as with all glucocorticoids, include high blood glucose levels (especially in patients with diabetes mellitus or on other medications that increase blood glucose, such as tacrolimus) and mineralocorticoid effects such as fluid retention.[10] The mineralocorticoid effects of prednisone are minor, which is why it is not used in the management of adrenal insufficiency, unless a more potent mineralocorticoid is administered concomitantly.

Long-term side effects include Cushing’s syndrome, steroid dementia syndrome, truncal weight gain, osteoporosis, glaucoma and cataracts, type II diabetes mellitus, and depression upon dose reduction or cessation.

Therefore the oncology world has been moving toward therapies which are more selective with less dose-limiting toxicities (e.g. Rituximab), and are looking to CAR-T therapies as a possible replacement for standard chemotherapeutic regimens. However, as with prednisone, there have been serious adverse events in some CAR-T clinical trials. Luckily clinicians, as discussed below, have found supportive therapies to alleviate the most severe side effects to CAR-T.

This section will be refer to supportive therapies as those adjuvant therapy given to alleviate patient discomfort, reduce toxicities and adverse event, or support patient well-being during their course of chemotherapy, not adjuvant therapy to enhance antitumoral effect.

For more background information of CAR-T therapies and related issues please see my previous post

NIH Considers Guidelines for CAR-T therapy: Report from Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

The following is a brief re-post of some of the important points for reference to this new posting.

1. Evolution of Chimeric Antigen Receptors

Early evidence had suggested that adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, after depletion of circulating lymphocytes, could result in a clinical response in some tumor patients however developments showed autologous T-cells (obtained from same patient) could be engineered to express tumor-associated antigens (TAA) and replace the TILS in the clinical setting.

A brief history of construction of 2nd and 3rd generation CAR-T cells given by cancer.gov:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/research-updates/2013/CAR-T-Cells

cartdiagrampic

Differences between  second- and third-generation chimeric antigen receptor T cells. (Adapted by permission from the American Association for Cancer Research: Lee, DW et al. The Future Is Now: Chimeric Antigen Receptors as New Targeted Therapies for Childhood Cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 2012;18(10); 2780–90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1920)

Constructing a CAR T Cell (from cancer.gov)

The first efforts to engineer T cells to be used as a cancer treatment began in the early 1990s. Since then, researchers have learned how to produce T cells that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that recognize specific targets on cancer cells.

The T cells are genetically modified to produce these receptors. To do this, researchers use viral vectors that are stripped of their ability to cause illness but that retain the capacity to integrate into cells’ DNA to deliver the genetic material needed to produce the T-cell receptors.

The second- and third-generation CARs typically consist of a piece of monoclonal antibody, called a single-chain variable fragment (scFv), that resides on the outside of the T-cell membrane and is linked to stimulatory molecules (Co-stim 1 and Co-stim 2) inside the T cell. The scFv portion guides the cell to its target antigen. Once the T cell binds to its target antigen, the stimulatory molecules provide the necessary signals for the T cell to become fully active. In this fully active state, the T cells can more effectively proliferate and attack cancer cells.

2. Consideration for Design of Trials and Mitigating Toxicities

  • Early Toxic effectsCytokine Release Syndrome– The effectiveness of CART therapy has been manifested by release of high levels of cytokines resulting in fever and inflammatory sequelae. One such cytokine, interleukin 6, has been attributed to this side effect and investigators have successfully used an IL6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab (Acterma™), to alleviate symptoms of cytokine release syndrome (see review Adoptive T-cell therapy: adverse events and safety switches by Siok-Keen Tey).
  • Early Toxic effects – Over-activation of CAR T-cells; mitigation by dose escalation strategy (as authors in reference [3] proposed). Most trials give billions of genetically modified cells to a patient.
  • Late Toxic Effectslong-term depletion of B-cells . For example CART directing against CD19 or CD20 on B cells may deplete the normal population of CD19 or CD20 B-cells over time; possibly managed by IgG supplementation

References

  1. Ertl HC, Zaia J, Rosenberg SA, June CH, Dotti G, Kahn J, Cooper LJ, Corrigan-Curay J, Strome SE: Considerations for the clinical application of chimeric antigen receptor T cells: observations from a recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Symposium held June 15, 2010. Cancer research 2011, 71(9):3175-3181.
  2. Morgan RA, Yang JC, Kitano M, Dudley ME, Laurencot CM, Rosenberg SA: Case report of a serious adverse event following the administration of T cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor recognizing ERBB2. Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 2010, 18(4):843-851.
  3. Kandalaft LE, Powell DJ, Jr., Coukos G: A phase I clinical trial of adoptive transfer of folate receptor-alpha redirected autologous T cells for recurrent ovarian cancer. Journal of translational medicine 2012, 10:157.

3. Case Reports of Adverse Events and Their Amelioration During CAR-T Therapy

CAR-T Therapy have Had reports of Serious Adverse Events

From FierceBiotech UPDATED: Two deaths force MSK to hit the brakes on engineered T cell cancer study

April 6, 2014 | By John Carroll

Safety concerns forced investigators at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to suspend patient recruitment for an early-stage study of a closely watched approach to reengineering the immune system to fight cancer. Several days ago MSK updated a site on clinicaltrials.gov to note that it was halting recruitment for a small study using T cells reengineered with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) against CD19-positive B cells for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, triggering concerns about the potential fallout at Juno Therapeutics, the biotech formed to commercialize the effort. And Sunday evening representatives for MSK revealed at the meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego that the deaths of two patients spurred investigators to rethink the trial protocol on recruitment, revamping the patient profile to account for the threat of comorbidities while adjusting the dose “based on the extent of disease at the time of treatment.”

For more on this story please see

Source: http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/memorial-sloan-kettering-hits-brakes-engineered-t-cell-cancer-study/2014-04-06

Keynote presentation by Carl H. June, recipient of The Richard V. Smalley MD 2013 Award

As reported in 2013 in Highlights and summary of the 28th annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer by Paolo A Ascierto1, David H Munn2, Anna K Palucka34 and Paul M Sondel in Journal of ImmunoTherapy of Cancer

Since 2005, SITC honors a luminary in the field who has significantly contributed to the advancement of cancer immunotherapy research by presenting the annual Richard V. Smalley MD Memorial Award, which is associated with the Smalley keynote lecture at the Annual SITC meeting. The awardee this year Carl H. June of the University of Pennsylvania, has led innovative translational research for over 25 years, with the most recent focus being the development of the Chimeric Antigen Receptor modified T-cell (CART) approach. Carl June summarized how the past 15 years of progress have expanded upon the original concept presented by Zelig Eshhar [4], in which variable regions of tumor-reactive monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (VH and VL) are linked to transmembrane and signaling domains of T cell activating molecules to create membrane based receptors with specificity for the tumor antigen recognized by the original mAb [4]. These receptors can be transfected into T cells, for example with lentiviruses. Pre-clinical work demonstrated how CD3-ζ and 41BB signaling components enhanced proliferation and survival of T cells in hypoxic conditions. The initial clinical work has been done with CART reactive to CD-19 on malignant B cells, with progress particularly in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in adults and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children [5,6]. As of the SITC meeting, CarlJune’s team had treated 35 patients with CLL and 20 with ALL. Of the 20 with ALL, ½ had relapsed after allogeneic BMT. Of these 20 children, 17 were in complete remission, and with persistent B cell aplasia; documenting the persistent effects of the CART cells. Toxicities included the persistent B cell aplasia and profound tumor lysis and cytokine storm, seen 1–2 weeks into the treatment for ALL. This cytokine storm has been ameliorated by using anti-IL6 mAb. The B cell aplasia, while undesired, is acceptable, as patients can receive passive replacement of IgG, thus making their B cells “expendable”. These CART cells can traffic into the CNS. In ALL patients, it appears that each individual CART cell (or its progeny) can destroy 1000 tumor cells. Ongoing efforts in CarlJune’s program, and at other centers, are now moving into analyses of CART reactive with other tumor targets, by using mAbs that recognize antigens expressed on other tumors. Among these are EGFR on glioblastoma, PSMA on prostate cancer, mesothelin on ovarian cancer, HER2 on breast (and other) cancers, and several other targets. Because some of these targets are also expressed on normal tissues that are “not expendable”, novel approaches are being developed to decrease the potency or longevity of the CART effect, to decrease potential toxicity. This includes generating “short lived” CART cells by inducing CAR expression with short-lived RNA, rather than transfecting with a DNA construct that remains permanently.

In T-Cell Immunotherapy: Looking Forward Molecular Therapy (2014); 22 9, 1564–1574. doi:10.1038/mt.2014.148 many of the leading CAR-T clinicians and investigators reported on some of the adverse events related o CAR-T therapy including

  • 40 severe adverse events (SAE) had been reported from 2010 to 2013.
  • B-cell aplasia
  • Systemic inflammatory release syndrome (CRS) {the most sever toxicity seen}
  • Tumor lysis syndrome
  • CNS toxicity
  • Macrophage activation syndrome

According to the investigators the systemic inflammatory release syndrome (CRS) is the most severe toxicity seen

The most commonly reported adverse event is CRS,49 with about three-quarters of the patients with CRS requiring admission to an intensive care unit. In the case of CAR therapy, the onset of CRS is related to the particular signaling domain in the CAR, with early-onset CRS in the first several days after infusion related to CARs that encode a CD28 signaling domain.4,16 By contrast, CARs encoding a 4-1BB signaling domain tend to have delayed-onset CRS (range, 7 to 50 days) after CAR T-cell infusion.6 CRS has also been reported after the infusion of TCR-modified T cells, with onset typically five to seven days after infusion. The development of CRS is often, but not invariably, associated with clinically beneficial tumor regression. Several cytokines have been reported to be elevated in the serum—most commonly, interferon (IFN)-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interleukin (IL)-6. Management of CRS has included supportive care, corticosteroids, etanercept, tocilizumab, and alemtuzumab. The role of suicide genes in the management of CRS remains unknown.50

This supportive therapy have now been included in all protocols now and sites are engaged in developing pharmacovigilance protocol development for CAR-T therapy.

UPDATED 08/31/2020

The following articles discuss the use of the CRISPR Cas9 system to improve the efficacy and reduce immune tolerance and rejection of engineered CAR-T therapies and the evolution of the CAR-T therapy in clinical trials for lung cancer and leukemias.

CRISPR-engineered immune cells reach the bedside

UPDATED 10/04/2021 (Advances in CAR-T therapy for solid tumors)

The following contains a curation of the latest advances on CAR-T therapy for solid tumors, which has been a challenge for the field.

NK cells expressing a chimeric activating receptor eliminate MDSCs and rescue impaired CAR-T cell activity against solid tumors

From: Parihar, R., Rivas, C., Huynh, M., Omer, B., Lapteva, N., Metelitsa, L. S., Gottschalk, S. M., & Rooney, C. M. (2019). NK Cells Expressing a Chimeric Activating Receptor Eliminate MDSCs and Rescue Impaired CAR-T Cell Activity against Solid Tumors. Cancer immunology research7(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0572

Abstract

Solid tumors are refractory to cellular immunotherapies in part because they contain suppressive immune effectors such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) that inhibit cytotoxic lymphocytes. Strategies to reverse the suppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) should also attract and activate immune effectors with antitumor activity. To address this need, we developed gene-modified natural killer (NK) cells bearing a chimeric receptor in which the activating receptor NKG2D is fused to the cytotoxic ζ-chain of the T-cell receptor (NKG2D.ζ). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells target MDSCs, which overexpress NKG2D ligands within the TME. We examined the ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs in a xenograft TME model and improve the antitumor function of tumor-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T cells. We show that NKG2D.ζ–NK cells are cytotoxic against MDSCs, but spare NKG2D ligand-expressing normal tissues. NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, but not unmodified NK cells, secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in response to MDSCs at the tumor site and improve infiltration and antitumor activity of subsequently infused CAR-T cells, even in tumors for which an immunosuppressive TME is an impediment to treatment. Unlike endogenous NKG2D, NKG2D.ζ is not susceptible to TME-mediated down-modulation and thus maintains its function even within suppressive microenvironments. As clinical confirmation, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells generated from patients with neuroblastoma killed autologous intra-tumoral MDSCs capable of suppressing CAR-T function. A combination therapy for solid tumors that includes both NKG2D.ζ–NK cells and CAR-T cells may improve responses over therapies based on CAR-T cells alone.

INTRODUCTION

T lymphocytes can be engineered to target tumor-associated antigens by forced expression of CARs (). Although successful when directed against leukemia-associated antigens such as CD19 (), CAR-T cell therapy for solid tumors has been less effective, with best responses in patients with minimal disease (). Solid tumors recruit inhibitory cells such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) (). These immature myeloid cells are a component of innate immunity and strengthen the suppressive TME (). The frequency of circulating or intra-tumoral MDSCs correlates with cancer stage, disease progression, and resistance to standard chemo- and radio-therapies (). Hence, MDSCs are worth targeting in the quest to enhance CAR-T cell efficacy against solid tumors.

Natural killer (NK) cells, a lymphoid component of the innate immune system, produce MHC-unrestricted cytotoxicity and secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (). NK cells also modulate the activity of antigen-presenting myeloid cells within lymphoid organs, and recruit and activate effector T cells at sites of inflammation (). NK cells express NKG2D, a cytotoxicity receptor that is activated by non-classical MHC molecules expressed on cells stressed by events such as DNA damage, hypoxia, or viral infection (). NKG2D ligands are overexpressed on several solid tumors and on tumor-infiltrating MDSCs (). NK cells, therefore, could alter the TME in favor of an antitumor response by eliminating suppressive elements such as MDSCs. However, the NKG2D cytotoxic adapter molecule, DAP10, is downregulated by suppressive molecules of the TME, such as TGFβ (), limiting the antitumor functions of NK cells.

To overcome the repressive effect of the solid TME on NKG2D function, we used a retroviral vector to modify NK cells with a chimeric NKG2D receptor (NKG2D.ζ) comprising the extracellular domain of the native NKG2D molecule fused to the intracellular cytotoxic ζ-chain of the T-cell receptor (). We hypothesized that primary human NK cells expressing NKG2D.ζ (NKG2D.ζ–NK cells) would maintain NKG2D.ζ expression within the suppressive TME, kill NKG2D ligand-expressing MDSCs, secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, and recruit and activate effector cells, including CAR-T cells, derived from the adaptive immune system. These benefits are not attainable from NK cells expressing the native NKG2D receptor as its functions are down-modulated in the TME. Here we show that when NK cells express NKG2D.ζ, immune suppression is sufficiently countered to enable tumor-specific CAR-T cells to persist within the TME and eradicate otherwise resistant tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cytokines, cell lines, and antibodies.

Recombinant human interleukin (IL)2 was obtained from National Cancer Institute Biologic Resources Branch (Frederick, MD). Recombinant human IL6, GM-CSF, IL7, and IL15 were purchased from Peprotech (Rocky Hill, NJ, USA). The human neuroblastoma cell line LAN-1 was purchased from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA) and cultured in DMEM culture medium supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine (Gibco-BRL) and 10% FBS (Hyclone, Waltham, MA, USA). The human CML cell line K562 was purchased from American Type Culture Collection and cultured in complete-RPMI culture medium composed of RPMI-1640 medium (Hyclone) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine and 10% FBS. A modified version of parental K562 cells, genetically modified to express a membrane-bound version of IL15 and 41BB-ligand, K562-mb15–41BB-L, was kindly provided by Dr. Dario Campana (National University of Singapore). All cell lines were verified by either genetic or flow cytometry-based methods (LAN-1 and K562 authenticated by ATCC in 2009) and tested for mycoplasma contamination monthly via MycoAlert (Lonza) mycoplasma enzyme detection kit (last mycoplastma testing of LAN-1, K562 parental line, and K562-mb15–41BB-L on November 2, 2018; all negative). All cell lines were used within one month of thawing from early-passage (< 3 passages of original vial) lots.

CAR-encoding retroviral vectors.

The construction of the SFG-retroviral vector encoding GD2-CAR.41BB.ζ, as shown in Supplementary Fig. S1A, was previously described (). The SFG-retroviral vector encoding NKG2D.ζ, an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES), and truncated CD19 (tCD19), was generated by sub-cloning NKG2D.ζ from a retroviral vector () kindly provided by Dr. Charles L. Sentman (Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA) into pSFG.IRES.tCD19 (). RD114-speudotyped viral particles were produced by transient transfection in 293T cells, as previously described ().

Expansion and retroviral transduction of human NK and T cells.

Human NK cells were activated, transduced with retroviral constructs (Fig. 1A) and expanded as previously described by our laboratory (). Briefly, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained from healthy donors under Baylor College of Medicine IRB-approved protocols, were cocultured with irradiated (100 Gy) K562-mb15–41BB-L at a 1:10 (NK cell:irradiated tumor cell) ratio in G-Rex® cell culture devices (Wilson Wolf, St. Paul, MN, USA) for 4 days in Stem Cell Growth Medium (CellGenix) supplemented with 10% FBS and 500 IU/mL IL2. Cell suspensions on day 4 (containing 50–70% expanded/activated NK cells) were transduced with SFG-based retroviral vectors, as previously described (). The transduced cell population was then subjected to secondary expansion to generate adequate cell numbers for experiments in G-Rex® devices at the same NK cell:irradiated tumor cell ratio with 100 IU/mL IL2. This 17-day human gene-modified NK cell protocol resulted in > 97% pure CD56+/CD3 NK cell population with avg. 77.4% ± 18.2% (n = 25) of NK cells transduced with the construct of interest. For most experiments, transduced NK cells were purified to > 95% by magnetic column selection of truncated CD19 selection marker-positive cells.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0001.jpg
NKG2D.ζ–NK cells expand and kill ligand-expressing targets.

(A) Schematic of SFG-based retroviral vector constructs for transduction of human NK cells. (B) Human NK cells were expanded as described in Methods and percentage of CD56+/CD3 NK cells at time of retroviral transduction (day 4) is shown. Expanded NK cells (red circle in A) purified via depletion of CD3+ cells were transduced with NKG2D.ζ retroviral vector or empty vector control (referred to as “unmodified”), and transduction efficiencies are shown inset. (C) NKG2D expression on NK cells (MFI, inset) was assessed with isotype antibody as control. Non-transduced NK cells exhibited similar NKG2D expression to empty vector-transduced NK cells. * p = 0.003 vs. unmodified condition. (D) Expression of NKG2D (absolute MFI on y-axis) on NK cells from each donor (n = 25) transduced with either empty vector or NKG2D.ζ construct was determined by flow cytometry. Each pair of data points connected by a line represent cells from a single donor, to confirm surface expression of our chimeric molecule after transduction. Black line with grey block next to each group are mean MFI ± SEM. (E) NKG2D.ζ–NK cell cytotoxicity against K562 and LAN-1 tumor targets in a 4-hour 51Cr-release assay. Given that K562 and LAN-1 are both NK-sensitive targets, low E:T ratios were utilized to observe differences. Experiment is representative of at least three separate determinations from n = 10 donors. * p < 0.01 vs. unmodified NK cells at same E:T ratio. (F) NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were expanded after transduction culture (as shown in schema), and fold-expansion and cytotoxicity both pre- (day 7) and post- (day 17) secondary expansion were determined.

For production of GD2.CAR-T cells (autologous to MDSCs and NK cells), PBMCs from healthy donors were suspended in T-cell medium (TCM) consisting of RPMI-1640 supplemented with 45% Click’s Medium (Gibco-BRL), 10% FBS, and 2 mM L-glutamine, and cultured in wells pre-coated with CD3 (OKT3, CRL-8001, American Type Culture Collection) and CD28 (Clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences) antibodies for activation. Human IL15 and IL7 were added on day +1, and cells underwent retroviral transduction on day +2, as previously described (). T-cells were used for experiments between days +9 to +14 post-transduction, with phenotype as shown in Supplementary Figs. S1BC.

Induction and enrichment of human MDSCs.

Our method for ex vivo generation of human PBMC-derived MDSCs was derived from published reports (), with slight modifications. Briefly, PBMCs were sequentially depleted of CD25hi-expressing cells and CD3-expressing cells by magnetic column separation (Miltenyi Biotec). Resultant CD25lo/−, CD3 PBMCs were plated at 4×106 cells/mL in complete-RPMI medium with human IL6 and GM-CSF (both at 20 ng/mL) onto 12-well culture plates (Sigma Corning) at 1 mL/well. Plates were incubated for 7 days with medium and cytokines being replenished on days 3 and 5. Resultant cells were harvested by gentle scraping and MDSCs were purified by magnetic selection using CD33 magnetic microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec). Cells were analyzed by multi-color flow cytometry for CD33, CD14, CD15, HLA-DR, CD11b, CD83, and CD163 (BD Biosciences). MDSCs were defined as either monocytic (M-MDSCs; CD14+, HLA-DRlow/−), PMN-MDSCs (CD14, CD15+, CD11b+), or early-stage MDSCs (lineage, HLA-DRlow/−, CD33+), as per published guidelines (). In addition to the above markers, MDSCs were stained for PD-L1, PD-L2, and NKG2D ligands via an NKG2D-Fc chimera (BD Biosciences) followed by FITC-labeled anti-Fc. This pan-ligand staining approach was determined to be the most efficient way to assess NKG2D ligand expression on human MDSCs because (1.) NKG2D ligand expression had not previously been reported for human MDSCs and thus simultaneous evaluation of the eight different NKG2D ligands would have been required, and (2.) we found poor reproducibility in staining patterns using individual commercially-available ligand antibodies, even within the same donor.

In vitro T-cell suppression assay.

T-cell proliferation was assessed using Cell Trace Violet (Thermo Fisher) dye dilution analysis, as per manufacturer’s recommendations. Briefly, 1×105 Cell Trace Violet-labeled T cells (isolated at the time of MDSC generation) were plated onto 96-well plates in the presence of plate-bound 1 μg/mL CD3 and 1 μg/mL CD28 antibodies with 50 IU/mL IL2 in the absence or presence of autologous MDSCs or peripheral blood monocytes (as a myeloid cell control) at 1:1, 4:1 and 8:1 T cell:MDSC ratios. In some experiments, only the 4:1 ratio is shown as this was determined as optimal for assessment of suppression. After 4 days of coculture, T cells were labeled with CD3 antibody and assessed for cell division using Cell Trace Violet dye dilution by flow cytometry. Percent suppression was calculated as follows: [(% proliferating T cells in the absence of MDSCs – % proliferating T cells in presence of MDSCs)/% proliferating T cells in the absence of MDSCs] x 100. Proliferation was defined as % T cells undergoing active division as represented by Cell Trace Violet dilution peaks, as previously described ().

In vitro CAR-T chemotaxis assay.

Transwell 5-μm pore inserts (Corning, Somerset, NJ) for migration experiments were prepared by coating with 0.01% gelatin at 37 °C overnight, followed by 3 μg of human fibronectin (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) at 37 °C for 3 hours to mimic endothelial and extracellular matrix components, as previously described (). Briefly, 2×105 purified GD2.CAR-T cells were placed in 100 μL of TCM in the upper chambers of the pre-coated Transwell inserts that were then transferred into wells of a 24-well plate. Culture supernatants (400 μL) from NKG2D.ζ or unmodified NK cells cultured with autologous MDSCs or monocytes, were placed in the lower chambers of the wells. Plain medium or medium supplemented with 1 μg/mL of the T-cell recruiting chemokine, MIG, served as negative and positive controls, respectively. The plates were then incubated for 4 hours at 37 °C with 5% CO2, followed by a 10-minute incubation at 4 °C to loosen any cells adhering to the undersides of the insert membranes. The fluid in the lower chambers was collected separately and migrated cells were counted using trypan blue exclusion. The cells were analyzed for CAR expression by flow cytometry to confirm phenotype of migrated T cells.

In vivo tumor microenvironment model.

12–16 week old female NSG mice were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsal right flank with 1×106 Firefly luciferase(FfLuc)-expressing LAN-1 neuroblastoma cells admixed with 3×105 ex vivo-generated MDSCs, suspended in 100 μL of basement membrane Matrigel (Corning). Matrigel basement membrane was important in keeping tumor and MDSCs confined so as to establish a localized solid TME. 10–14 days later, when tumors measured at least 100 mm3 by caliper measurement, mice were injected intravenously with 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells. Tumor growth was measured twice weekly by live bioluminescence imaging using the IVIS® system (IVIS, Xenogen Corporation) 10 minutes after 150 mg/kg D-luciferin (Xenogen)/mouse was injected intraperitoneally. In experiments examining the ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to reduce intra-tumoral MDSCs, 1×107 unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were injected intravenously when tumors measured at least 100 mm3. At end of experiment, tumors were harvested en bloc, digested ex vivo, and intra-tumoral human MDSCs (CD33+, HLA-DRlow cells) were enumerated by flow cytometry. The absolute number of human MDSCs within a tumor digest was enumerated per mouse (n = 5 mice/group), compared to pre-treatment MDSC numbers, and presented as mean % MDSCs remaining per treatment group. In experiments examining the effects of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells on GD2.CAR-T cell antitumor activity, 5×106 (cell dose chosen to mitigate direct antitumor effects of NK cells) unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were injected intravenously 3 days prior to GD2.CAR-T injection. In GD2.CAR-T cell homing experiments, CAR-T were transduced with GFP-luciferase retroviral construct prior to injection into mice bearing unmodified tumor cells (). Mice received 5000 IU human IL2 intraperitoneally three times per week for 3 weeks following NK cell injection to promote NK cell survival in NSG mice (). Tumor size was measured twice weekly with calipers and the mice were imaged for bioluminescence signal from T cells at the same time. Mice were euthanized for excessive tumor burden, as per protocol guidelines. The animal studies protocol was approved by Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and mice were treated in strict accordance with the institutional guidelines for animal care.

Immunohistochemistry of neuroblastoma xenografts.

On day 32 of in vivo experiments, animals were sacrificed, tumors were harvested and sectioned bluntly ex vivo to separate tumor periphery (outer 1/3 of tumor volume) vs. core (non-necrotic inner 2/3 of tumor volume), and n = 5 sections/tumor sample were analyzed for presence of GD2.CAR-T and NKG2D.ζ–NK cells by H&E and human CD3 and CD57 immunostaining performed by the Human Tissue Acquisition and Pathology Core of Baylor College of Medicine. Lack of CD57 expression on infused GD2.CAR-T was confirmed by flow cytometry prior to administration. CD57 was chosen as the marker for NK cells in tumor tissue in our study because LAN-1 tumors naturally express the prototypical NK marker CD56, truncated CD19 expression was inadequate for in situ staining, and CD57 had previously been used as a marker for tissue-localized activated NK cells (). The number of human CD3+ and CD57+ cells in representative sections of tumors from periphery vs. core of the treatment groups indicated were enumerated per high-powered field (HPF) at 40x magnification and percent of the total number of cells enumerated within tumors found in the periphery vs. core in each treatment group indicated from tumors with and without MDSCs is shown as mean ± SEM of n = 5 sections/periphery or core, n = 5 tumors/group.

Analysis of intra-tumoral MDSCs from patients with neuroblastoma.

Tumor tissue and matched peripheral blood of neuroblastoma patients obtained in the context of a specimen/laboratory study after patient identification had been removed were thawed and analyzed for MDSC subsets by flow cytometry or utilized in in vitro assays, as described in legends or Results. The tissue acquisition protocol was performed after review and approval by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Briefly, subjects with a diagnosis of high-risk or intermediate-risk neuroblastoma were eligible to participate. Written informed consent, or appropriate assent for participation, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki was obtained from each subject or subject’s guardian for procurement of patient blood and tumor tissue and for subsequent analyses of stored patient materials.

Statistics.

Data are presented as mean ± SEM of either experimental replicates or number of donors, as indicated. Paired two-tailed t-test was used to determine significance of differences between means with p < 0.05 indicating a significant difference. For in vivo bioluminescence, changes in tumor radiance from baseline at each time point were calculated and compared between groups using two-sample t-test. Multiple group comparisons were conducted via ANOVA via GraphPad Prism v7 software. Survival determined from the time of tumor cell injection was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and differences in survival between groups were compared by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

NKG2D.ζ NK cells expand and have cytotoxicity against target cells.

To increase killing of NKG2D ligand-expressing MDSCs, we generated primary human NK cells stably expressing NKG2D.ζ and a truncated CD19 (tCD19) marker from a retroviral vector (Fig. 1A). NK cells were expanded from PBMCs obtained from normal donors, transduced with retroviral construct expressing chimeric NKG2D, then cultured for 3 additional days. Transduction efficiency, as measured by the expression of tCD19 on CD56+CD3 NK cells after the additional 3 days, was 71.3 ± 16% (n = 25 normal donors) and produced a 5.4 ± 1.1-fold increase in NKG2D expression on the NK cell surface (Fig. 1BD). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells showed greater cytotoxicity (79.2 ± 5.6%, n = 10 normal donors) against wild-type K562, a highly NK cell-sensitive tumor cell line that naturally expresses NKG2D ligands, than mock vector-transduced (hereafter referred to as, unmodified) NK cells (40.5 ± 2.1%) at 2:1 E:T ratio in a 4-hr cytotoxicity assay (Fig. 1E). In contrast, transgenic NKG2D.ζ expression did not increase NK cell killing of LAN-1 neuroblastoma cells that are marginally NK-sensitive, but lack NKG2D ligands. To determine if in vitro expansion affected the cytotoxic function of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, we secondarily expanded NKG2D.ζ–NK cells for an additional 10-days (Fig. 1F schema). As seen in Fig. 1F, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells expanded (120 ± 7.3-fold by day 17 of culture; n = 10 donors) similarly to unmodified and non-transduced NK cells and maintained stable cytotoxic function between days 7 and 17 of expansion. Thus, we generated and expanded high numbers of primary human NKG2D.ζ-expressing NK cells capable of cytotoxicity against ligand-expressing targets, even after prolonged culture.

Transgenic NKG2D.ζ is unaffected by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands.

Expression of the native NKG2D receptor on NK cells is down-modulated by tumor-derived TGFβ and soluble NKG2D ligands, both of which are abundant in the TME () and likely impair NK cell function in solid tumors. To determine the effect of TGFβ and soluble NKG2D ligands on NKG2D.ζ receptor expression and function, we cultured NKG2D.ζ–NK cells in the presence of TGFβ or the soluble NKG2D ligands, MICA and MICB, and examined NKG2D expression and NK cytotoxicity after 24-, 48-, and 72-hours. After exposure to TGFβ or soluble MICA/B, unmodified NK cells significantly down-regulated NKG2D (MFI of 25 vs. 95 in non-exposed NK cells at 48 hours) and were less cytotoxic (20 ± 5.1% killing vs. 40 ± 3.7% killing by non-exposed NK cells at 48 hours) to NKG2D ligand-expressing K562 targets (Fig. 2A,B).B). In contrast, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells maintained NKG2D expression and cytotoxicity after exposure to the same concentrations of TGFβ and soluble MICA/B (Fig. 2C,D).D). This lack of sensitivity to down-regulation by these tumor-associated components should benefit the function of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells within the TME.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0002.jpg
Transgenic NKG2D.ζ is unaffected by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands.

NKG2D.ζ or unmodified NK cells (n = 5 donors) were cultured in the presence of TGFβ (5 ng/mL) (A, B) or the soluble NKG2D ligands MICA and MICB (C, D) for 24-, 48-, and 72-hours. NKG2D receptor expression was determined by flow cytometry and NK cytotoxicity against K562 targets was assessed in a 4-hr Cr-release assay at an 5:1 E:T ratio using 48-hr exposed NK cells. Viability of transduced NK cells after exposure to TGFβ for 24, 48, and 72 hours, as assessed by 7-AAD vital staining, was > 90%. * p = 0.001 vs. non-TGFβ/MICA-treated NK groups at same time-points.

Human MDSCs express NKG2D ligands and are killed by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells.

To study the effects of human NK cells on autologous MDSCs, we generated human MDSCs by culture of CD3-/CD25lo PBMC with IL6 plus GM-CSF for 7 days, followed by CD33+ selection, as described in the Methods. The phenotypic characterization of these MDSCs and confirmation of their suppressive capacity is shown in Supplementary Fig. S2. Routinely, our ex vivo-generated MDSCs contained monocytic (M)-MDSC and early(e)-MDSC subsets, with few (avg. < 1%) polymorphonuclear (PMN)-MDSCs (Supplementary Fig. S2A), roughly reflecting the subset composition reported in patients with solid tumors (). The MDSCs expressed the suppressive factors TGFβ, IL6, IL10, and PDL-1 in amounts often greater than tumor cells (Supplementary Figs. S2BC), and suppressed proliferation and cytokine secretion by autologous T cells stimulated with plate-bound CD3/CD28 antibodies (Supplementary Figs. S2DE) and by 2nd generation GD2.CAR-T cells encoding 4–1BB and CD3-ζ endodomains stimulated with the GD2+ tumor line LAN-1 (Supplementary Figs. S2FG). As seen in Fig. 3A, MDSCs expressed as much or more NKG2D ligand than the positive control tumor line, K562 (ligand MFI of 78.2 vs. 29.7, respectively). Freshly isolated peripheral blood T cells did not express NKG2D ligands, whereas immature and mature dendritic cells expressed little, consistent with previous data (). The neuroblastoma cell line, LAN-1, subsequently used in our in vivo TME model, did not express NKG2D ligands.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0003.jpg
Human MDSCs express ligands for NKG2D and are killed by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells.

(A) NKG2D ligand expression on human MDSCs by flow cytometry. Immature dendritic cells (iDC) and mature DCs (mDC) were used as myeloid controls. T cells activated with CD3 and CD28 mAbs plus 100 IU/mL IL2 for 24 hours were used as lymphocyte control. LAN-1 and K562 cells were used as negative and positive controls, respectively. MFI of NKG2D ligand expression in parenthesis. Representative data from single donor (of n = 25 normal donors). Isotype control for NKG2D staining routinely fell within the 1st log. (B) NKG2D.ζ–NK cell cytotoxicity against autologous MDSCs as targets in a 4-hour 51Cr-release assay. In some wells of the cytotoxicity assay, a blocking mAb to NKG2D was added. Representative data from triplicate samples per data point from a single donor (of n = 25 normal donors) is shown. * p < 0.01 vs. unmodified NK cells at same E:T ratio. (C) In the same experiment as (B), the same batch of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were analyzed for cytotoxicity against autologous B cells, monocytes, monocyte-derived iDC and mDC, and activated T cells (n = 10 donors examined). (D) M-MDSC frequency by flow cytometry from neuroblastoma tumor samples obtained from high-risk patients, as described in Methods. (E) Cytotoxicity by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells derived from patient PBMC (harvested and frozen at time of tumor sampling) against autologous tumor-derived MDSCs in a 4-hour 51Cr-release assay. Data shown are from triplicate samples per data point at a 10:1 E:T ratio. * p < 0.001 vs. unmodified NK cells from same donor. (F) NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were cocultured with autologous MDSCs at 1:1 ratio plus low-dose 50 IU/mL IL2 to maintain NK survival, and fold change in the number of each cell type from the start of coculture was determined by flow cytometry at indicated time-points. * p < 0.001 vs. NK/MDSC fold-change in unmodified NK cell cocultures. (G) Cell-free supernatants were harvested from cocultures at day 3 and analyzed for IFNγ, TNFα, IL6, and IL10 by ELISA. # p < 0.01 vs. corresponding cytokine in cocultures with unmodified NK cells. (H) NKG2D ligand expression was determined for activated T cells (ATCs) expressing NKG2D.ζ and NKG2D.ζ–NK cells. Expression of NKG2D ligands on non-transduced ATCs as control for T-cell activation. (I) NKG2D.ζ–NK cells or NKG2D.ζ T cells were cocultured with autologous ATCs at 1:1 ratio and fold change in the number of each cell type from the start of coculture was determined by flow cytometry at indicated time-points. * p < 0.001 vs. ATC fold-change at days 0 and 3 cocultures.

To evaluate MDSC susceptibility to killing by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, we performed both short- and long-term killing assays. Fig. 3B shows enhanced killing of MDSCs by autologous NKG2D.ζ–NK cells compared to unmodified NK cells (35 ± 5.5% vs. 8 ± 2.4% cytotoxicity, respectively, at an E:T ratio of 5:1) in a 4-hr chromium-release assay. MDSC killing was dependent on NKG2D, as pre-incubation with an NKG2D blocking Ab reduced the cytotoxicity to levels achieved by unmodified NK cells. NKG2D.ζ–NK cells mediated no cytotoxicity against other autologous immune cells such as freshly-isolated monocytes, monocyte-derived mature dendritic cells, T cells, or B cells (Fig. 3C). Only immature dendritic cells, which expressed little NKG2D ligand (approx. 7% of cells; MFI 11.4), were mildly susceptible to lysis by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (4.2 ± 1.7 % lysis at an E:T ratio of 20:1). As confirmation of the clinical applicability of our approach, we assessed whether NKG2D.ζ–NK cells generated from patient PBMCs were able to kill highly suppressive MDSCs isolated from the patient’s tumor. Tumor samples obtained from two patients with high-risk neuroblastoma at time of first biopsy/resection contained M-MDSCs (Fig. 3D). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells generated from patient PBMCs (harvested and frozen at time of tumor sampling) mediated significant cytotoxicity in vitro against M-MDSCs purified from patient tumors, whereas unmodified patient NK cells did not (Fig. 3E). These results provide further clinical evidence for the capacity of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs in patients with suppressive TMEs.

To determine whether NKG2D.ζ–NK cells could control MDSC survival in long-term cultures, we cocultured NKG2D.ζ–NK cells with autologous MDSCs at a 1:1 ratio for 7 days in the presence of low-dose IL2 to maintain NK survival, and quantified each cell type by flow cytometry every two days. As shown in Fig. 3F, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells expanded in cocultures (mean 9.5 ± 0.7-fold increase) with a concomitant reduction in MDSCs (mean 81.3 ± 9.4-fold decrease), whereas unmodified NK cells failed to expand or eliminate MDSCs. NK cells cultured alone or with autologous monocyte controls did not expand (0.8 ± 0.1-fold change). As seen in Fig. 3G, NK cell expansion and MDSC reduction correlated with a shift in the culture cytokine milieu from one that is immune suppressive (more IL6 and IL10; less IFN-γ and TNF-α) in cocultures containing unmodified NK cells, to one that is immune stimulatory and enhances CAR-T antitumor function (less IL6 and IL10; more IFN-γ and TNF-α) in cocultures containing NKG2D.ζ–NK cells. Hence, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells mediate potent cytotoxicity against suppressive MDSCs via their highly expressed NKG2D ligands. In addition, through selective depletion of MDSCs in combination with immune stimulatory cytokine secretion, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells skew the cytokine microenvironment to one that can support CAR-T effector functions ().

Previous studies have reported that expression of chimeric NKG2D constructs in T lymphocytes can direct these cells to target NKG2D ligand-expressing tumors (). However, activated T cells (ATCs) themselves upregulate NKG2D ligands (), with variable ligand expression intensity dependent on the T-cell activation protocol employed, leading to fratricide when the chimeric NKG2D is expressed. To determine if this off-tumor side-effect occurred when the same NKG2D.ζ was expressed in NK cells, we compared the killing of ATCs by autologous NK cells or by autologous T cells expressing our NKG2D.ζ transgene. ATCs and NKG2Dζ.-T cells both upregulated NKG2D ligands during ex vivo expansion with CD3/CD28 antibodies plus IL7 and IL15, whereas NKG2D.ζ-transduced NK cells undergoing expansion in our K562-mb15–41BB-L culture system did not (Fig. 3H). Coculture without additional stimulation of NKG2D.ζ-T cells with autologous ATCs produced fratricide, of both the NKG2D.ζ effector T cells (35 ± 7.2% decrease in cell number) and the non-transduced ATC targets (98 ± 11.5% decrease in cell number) (n = 3). By contrast, ATC numbers were unaffected by coculture with autologous NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (Fig. 3I). These results show that NK cells expressing NKG2D.ζ can kill autologous MDSCs while sparing other NKG2D ligand expressing populations, thus avoiding the fratricide seen with NKG2D.ζ-expressing T cells.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells eliminate intra-tumoral MDSCs and reduce tumor burden.

To determine if NKG2D.ζ–NK cells could eliminate MDSCs from tumor sites in vivo, we created an MDSC-containing TME in a xenograft model of neuroblastoma. We chose NKG2D ligand-negative LAN-1 tumor for this experiment so that the effects of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells on MDSCs were not confused with their effects on the tumor cells. LAN-1 tumor cells admixed with human MDSCs were inoculated subcutaneously in NSG mice. These animals had increases in the suppressive cytokines IL10 (10-fold vs. tumor alone) and TGFβ (2.6-fold vs. tumor alone) in circulation by day 16 as compared to animals bearing tumors initiated without MDSCs, and the resultant tumors grew more rapidly due to increased neovascularization and tumor-associated stroma (Supplementary Fig. S3AD), consistent with clinical reports of MDSC-dense tumors (). As seen in Fig. 4A, in mice bearing NKG2D ligand-negative tumors without MDSCs, a single infusion of 1×107 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells resulted in a small delay in tumor growth but eventual progression, suggesting that the LAN-1 tumor itself (a marginally NK-sensitive target) can be killed at higher NK cell doses independent of NKG2D ligand expression. In mice bearing MDSC-containing tumors, 1×107 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells inhibited tumor growth (Fig. 4B), reduced NKG2D ligand-expressing intra-tumoral MDSCs with only 8.7 ± 3.5% of the input MDSCs remaining (Fig. 4C), and prolonged mouse survival (median survival of 73 days vs. 29 days after unmodified NK cells; Fig. 4D). Since LAN-1 tumor cells do not express NKG2D ligands and are only marginally sensitive to ligand-independent lysis, tumors subsequently regrew in these mice once the NKG2D.ζ–NK cells had disappeared (> day 40). Thus, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells can traffic to tumor sites and reduce intra-tumoral MDSCs but cannot themselves eradicate NKG2D ligand-negative malignant cells in our model.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0004.jpg
NKG2D.ζ–NK cells eliminate intra-tumoral MDSCs and reduce tumor burden.

LAN-1 tumor cells, either alone (A) or admixed with human MDSCs (B), were injected S.C. in the flanks of NSG mice. When tumors reached a volume of approx. 100 mm3 (day 14, gray block arrow inset), no NK cells (PBS control), 1×107 unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were injected I.V. and tumor growth was measured over time via calipers. * p < 0.03 vs. other conditions shown at same time point. (C) On day 26, intra-tumoral human MDSCs (CD33+, HLA-DRlow) were enumerated by flow cytometry and are presented as mean % MDSCs remaining per treatment group. ** p < 0.005 vs. unmodified NK treatment. (D) Survival of groups by Kaplan-Meyer analysis. # p = 0.024. Representative experiment of three performed.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete chemokines that recruit GD2.CAR-T cells.

To determine if NKG2D.ζ–NK cells can recruit T cells modified with a tumor-specific CAR to tumor sites containing MDSCs, we cocultured NKG2D.ζ–NK cells with autologous MDSCs and analyzed culture supernatants for chemokines by multiplex ELISA. Compared to unmodified NK cells, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells produce significantly greater CCL5 (RANTES; 10-fold increase), CCL3 (MIP-1α; 2-fold increase), and CCL22 (MDC; 5-fold increase) in response to autologous MDSCs (Fig. 5A). Large amounts of CXCL8 (IL8) were also produced, but there was no significant difference from the production by unmodified NK cells. Analysis of chemokine receptor expression on 2nd generation GD2.CAR-T cells revealed CXCR1 (binds CXCL8), CCR2 (binds CCL2), CCR5 (binds CCL3), and CCR4 (binds CCL5) (see Supplementary Fig. S1C). These GD2.CAR-T cells were assayed for chemotaxis to supernatants derived from unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells cocultured with autologous MDSCs. Supernatants from NKG2D.ζ–NK cell-containing cocultures induced chemotaxis of 41.1 ± 5.5% of GD2.CAR-T cells (Fig. 5B), whereas supernatants from unmodified NK cells induced chemotaxis no greater than produced by medium (14.9 ± 6.4% vs. 17.3 ± 1.9%, respectively). Chemotaxis was not induced by supernatants from unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells cocultured with monocytes. Thus, following their encounter with MDSCs, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete chemokines that recruit CAR-Ts in vitro.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0005.jpg
NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete chemokines that recruit GD2.CAR-T cells.

(A) NKG2D.ζ or unmodified NK cells were cocultured with autologous MDSCs and cell-free culture supernatants harvested at 48 hours were analyzed for chemokines CXCL8, CCL5, CCL3, and CCL22 by ELISA. Shown are mean chemokine concentration ± SEM for n = 5 cocultures/donor (data from one of five representative donors is shown). * p < 0.005 vs. unmodified NK cocultures. (B) GD2.CAR-T cells were assayed for chemotaxis in Transwells (described in Methods) in response to supernatants derived from unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells cocultured with autologous MDSCs. Supernatants derived from monocyte (non-suppressive myeloid cell control)-stimulated NK cells were also used. # p < 0.001 vs. Medium, ** p = 0.009 vs. “unmodified NK plus MDSCs” condition. (C) LAN-1 tumor cells, alone or admixed with human MDSCs, were injected S.C. into the flank of NSG mice. When tumors reached a volume ~100 mm3, 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells were injected I.V. alone on day 13 (GD2.CAR-T), or preceded by 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells I.V. injected on day 10 (chNK + GD2.CAR-T). GD2.CAR-T signal at tumor site was measured over time via live-animal bioluminescence imaging. (D) Shown is mean ± SEM (n=5 mice/group) bioluminescent signal of GD2.CAR-T cells expressed as radiance. * p = 0.01 vs. all other groups.

NKG2D.ζ NK cells improve GD2.CAR-T cell trafficking to tumor sites.

To determine the effects of the MDSC-induced, NKG2D.ζ–NK cell chemokines on CAR-T cell recruitment in vivo, we used our MDSC-containing TME xenograft model (see Fig. 4). When tumors reached a volume of ~100 mm3 (day 10), 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were infused, followed three days later (day 13) by infusion of 5×106 luciferase gene-transduced GD2.CAR-T cells. Tumor localization and expansion of GD2.CAR-T cells was measured over time via live-animal bioluminescence imaging. As seen in Fig. 5C, GD2.CAR-T cells injected alone on day 13 after tumor inoculation (without pre-administration of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells) into mice bearing tumors devoid of MDSCs localized effectively to subcutaneous tumors in the flank (4 of 5 mice showed bioluminescent signal on days 14 and 18; Fig. 5C). There was a 10.5 ± 0.8-fold increase in bioluminescent signal on day 18, with CAR-T cell bioluminescence remaining above baseline levels for the duration of the experiment (Fig. 5D). However, in tumors containing MDSCs, CAR-T cells localized poorly: only 1 of 5 mice exhibited bioluminescent signal (Fig. 5C), with only a 1.02 ± 0.1-fold increase in bioluminescent signal on day 18 and bioluminescence falling below pre-infusion levels within 10 days after injection (Fig. 5D). In contrast, pre-administration of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells on day 10 into mice bearing MDSC-containing tumors allowed subsequently infused GD2.CAR-T cells to localize effectively to tumor sites, with bioluminescence in 5 of 5 mice at the tumor site and a 10.9 ± 0.2-fold increase in bioluminescent signal on day 18, within 5 days of injection (Fig. 5D).

To determine if NKG2D.ζ–NK cells could promote GD2.CAR-T infiltration into the tumor bed, we compared the frequency of human GD2.CAR-T and human NK cells in the tumor periphery and the tumor core by immunohistochemistry (Supplementary Fig. S4AB). In tumors without MDSCs, 89 ± 11% of the total T cells in the tumor had infiltrated into the tumor core. In contrast, a much smaller fraction (39 ± 16%) infiltrated into the core of tumors containing MDSCs, suggesting TME suppression of CAR-T infiltration. However, pre-treatment of tumors containing MDSCs with NKG2D.ζ–NK cells increased the fraction of intra-tumoral CAR-T cells (70 ± 13%) within the tumor core. Equal numbers of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were observed within both peripheral and core samples from MDSC-positive and MDSC-negative tumors (Supplementary Fig. S5), suggesting the ability of NK cells to traffic well within tumors despite the presence of MDSCs.

Elimination of MDSCs increases antitumor activity of GD2.CAR-T cells.

To determine if the activities of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells described above enhance the antitumor function of CAR-T cells, we treated mice bearing subcutaneous, luciferase-labeled neuroblastoma containing MDSCs with GD2.CAR-T cells preceded by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, in a similar set-up to experiments in Fig. 5C. As seen in Fig. 6AB, a single injection of 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (a dose that achieved intra-tumoral MDSC depletion with only 26.8 ± 5.8% of the input MDSCs remaining) resulted in no significant tumor regression or prolongation of survival in mice bearing xenografts containing human MDSCs. A single infusion of 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells significantly reduced tumor in mice whose xenografts lacked human MDSCs with a median survival of 95 days (Fig. 6CD). However, the same GD2.CAR-T cells were ineffective against xenografts containing human MDSCs, worsening overall median survival to 39 days (Fig. 6B). In contrast, when the same GD2.CAR-T cell injection was preceded 3 days earlier by a single injection of 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (that had no direct antitumor effect by themselves within the other arm of the same experiment, see Fig. 6AB), the antitumor activity of the GD2.CAR-T cells in mice bearing MDSC-containing tumors was restored to the level observed in mice whose tumors lacked MDSCs (Fig. 6C). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells pre-injection also improved the overall survival of the mice with MDSC-containing tumors to a median 120 days with durable cure in 2 of 5 mice (Fig. 6D). Taken together, our results suggest that NKG2D.ζ–NK cells not only eliminate MDSCs from the TME, but also recruit CAR-T cells to intra-tumoral sites which facilitates antitumor efficacy.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0006.jpg
Elimination of MDSCs by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells increases antitumor activity of GD2.CAR-T cells.

Luciferase gene-transduced LAN-1 tumor cells, alone or admixed with human MDSCs, were injected S.C. into NSG mice. (A) When tumors reached a volume ~100 mm3, no treatment (No Tx; PBS control) or 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells alone (chNK) were injected I.V. on day 10 and tumor growth was measured over time via live-animal bioluminescence imaging. Shown is mean ± SEM (n=5 mice/group) bioluminescent signal expressed as radiance. # ns, p = 0.18 vs. No treatment (+MDSC) group. (B) Survival of groups in A was determined by Kaplan-Meyer analysis. # ns, p = 0.059. (C) In other groups of mice within the same experiment, 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells were injected I.V. alone on day 13 (GD2.CAR-T), or preceded by 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells injected on day 10 (chNK+GD2.CAR-T). * p = 0.001; # ns, p = 0.59 vs. each other. (D) Survival of groups in C by Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Representative experiment of 5 separate experiments. * p = 0.002; ** p = 0.001.

DISCUSSION

We have developed a TME-disrupting approach that eliminates MDSCs and rescues MDSC-mediated impairment of tumor-directed CAR-T cells. We show that when co-implanted with a neuroblastoma cell line, human MDSCs both enhance tumor growth and suppress the infiltration, expansion, and antitumor efficacy of tumor-specific CAR T-cells. In this model, NK cells bearing a chimeric version of the activating receptor NKG2D (NKG2D.ζ–NK cells) are directly cytotoxic to autologous MDSCs, thus eliminating MDSCs from tumors. In addition, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in response to MDSCs at the tumor site, improving CAR-T cell infiltration and function, and resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival compared to treatment with CAR-T cells alone. Our cell therapy approach utilizes an engineered innate immune effector that targets the TME, and shows potential to enhance efficacy of combination immune-based therapies for solid tumors.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells directly killed highly suppressive MDSCs generated in vitro as well as those from patient tumors. NKG2D.ζ–NK cells also secreted cytokines that favored immune activation in response to MDSCs. Unmodified NK cells were unable to mediate these effects. The ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs from the TME should have several beneficial effects for antitumor immunity. First, as MDSCs express suppressive cytokines such as TGFβ and the checkpoint ligands PDL-1 and PDL-2, elimination of MDSCs should help relieve the suppression of endogenous T cell responses and potentiate the activity of adoptive T cell therapies. Given that high baseline numbers of MDSCs have been reported as a biomarker of poor response in the context of trials with the checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and pembrolizumab (), elimination of MDSCs by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells may also enhance checkpoint inhibition. Second, elimination of MDSCs should also decrease other MDSC-associated effects, including neovascularization via their expression of VEGF, production of immunosuppressive metabolic products such as PGE2 and adenosine, and establishment of tumor-supportive stroma via their expression of iNOS, FGF, and matrix metalloproteinases (). In short, the ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs alters the tumor microenvironment in multiple ways that should improve antitumor immunity.

Previous strategies for modulation of MDSCs within the TME have included use of agents that block single functions such as secretion of nitric oxide () or expression of checkpoint molecules (); induce MDSC differentiation such as with all-trans retinoic acid (); or eliminate MDSCs such as with the cytotoxic agents doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide (). The MDSC eliminating effects were dependent on continued administration of the agents, with a rapid rebound in MDSCs after discontinuation. Moreover, many of these agents have off-target toxicities that include damage to endogenous tumor-specific T cells. In contrast, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells produce prolonged and specific elimination of MDSCs with the potential to kill MDSCs that are recruited to the tumor from the bone marrow, while continually secreting cytokines and chemokines which respectively alter TME suppression and recruit and activate tumor-specific T cells. Thus, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells exert a prolonged combination of simultaneous immune modulatory effects that enhance antitumor immune function in ways that could not be achieved by previous methods that target MDSCs.

We observed no toxicity against normal hematopoietic cells when NKG2D.ζ was expressed in autologous human NK cells. Previous studies overexpressing an NKG2D.ζ receptor containing co-stimulatory endodomains (e.g., CD28 or 41BB) and DAP10, a signaling adaptor molecule for enhanced surface expression of NKG2D, in T cells showed activity against NKG2D ligand-overexpressing tumors, but at the cost of fratricide in vitro and lethal toxicity in mice (). Using our standard T-cell activation/expansion protocol (), we also observed upregulation of NKG2D ligands, leading to fratricide in T cells expressing NKG2D.ζ. When NKG2D.ζ-T cells engage NKG2D ligands expressed on normal tissues, they will not receive the physiologic NK cell-directed inhibitory inputs that would safely regulate this potent and unopposed chimeric receptor activity. By contrast, when NKG2D.ζ is expressed on NK cells, they are able to recognize inhibitory NK cell ligands such as self-MHC expressed on healthy self-tissues, counteracting otherwise unopposed positive signals from NKG2D ligands. Thus, an NK cell platform for NKG2D enhancement may limit toxicity while taking advantage of the cytotoxic and immune modulatory potential of the receptor-ligand system.

Unlike wild-type NKG2D, transgenic NKG2D.ζ expression and activity were not sensitive to down-modulation by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands, allowing improved function in the TME. Native NKG2D relies solely on the intra-cytoplasmic adaptor DAP10 for mediating its cytolytic activity in human NK cells (). TGFβ1 and soluble NKG2D ligands both decrease DAP10 gene transcription and protein activity, and thus reduce NKG2D function in endogenous NK cells (). In contrast, transgenic NKG2D.ζ does not rely on DAP10-based signaling for its activity, since signaling occurs through the ζ-chain. Thus, this construct provides a stable cytolytic pathway capable of circumventing TME-mediated down-modulation of native NKG2D activity. A previous study expressing a chimeric NKG2D.ζ molecule that incorporated DAP10 reported enhanced NK cytotoxicity compared to NKG2D.ζ alone in vitro against a variety of human cancer cell lines as well as in a xenograft model of osteosarcoma (). However, this report did not address the susceptibility of this complex to down-modulation by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands, or whether these NK cells had activity against MDSCs.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells countered immunosuppression mediated by MDSCs leading to enhanced CAR-T cell tumor infiltration and expansion at tumor sites, CAR-T functions that are impaired in patients with solid tumors (). Unlike the GD2.CAR-T cells in our model, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells homed effectively to MDSC-engrafted tumors and released an array of chemokines that increased T cell infiltration of tumor. Unlike pharmacologic strategies aimed at enhancing leukocyte trafficking, including administration of lymphotactin or TNFα (), our approach does not require continuous cytokine administration. In fact, the ability of chimeric NKG2D to augment NK immune function specifically within the immunosuppressive TME provides for the local release of chemotactic factors, reflecting a more homeostatic method by which to increase CAR-T infiltration. Once there, CAR-T cells should meet an environment favorably modified by NKG2D.ζ–NK cell mediated elimination of MDSCs and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Indeed, elimination of MDSCs from a GD2+ tumor xenograft enhanced the activity of GD2.CAR-T cells in our model, including T-cell survival and intratumoral expansion. Given the suppressive effects of MDSCs in neuroblastoma (), the model shows how reversal of an MDSC-mediated suppressive microenvironment can improve antitumor functions of effector T cells.

Clinical neuroblastoma contains intense infiltrates of MDSCs (), which are not included in tumor xenograft models currently used to study human cell therapeutics. Our data suggest that co-inoculation of tumors with suppressive components (such as MDSCs) can model TME-mediated suppression of CAR-T activity against solid tumors, and provides a method by which to understand and counter immunosuppression. Although NSG mice lack a complete immune system in which to examine the effects of multiple endogenous immune components, our ability to engraft exogenous components (e.g., human MDSCs) within our TME model provides the possibility of simulating different immunosuppressive aspects of the solid TME. In fact, further model development utilizing human inhibitory macrophages and regulatory T cells (Tregs) as additional suppressive components of the TME is currently underway in our laboratory.

In summary, we describe an approach to reverse the suppressive TME using engineered human NK cells. We have shown that generation and expansion of our NK cell product is feasible and that NKG2D.ζ–NK cells have antitumor activity within a suppressive solid tumor microenvironment without toxicity to normal NKG2D ligand-expressing tissues. Hence, the elimination of suppressive MDSCs by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells may safely enhance adoptive cellular immunotherapy for neuroblastoma and for many other tumors that are supported and protected by MDSCs.

Other posts on this site on Immunotherapy and Cancer include

Combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 immunotherapy shows promising results against advanced melanoma

Molecular Profiling in Cancer Immunotherapy: Debraj GuhaThakurta, PhD

Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy

$20 million Novartis deal with ‘University of Pennsylvania’ to develop Ultra-Personalized Cancer Immunotherapy

Upcoming Meetings on Cancer Immunogenetics

Tang Prize for 2014: Immunity and Cancer

ipilimumab, a Drug that blocks CTLA-4 Freeing T cells to Attack Tumors @DM Anderson Cancer Center

Juno’s approach eradicated cancer cells in 10 of 12 leukemia patients, indicating potential to transform the standard of care in oncology

Report on Cancer Immunotherapy Market & Clinical Pipeline Insight

New Immunotherapy Could Fight a Range of Cancers

Read Full Post »

NIMHD welcomes nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) has announced the appointment of nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NACMHD), NIMHD’s principal advisory board. Members of the council are drawn from the scientific, medical, and lay communities, so they offer diverse perspectives on minority health and health disparities.

The NACMHD, which meets three times a year on the National Institutes of Health campus, Bethesda, Maryland, advises the secretary of Health and Human Services and the directors of NIH and NIMHD on matters related to NIMHD’s mission. The council also conducts the second level of review of grant applications and cooperative agreements for research and training and recommends approval for projects that show promise of making valuable contributions to human knowledge.

The next meeting of the NACMHD will be held on Thursday, Sept. 10, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. on the NIH campus. The meeting will be available on videocast at http://www.videocast.nih.gov.

NIMHD Director Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, M.D., is pleased to welcome the following new members

Margarita Alegría, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research at Cambridge Health Alliance and a professor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has devoted her career to researching disparities in mental health and substance abuse services, with the goal of improving access to and equity and quality of these services for disadvantaged and minority populations.

Maria Araneta, Ph.D., a perinatal epidemiologist, is a professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Her research interests include maternal/pediatric HIV/AIDS, birth defects, and ethnic health disparities in type 2 diabetes, regional fat distribution, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic abnormalities.

Judith Bradford, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Population Research in LGBT Health and she co-chairs The Fenway Institute, Boston. Dr. Bradford has participated in health research since 1984, working with public health programs and community-based organizations to conduct studies on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and racial minority communities and to translate the results into programs to reduce health disparities.

Linda Burhansstipanov, Dr.P.H., has worked in public health since 1971, primarily with Native American issues. She is a nationally recognized educator on cancer prevention, community-based participatory research, navigation programs, cultural competency, evaluation, and other topics. Dr. Burhansstipanov worked with the Anschutz Medical Center Cancer Research Center — now the University of Colorado Cancer Research Center — in Denver for five years before founding Native American Cancer Initiatives, Inc., and the Native American Cancer Research Corporation.

Sandro Galea, M.D., a physician and epidemiologist, is the dean and a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. Prior to his appointment at Boston University, Dr. Galea served as the Anna Cheskis Gelman and Murray Charles Gelman Professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. His research focuses on the causes of brain disorders, particularly common mood and anxiety disorders, and substance abuse.

Linda Greene, J.D., is Evjue Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Law School. Her teaching and academic scholarship include constitutional law, civil procedure, legislation, civil rights, and sports law. Most recently, she was the vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of California, San Diego.

Ross A. Hammond, Ph.D., a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., is also director of the Center on Social Dynamics and Policy. His primary area of expertise is using mathematical and computational methods from complex systems science to model complex dynamics in economic, social, and public health systems. His current research topics include obesity etiology and prevention, tobacco control, and behavioral epidemiology.

Hilton Hudson, II, M.D., is chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Franciscan Healthcare, Munster, Indiana and a national ambassador for the American Heart Association. He also is the founder of Hilton Publishing, Inc., a national publisher dedicated to producing content on solutions related to health, wellness, and education for people in underserved communities. Dr. Hilton’s book, “The Heart of the Matter: The African American Guide to Heart Disease, Heart Treatment and Heart Wellness” has impacted at-risk patients nationwide.

Brian M. Rivers, Ph.D., M.P.H., currently serves on the research faculty at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. He is also an assistant professor in the Department of Oncologic Sciences at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa. Dr. Rivers’ research efforts include examination of unmet educational and psychosocial needs and the development of communication tools, couple-centered interventions, and evidence-based methods to convey complex information to at-risk populations across the cancer continuum.

NIMHD is one of NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers. It leads scientific research to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities by conducting and supporting research; planning, reviewing, coordinating, and evaluating all minority health and health disparities research at NIH; promoting and supporting the training of a diverse research workforce; translating and disseminating research information; and fostering collaborations and partnerships. For more information about NIMHD, visit http://www.nimhd.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Read Full Post »

Artificial Dentures: The Revolution of 3D Printing – Printed via Stereolithography (SLA), the resin dentures can be made directly from 3D models, instead of through Casts

 

Curators: Gerard Loiseau, ESQ and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Indications for Use Form Approved: OMB No. 0910-0120 Expiration Date: January 31, 2017 See PRA Statement below. 510(k) Number (if known) K143033

Device Name Dentca Denture Base Indications for Use (Describe)

Dentca Denture Base is a light-cured resin indicated for fabrication and repair of full and partial removable dentures and baseplates. The material is an alternative to traditional heat-cured and auto polymerizing resins. Fabrication of dental prosthetics with Dentca Denture Base requires a computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/ CAM) system that includes the following components not part of the device: oral casting impression, digital denture base file created in an optical impression system, stereolithographic additive printer, and curing light equipment.

SOURCE

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf14/K143033.pdf

For the First Time in Dental History, DENTCA, Inc. Receives FDA Clearance for the First 3D Printable Denture Base Material; Able to Be Worn Inside the Mouth.

The FDA has officially approved last week a 510(k) for the use of DENTCA’s new 3D printable material as a denture base that will revolutionize the denture world; making the denture production process quicker, more accurate and more predictable.

The new developments will create incredible possibilities for patients, as doctors will soon be able to 3D print final dentures at their office, allowing the manufacture process to be done in one day everywhere in the world.

DENTCA, Inc. continues to revolutionize the denture world.

The FDA last week officially approved a 510(k) for the use of DENTCA’s new 3D printable material as a denture base that will revolutionize the denture making world.
Dr. Jason Lee is the proud creator of this technology and has shared excitingly his opinion:
“After several years in development DENTCA’s new 3D printable Denture Base is finally cleared for use. We are very excited to begin applying this technology to continue revolutionizing the denture world. The material is a light-cured resin indicated for fabrication and repair of full and partial removable dentures and baseplates; which will eventually replace traditional heat-cured and auto polymerizing conventional denture making methods. By improving the manufacture process with the help of precise 3D printers, we will be making the denture production process quicker, more accurate and more predictable. DENTCA already revolutionized the fit of dentures by directly scanning the impressions instead of the need to pour a stone; now it will further increase it by removing the need for a flask in the future market, thus significantly reducing distortion.”

Fabrication of dental prosthetics with DENTCA Denture Base utilizes a computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software system, specialized tray impression systems, and a digital denture file database the system automates the denture making process almost to perfection; and now by also incorporating an optical impression system, a stereolithographic additive printer, and curing light equipment; it finally closes a cycle for success, giving the doctor a completely evolved denture manufacture process.

The material has passed al recent biocompatibility tests placed in evaluation for the DENTCA Denture Base in accordance with the FDA Blue Book Memorandum #G95-1 and International Standard ISO 10993-1, as recognized by FDA. The battery of testing included tests for Genotoxicity, Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Acute Toxicity & Material Characterization which the printable material passed with flying colors. Declaring the 3D printable material for considered tissue contacting for a period longer than 30 days (a removable prosthesis). DENTCA Denture Base was tested for conformity with the industry consensus standard ISO 20795-1.

When inquired about DENTCA’s recent breakthrough, the CEO of the company Mr. Sun Kwon shared the following: “This clearance completely revolutionizes the denture manufacture process, which has barely changed in over 100 years. The new developments will create incredible possibilities for patients, as doctors will soon be able to 3D print final dentures at their office, allowing the manufacture process to be done in one day everywhere in the world. Stay tuned for new and exciting updates.”

It is indeed exciting times for prosthodontics today.

SOURCE

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/08/prweb12893381.htm

 

Aug 10, 2015 | By Lilian

The FDA granted 16 dental devices 510(k) clearance in July, one of them is Dentca Denture Base fromDentca. At the end of last month, the FDA officially approved a 510(k) for the use of DENTCA’s new 3D printable material as a denture base.

According to a press release, the material has passed all recent biocompatibility tests placed in evaluation for the DENTCA Denture Base in accordance with the FDA Blue Book Memorandum #G95-1 and International Standard ISO 10993-1, as recognized by FDA. The battery of testing included tests for Genotoxicity, Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Acute Toxicity & Material Characterization which the printable material passed with flying colors. Declaring the 3D printable material for considered tissue contacting for a period longer than 30 days (a removable prosthesis). DENTCA Denture Base was tested for conformity with the industry consensus standard ISO 20795-1.

Fabrication of dental prosthetics with DENTCA Denture Base utilizes a CAD/CAM software system, specialized tray impression systems, and a digital denture file database. Now by also incorporating an optical impression system, a stereolithographic additive printer, and curing light equipment, it gives the doctor a completely evolved denture manufacture process.

Dr. Jason Lee, the proud creator of this technology shared excitingly his opinion:

“After several years in development DENTCA’s new 3D printable Denture Base is finally cleared for use. We are very excited to begin applying this technology to continue revolutionizing the denture world. The material is a light-cured resin indicated for fabrication and repair of full and partial removable dentures and baseplates; which will eventually replace traditional heat-cured and auto polymerizing conventional denture making methods. By improving the manufacture process with the help of precise 3D printers, we will be making the denture production process quicker, more accurate and more predictable. DENTCA already revolutionized the fit of dentures by directly scanning the impressions instead of the need to pour a stone; now it will further increase it by removing the need for a flask in the future market, thus significantly reducing distortion.”

SOURCE

http://www.3ders.org/articles/20150810-dentca-receives-fda-clearance-for-the-first-3d-printable-denture-base-material.html

 

Orthodontic company DENTCA has received 510(k) approval of a material that will be used to 3D print the bases of dentures, allowing DENTCA to create perfectly tailored dentures and baseplates from patient scans.  Printed via stereolithography (SLA), the resin dentures can be made directly from 3D models, instead of through casts, allowing the company to automate the manufacturing process.

VIEW VIDEO

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/08/10/dentures-get-3d-printed-boost-with-dentcas-fda-approval/

Dr. Jason Lee, inventor of the process, explains, “After several years in development DENTCA’s new 3D printable Denture Base is finally cleared for use. We are very excited to begin applying this technology to continue revolutionizing the denture world. The material is a light-cured resin indicated for fabrication and repair of full and partial removable dentures and baseplates; which will eventually replace traditional heat-cured and auto polymerizing conventional denture making methods.” He continues, “By improving the manufacture process with the help of precise 3D printers, we will be making the denture production process quicker, more accurate and more predictable. DENTCA already revolutionized the fit of dentures by directly scanning the impressions instead of the need to pour a stone; now it will further increase it by removing the need for a flask in the future market, thus significantly reducing distortion.”

dentca 3D printed denture bases get FDA approval

DENTCA’s Denture Base involves a unique system that combines the company’s denture file database with an optical impression system, the SLA printer, and the necessary light curing to create a complete, closed cycle for producing their dentures.  Now that the material involved has received FDA approval, deemed suitable for contact with human tissue for longer than 30 days, the product can be brought to market.  DENTCA envisions their systems installed in doctor’s offices, with CEO Sun Kwon saying, “This clearance completely revolutionizes the denture manufacture process, which has barely changed in over 100 years. The new developments will create incredible possibilities for patients, as doctors will soon be able to 3D print final dentures at their office, allowing the manufacture process to be done in one day everywhere in the world. Stay tuned for new and exciting updates.”

It’s exciting to see an increasing range of technologies and materials approved by the FDA so that 3D printing can more quickly improve the lives of those with access to it.

SOURCE

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/08/10/dentures-get-3d-printed-boost-with-dentcas-fda-approval/

 

Read Full Post »

Sexual Desire Disorder in Pre-menopausal Women: Addyi (flibanserin) is intended to increase libido – ‘Female Viagra’ approved by FDA

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD

FDA News Release

FDA approves first treatment for sexual desire disorder

For Immediate Release

August 18, 2015

Release

Español

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Addyi (flibanserin) to treat acquired, generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women. Prior to Addyi’s approval, there were no FDA-approved treatments for sexual desire disorders in men or women.

“Today’s approval provides women distressed by their low sexual desire with an approved treatment option,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). “The FDA strives to protect and advance the health of women, and we are committed to supporting the development of safe and effective treatments for female sexual dysfunction.”

HSDD is characterized by low sexual desire that causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty and is not due to a co-existing medical or psychiatric condition, problems within the relationship, or the effects of a medication or other drug substance. HSDD is acquired when it develops in a patient who previously had no problems with sexual desire. HSDD is generalized when it occurs regardless of the type of sexual activity, the situation or the sexual partner.

“Because of a potentially serious interaction with alcohol, treatment with Addyi will only be available through certified health care professionals and certified pharmacies,” continued Dr. Woodcock. “Patients and prescribers should fully understand the risks associated with the use of Addyi before considering treatment.”

Addyi can cause severely low blood pressure (hypotension) and loss of consciousness (syncope). These risks are increased and more severe when patients drink alcohol or take Addyi with certain medicines (known as moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors) that interfere with the breakdown of Addyi in the body. Because of the alcohol interaction, the use of alcohol is contraindicated while taking Addyi. Health care professionals must assess the likelihood of the patient reliably abstaining from alcohol before prescribing Addyi.

Addyi is being approved with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), which includes elements to assure safe use (ETASU). The FDA is requiring this REMS because of the increased risk of severe hypotension and syncope due to the interaction between Addyi and alcohol. The REMS requires that prescribers be certified with the REMS program by enrolling and completing training. Certified prescribers must counsel patients using a Patient-Provider Agreement Form about the increased risk of severe hypotension and syncope and about the importance of not drinking alcohol during treatment with Addyi. Additionally, pharmacies must be certified with the REMS program by enrolling and completing training. Certified pharmacies must only dispense Addyi to patients with a prescription from a certified prescriber. Additionally, pharmacists must counsel patients prior to dispensing not to drink alcohol during treatment with Addyi.

Addyi is also being approved with a Boxed Warning to highlight the risks of severe hypotension and syncope in patients who drink alcohol during treatment with Addyi, in those who also use moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and in those who have liver impairment. Addyi is contraindicated in these patients. In addition, the FDA is requiring the company that owns Addyi to conduct three well-designed studies in women to better understand the known serious risks of the interaction between Addyi and alcohol.

Addyi is a serotonin 1A receptor agonist and a serotonin 2A receptor antagonist, but the mechanism by which the drug improves sexual desire and related distress is not known. Addyi is taken once daily. It is dosed at bedtime to help decrease the risk of adverse events occurring due to possible hypotension, syncope and central nervous system depression (such as sleepiness and sedation). Patients should discontinue treatment after eight weeks if they do not report an improvement in sexual desire and associated distress.

The effectiveness of the 100 mg bedtime dose of Addyi was evaluated in three 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in about 2,400 premenopausal women with acquired, generalized HSDD. The average age of the trial participants was 36 years, with an average duration of HSDD of approximately five years. In these trials, women counted the number of satisfying sexual events, reported sexual desire over the preceding four weeks (scored on a range of 1.2 to 6.0) and reported distress related to low sexual desire (on a range of 0 to 4). On average, treatment with Addyi increased the number of satisfying sexual events by 0.5 to one additional event per month over placebo increased the sexual desire score by 0.3 to 0.4 over placebo, and decreased the distress score related to sexual desire by 0.3 to 0.4 over placebo. Additional analyses explored whether the improvements with Addyi were meaningful to patients, taking into account the effects of treatment seen among those patients who reported feeling much improved or very much improved overall. Across the three trials, about 10 percent more Addyi-treated patients than placebo-treated patients reported meaningful improvements in satisfying sexual events, sexual desire or distress. Addyi has not been shown to enhance sexual performance.

The 100 mg bedtime dose of Addyi has been administered to about 3,000 generally healthy premenopausal women with acquired, generalized HSDD in clinical trials, of whom about 1,700 received treatment for at least six months and 850 received treatment for at least one year.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the use of Addyi are dizziness, somnolence (sleepiness), nausea, fatigue, insomnia and dry mouth.

The FDA has recognized for some time the challenges involved in developing treatments for female sexual dysfunction. The FDA held a public Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting and scientific workshop on female sexual dysfunction on October 27 and October 28, 2014, to solicit perspectives directly from patients about their condition and its impact on daily life, and to discuss the scientific challenges related to developing drugs to treat these disorders. The FDA continues to encourage drug development in this area.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse reactions from the use of Addyi to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program at www.fda.gov/MedWatch or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

Addyi is marketed by Sprout Pharmaceuticals, based in Raleigh, North Carolina.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

SOURCE

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm458734.htm

Read Full Post »

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Vol. I) Now Available for Amazon Kindle

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Vol. I) Now Available for Amazon Kindle

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD

Article ID #179: Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Vol. I) Now Available for Amazon Kindle. Published on 8/14/2015

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence would like to announce the First volume of their BioMedical E-Book Series C: e-Books on Cancer & Oncology

Volume One: Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis

CancerandOncologyseriesCcoverwhich is now available on Amazon Kindle at                          http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013RVYR2K.

This e-Book is a comprehensive review of recent Original Research on Cancer & Genomics including related opportunities for Targeted Therapy written by Experts, Authors, Writers. This ebook highlights some of the recent trends and discoveries in cancer research and cancer treatment, with particular attention how new technological and informatics advancements have ushered in paradigm shifts in how we think about, diagnose, and treat cancer. The results of Original Research are gaining value added for the e-Reader by the Methodology of Curation. The e-Book’s articles have been published on the Open Access Online Scientific Journal, since April 2012.  All new articles on this subject, will continue to be incorporated, as published with periodical updates.

We invite e-Readers to write an Article Reviews on Amazon for this e-Book on Amazon. All forthcoming BioMed e-Book Titles can be viewed at:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, launched in April 2012 an Open Access Online Scientific Journal is a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in several domains of  life sciences, pharmaceutical, healthcare & medicine industries. The venture operates as an online scientific intellectual exchange at their website http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com and for curation and reporting on frontiers in biomedical, biological sciences, healthcare economics, pharmacology, pharmaceuticals & medicine. In addition the venture publishes a Medical E-book Series available on Amazon’s Kindle platform.

Analyzing and sharing the vast and rapidly expanding volume of scientific knowledge has never been so crucial to innovation in the medical field. WE are addressing need of overcoming this scientific information overload by:

  • delivering curation and summary interpretations of latest findings and innovations
  • on an open-access, Web 2.0 platform with future goals of providing primarily concept-driven search in the near future
  • providing a social platform for scientists and clinicians to enter into discussion using social media
  • compiling recent discoveries and issues in yearly-updated Medical E-book Series on Amazon’s mobile Kindle platform

This curation offers better organization and visibility to the critical information useful for the next innovations in academic, clinical, and industrial research by providing these hybrid networks.

Table of Contents for Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis

Preface

Introduction  The evolution of cancer therapy and cancer research: How we got here?

Part I. Historical Perspective of Cancer Demographics, Etiology, and Progress in Research

Chapter 1:  The Occurrence of Cancer in World Populations

Chapter 2.  Rapid Scientific Advances Changes Our View on How Cancer Forms

Chapter 3:  A Genetic Basis and Genetic Complexity of Cancer Emerge

Chapter 4: How Epigenetic and Metabolic Factors Affect Tumor Growth

Chapter 5: Advances in Breast and Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Supports Hope for Cure

Part II. Advent of Translational Medicine, “omics”, and Personalized Medicine Ushers in New Paradigms in Cancer Treatment and Advances in Drug Development

Chapter 6:  Treatment Strategies

Chapter 7:  Personalized Medicine and Targeted Therapy

Part III.Translational Medicine, Genomics, and New Technologies Converge to Improve Early Detection

Chapter 8:  Diagnosis                                     

Chapter 9:  Detection

Chapter 10:  Biomarkers

Chapter 11:  Imaging In Cancer

Chapter 12: Nanotechnology Imparts New Advances in Cancer Treatment, Detection, &  Imaging                                 

Epilogue by Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FACP: Envisioning New Insights in Cancer Translational Biology

 

Read Full Post »

NIH and FDA on 3D Printing in Medical Applications: Views for On-demand Drug Printing, in-Situ direct Tissue Repair and Printed Organs for Live Implants

 

UPDATED on 4/5/2016

Update on FDA Policy Regarding 3D Bioprinted Material

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/04/05/update-on-fda-policy-regarding-3d-bioprinted-material/

UPDATED on 11/12/2015

NIH Considers Guidelines for CAR-T therapy: Report from Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

 

FDA Guidance on Use of Xenotransplanted Products in Human: Implications in 3D Printing

FDA Guidance Documents Update Nov. 2015 on Devices, Animal Studies, Gene Therapy, Liposomes

FDA Cellular & Gene Therapy Guidances: Implications for CRSPR/Cas9 Trials

New FDA Draft Guidance On Homologous Use of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products – Implications for 3D BioPrinting of Regenerative Tissue

FDA Guidance on Use of Xenotransplanted Products in Human: Implications in 3D Printing

FDA Guidance Documents Update Nov. 2015 on Devices, Animal Studies, Gene Therapy, Liposomes

FDA Cellular & Gene Therapy Guidances: Implications for CRSPR/Cas9 Trials

New FDA Draft Guidance On Homologous Use of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products – Implications for 3D BioPrinting of Regenerative Tissue

Logo of pharmthera

P&T Community Current issue Registration Submit an Article
P T. 2014 Oct; 39(10): 704–711.
PMCID: PMC4189697

Medical Applications for 3D Printing: Current and Projected Uses

SOURCE

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189697/

FUTURE TRENDS

3D printing is expected to play an important role in the trend toward personalized medicine, through its use in customizing nutritional products, organs, and drugs.3,9 3D printing is expected to be especially common in pharmacy settings.5 The manufacturing and distribution of drugs by pharmaceutical companies could conceivably be replaced by emailing databases of medication formulations to pharmacies for on-demand drug printing.1 This would cause existing drug manufacturing and distribution methods to change drastically and become more cost-effective.1 If most common medications become available in this way, patients might be able to reduce their medication burden to one polypill per day, which would promote patient adherence.5

The most advanced 3D printing application that is anticipated is the bioprinting of complex organs.3,11 It has been estimated that we are less than 20 years from a fully functioning printable heart.8 Although, due to challenges in printing vascular networks, the reality of printed organs is still some way off, the progress that has been made is promising.3,7 As the technology advances, it is expected that complex heterogeneous tissues, such as liver and kidney tissues, will be fabricated successfully.9 This will open the door to making viable live implants, as well as printed tissue and organ models for use in drug discovery.9 It may also be possible to print out a patient’s tissue as a strip that can be used in tests to determine what medication will be most effective.1 In the future, it could even be possible to take stem cells from a child’s baby teeth for lifelong use as a tool kit for growing and developing replacement tissues and organs.3

In situ printing, in which implants or living organs are printed in the human body during operations, is another anticipated future trend.13 Through use of 3D bioprinting, cells, growth factors, and biomaterial scaffolding can be deposited to repair lesions of various types and thicknesses with precise digital control.10 In situ bioprinting for repairing external organs, such as skin, has already taken place.13 In one case, a 3D printer was used to fill a skin lesion with keratinocytes and fibroblasts, in stratified zones throughout the wound bed.13 This approach could possibly advance to use for in situ repair of partially damaged, diseased, or malfunctioning internal organs.13 A handheld 3D printer for use in situ for direct tissue repair is an anticipated innovation in this area.10 Advancements in robotic bioprinters and robot-assisted surgery may also be integral to the evolution of this technology.13

Medical applications for 3D printing are expanding rapidly and are expected to revolutionize health care.1Medical uses for 3D printing, both actual and potential, can be organized into several broad categories, including:

  • tissue and organ fabrication;
  • creation of customized prosthetics, implants, and anatomical models; and
  • pharmaceutical research regarding drug dosage forms, delivery, and discovery.2

The application of 3D printing in medicine can provide many benefits, including:

the customization and personalization of medical products, drugs, and equipment;

  • cost-effectiveness;
  • increased productivity;
  • the democratization of design and manufacturing; and
  • enhanced collaboration.1,36

However, it should be cautioned that despite recent significant and exciting medical advances involving 3D printing, notable scientific and regulatory challenges remain and the most transformative applications for this technology will need time to evolve.35,7

A number of fairly simple 3D-printed medical devices have received the FDA’s 510(k) approval.17

COMMON TYPES OF 3D PRINTERS

All 3D printing processes offer advantages and disadvantages.3 The type of 3D printer chosen for an application often depends on the materials to be used and how the layers in the finished product are bonded.11 The three most commonly used 3D printer technologies in medical applications are: selective laser sintering (SLS), thermal inkjet (TIJ) printing, and fused deposition modeling (FDM).10,11 A brief discussion of each of these technologies follows.

Selective Laser Sintering

An SLS printer uses powdered material as the substrate for printing new objects.11 A laser draws the shape of the object in the powder, fusing it together.11 Then a new layer of powder is laid down and the process repeats, building each layer, one by one, to form the object.11 Laser sintering can be used to create metal, plastic, and ceramic objects.11 The degree of detail is limited only by the precision of the laser and the fineness of the powder, so it is possible to create especially detailed and delicate structures with this type of printer.11

Thermal Inkjet Printing

Inkjet printing is a “noncontact” technique that uses thermal, electromagnetic, or piezoelectric technology to deposit tiny droplets of “ink” (actual ink or other materials) onto a substrate according to digital instructions.10 In inkjet printing, droplet deposition is usually done by using heat or mechanical compression to eject the ink drops.10 In TIJ printers, heating the printhead creates small air bubbles that collapse, creating pressure pulses that eject ink drops from nozzles in volumes as small as 10 to 150 picoliters.10 Droplet size can be varied by adjusting the applied temperature gradient, pulse frequency, and ink viscosity.10

TIJ printers are particularly promising for use in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.10,13Because of their digital precision, control, versatility, and benign effect on mammalian cells, this technology is already being applied to print simple 2D and 3D tissues and organs (also known as bioprinting).10 TIJ printers may also prove ideal for other sophisticated uses, such as drug delivery and gene transfection during tissue construction.10

Fused Deposition Modeling

FDM printers are much more common and inexpensive than the SLS type.11 An FDM printer uses a printhead similar to an inkjet printer.11 However, instead of ink, beads of heated plastic are released from the printhead as it moves, building the object in thin layers.4,11 This process is repeated over and over, allowing precise control of the amount and location of each deposit to shape each layer.4 Since the material is heated as it is extruded, it fuses or bonds to the layers below.4 As each layer of plastic cools, it hardens, gradually creating the solid object as the layers build.11 Depending on the complexity and cost of an FDM printer, it may have enhanced features such as multiple printheads.11 FDM printers can use a variety of plastics.11 In fact, 3D FDM printed parts are often made from the same thermoplastics that are used in traditional injection molding or machining, so they have similar stability, durability, and mechanical properties.4

REFERENCES

1. Schubert C, van Langeveld MC, Donoso LA. Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(2):159–161. [PubMed]
2. Klein GT, Lu Y, Wang MY. 3D printing and neurosurgery—ready for prime time? World Neurosurg.2013;80(3–4):233–235. [PubMed]
3. Banks J. Adding value in additive manufacturing: Researchers in the United Kingdom and Europe look to 3D printing for customization. IEEE Pulse. 2013;4(6):22–26. [PubMed]
4. Mertz L. Dream it, design it, print it in 3-D: What can 3-D printing do for you? IEEE Pulse.2013;4(6):15–21. [PubMed]
5. Ursan I, Chiu L, Pierce A. Three-dimensional drug printing: a structured review. J Am Pharm Assoc.2013;53(2):136–144. [PubMed]
6. Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY, et al. Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences. Anal Chem. 2014;86(7):3240–3253. [PubMed]
7. Bartlett S. Printing organs on demand. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1(9):684. [PubMed]
8. Science and society: Experts warn against bans on 3D printing. Science. 2013;342(6157):439. [PubMed]
9. Lipson H. New world of 3-D printing offers “completely new ways of thinking:” Q & A with author, engineer, and 3-D printing expert Hod Lipson. IEEE Pulse. 2013;4(6):12–14. [PubMed]
10. Cui X, Boland T, D’Lima DD, Lotz MK. Thermal inkjet printing in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Recent Pat Drug Deliv Formul. 2012;6(2):149–155. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Hoy MB. 3D printing: making things at the library. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32(1):94–99. [PubMed]
12. 3D Print Exchange. National Institutes of Health; Available at: http://3dprint.nih.gov. Accessed July 9, 2014.
13. Ozbolat IT, Yu Y. Bioprinting toward organ fabrication: challenges and future trends. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60(3):691–699. [PubMed]
14. Bertassoni L, Cecconi M, Manoharan V, et al. Hydrogel bioprinted microchannel networks for vascularization of tissue engineering constructs. Lab on a Chip. 2014;14(13):2202. [PMC free article][PubMed]
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal cancer statistics. Sep 2, 2014. Available at:http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics. Accessed September 17, 2014.
16. Khaled SA, Burley JC, Alexander MR, Roberts CJ. Desktop 3D printing of controlled release pharmaceutical bilayer tablets. Int J Pharm. 2014;461(1–2):105–111. [PubMed]
17. Plastics Today. FDA tackles opportunities, challenges, of 3D printed medical devices. Jun 2, 2014. Available at: http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles/FDA-tackles-opportunities-challenges-3D-printed-medical-devices-140602. Accessed July 9, 2014.
18. Food and Drug Administration Public workshop—additive manufacturing of medical devices: an interactive discussion on the technical considerations of 3D printing. Sep 3, 2014. Available at:http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/newsevents/workshopsconferences/ucm397324.htm. Accessed September 17, 2014.

Read Full Post »

The results were better if patients were assigned to take Contrave, but then didn’t!

Reporter: Aviva lev-Ari, PhD, RN

In patients who stayed on Contrave or the placebo, there was a 30% reduction in the risk of heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular deaths. But in those who stopped taking the drug, the benefit was a much greater 53%. In other words, the results were better if patients were assigned to take Contrave, but then didn’t! The differences were dramatic. In the off-treatment group, there were 12 cardiovascular deaths in the placebo group and 1 in the Contrave group.

Nissen started working with Takeda to craft a simple press release that would contain the more mature data. Each time Takeda would approve the release Orexigen would reject it. The process went on for six weeks, and even continued as Orexigen conducted an earnings call during which executives said that no decision about the study had been made.

Finally, he decided that the Cleveland Clinic would simply issue its own release, without the companies’ approval, after it was announced that the trial had stopped. This morning, that happened.

READ ENTIRE REPORT BY matthew Herper Forbes Staff

 

Read Full Post »

Cangrelor wins Clopidogrel (Plavix): reduction of Risk of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia driven revascularization, and stent thrombosis

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

FDA Advisory Panel Gives ‘Thumbs Up’ for Cangrelor in PCI

Deborah Brauser

April 15, 2015

 

SILVER SPRING, MD — The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 9 to 2, with one member abstaining, that the injectable antiplatelet agent cangrelor (the Medicines Company, Parsippany, NJ) should be approved for reducing thrombotic events in PCI—a reversal from the committee’s vote last year.

Today’s “yes” votes included acting chair Dr Philip Sager (Stanford University School of Medicine, CA). He told heartwire from Medscape after the meeting there was “a lot of good discussion,” and he was impressed that the sponsor responded several times with additional data when asked.

“Everyone was committed to making this a good meeting. And I’d say in the end that the data, taken in totality, showed that cangrelor will have an important role in the armamentarium for a subset of patients undergoing PCI,” said Sager.

Some of the “good discussion” he mentioned sounded more like hearty debate as questions and concerns were brought up throughout the day regarding the trial at the center of the new drug application. CHAMPION-PHOENIX showed positive results in its cangrelor-vs-clopidogrel comparison. However, the previousCHAMPION-PLATFORM and CHAMPION-PCI trials were both negative.

Last year, the committee voted 7 to 2 against recommending cangrelor for PCI because of data problems and they felt that the risk/benefit profile was not sufficiently strong enough. The Medicines Company then underwent further sensitivity analyses and supplied a more simplified application.

Earlier this week, FDA reviewers gave a favorable review that the agent now be approved “in patients in whom treatment with an oral P2Y12 platelet inhibitor prior to PCI is not feasible and when glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists are not anticipated to be used.” They also noted that PHOENIX was sufficient enough as a stand-alone trial to warrant approval of cangrelor[1].

However, several panel members voiced concerns both last year and this year that PHOENIX was successful only after the failure of the other two trials. “Is this a pivotal trial or just a third attempt?” asked Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle). “If we don’t like the results, can we just fish through essentially the same population to get a better efficacy point?”

Emerson, along with Dr Julia Lewis (Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN), cast the two “no” votes today. Lewis also voiced her displeasure with looking only at PHOENIX. “I have a lot of concerns that make me unwilling to accept a single trial for approval,” she said.

The one abstaining vote came from Dr Thomas Fleming (University of Washington, Seattle). “Specifically in this case, it felt more comfortable to abstain because there are issues on both sides of this,” he explained.

Even several of the “yes” voters did so after asking many, many questions throughout the day about the study and treatment procedures, population, and especially the statistical data. Still, the bottom line is that the majority of the committee voted its approval for the medication.

“I think it was important that these different sensitivity analyses were done and that more conservative approaches were statistically examined. It showed that there really is a clinically meaningful benefit of using cangrelor as compared with clopidogrel the way it was administered in the study,” said Sager.

Reference

FDA Briefing Document for the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC)

Meeting Date: 15 April 2015

NDA: 204958

Sponsor: The Medicines Company

Drug: KENGREAL (cangrelor) for Injection Proposed Indication KENGREAL is an intravenous P2Y12 platelet inhibitor indicated for for Use: reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI – PCI refers to the opening of narrowed blood vessels supplying the heart muscle by a balloon inserted through an artery puncture with or without a stent) who have not received an oral P2Y12 inhibitor prior to the PCI procedure and in whom oral therapy with P2Y12 inhibitors is not feasible or desirable (P2Y12 is a protein involved in blood clotting. Inhibiting this protein is a key mechanism of action of cangrelor). Title of Study: PHOENIX – A randomized, double-blind, parallel group, superiority study comparing cangrelor to clopidogrel in subjects who require PCI.

The primary objective was to demonstrate that cangrelor reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia driven revascularization, and stent thrombosis compared to clopidogrel.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM442199.pdf

Read Full Post »

War on Cancer Needs to Refocus to Stay Ahead of Disease Says Cancer Expert

War on Cancer Needs to Refocus to Stay Ahead of Disease Says Cancer Expert

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

Article ID #171: War on Cancer Needs to Refocus to Stay Ahead of Disease Says Cancer Expert. Published on 3/27/2015

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

UPDATED 1/08/2020

Is one of the world’s most prominent cancer researchers throwing in the towel on the War On Cancer? Not throwing in the towel, just reminding us that cancer is more complex than just a genetic disease, and in the process, giving kudos to those researchers who focus on non-genetic aspects of the disease (see Dr. Larry Bernstein’s article Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?).

 

National Public Radio (NPR) has been conducting an interview series with MIT cancer biology pioneer, founding member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and National Academy of Science member and National Medal of Science awardee Robert A. Weinberg, Ph.D., who co-discovered one of the first human oncogenes (Ras)[1], isolation of first tumor suppressor (Rb)[2], and first (with Dr. Bill Hahn) proved that cells could become tumorigenic after discrete genetic lesions[3].   In the latest NPR piece, Why The War On Cancer Hasn’t Been Won (seen on NPR’s blog by Richard Harris), Dr. Weinberg discusses a comment in an essay he wrote in the journal Cell[4], basically that, in recent years, cancer research may have focused too much on the genetic basis of cancer at the expense of multifaceted etiology of cancer, including the roles of metabolism, immunity, and physiology. Cancer is the second most cause of medically related deaths in the developed world. However, concerted efforts among most developed nations to eradicate the disease, such as increased government funding for cancer research and a mandated ‘war on cancer’ in the mid 70’s has translated into remarkable improvements in diagnosis, early detection, and cancer survival rates for many individual cancer. For example, survival rate for breast and colon cancer have improved dramatically over the last 40 years. In the UK, overall median survival times have improved from one year in 1972 to 5.8 years for patients diagnosed in 2007. In the US, the overall 5 year survival improved from 50% for all adult cancers and 62% for childhood cancer in 1972 to 68% and childhood cancer rate improved to 82% in 2007. However, for some cancers, including lung, brain, pancreatic and ovarian cancer, there has been little improvement in survival rates since the “war on cancer” has started.

(Other NPR interviews with Dr. Weinberg include How Does Cancer Spread Through The Body?)

As Weinberg said, in the 1950s, medical researchers saw cancer as “an extremely complicated process that needed to be described in hundreds, if not thousands of different ways,”. Then scientists tried to find a unifying principle, first focusing on viruses as the cause of cancer (for example rous sarcoma virus and read Dr. Gallo’s book on his early research on cancer, virology, and HIV in Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer & the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery).

However (as the blog article goes on) “that idea was replaced by the notion that cancer is all about wayward genes.”

“The thought, at least in the early 1980s, was that were a small number of these mutant, cancer-causing oncogenes, and therefore that one could understand a whole disparate group of cancers simply by studying these mutant genes that seemed to be present in many of them,” Weinberg says. “And this gave the notion, the illusion over the ensuing years, that we would be able to understand the laws of cancer formation the way we understand, with some simplicity, the laws of physics, for example.”

According to Weinberg, this gene-directed unifying theory has given way as recent evidences point back once again to a multi-faceted view of cancer etiology.

But this is not a revolutionary or conflicting idea for Dr. Weinberg, being a recipient of the 2007 Otto Warburg Medal and focusing his latest research on complex systems such as angiogenesis, cell migration, and epithelial-stromal interactions.

In fact, it was both Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Bill Hanahan who formulated eight governing principles or Hallmarks of cancer:

  1. Maintaining Proliferative Signals
  2. Avoiding Immune Destruction
  3. Evading Growth Suppressors
  4. Resisting Cell Death
  5. Becoming Immortal
  6. Angiogenesis
  7. Deregulating Cellular Energy
  8. Activating Invasion and Metastasis

Taken together, these hallmarks represent the common features that tumors have, and may involve genetic or non-genetic (epigenetic) lesions … a multi-modal view of cancer that spans over time and across disciplines. As reviewed by both Dr. Larry Bernstein and me in the e-book Volume One: Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, each scientific discipline, whether the pharmacologist, toxicologist, virologist, molecular biologist, physiologist, or cell biologist has contributed greatly to our total understanding of this disease, each from their own unique perspective based on their discipline. This leads to a “multi-modal” view on cancer etiology and diagnosis, treatment. Many of the improvements in survival rates are a direct result of the massive increase in the knowledge of tumor biology obtained through ardent basic research. Breakthrough discoveries regarding oncogenes, cancer cell signaling, survival, and regulated death mechanisms, tumor immunology, genetics and molecular biology, biomarker research, and now nanotechnology and imaging, have directly led to the advances we now we in early detection, chemotherapy, personalized medicine, as well as new therapeutic modalities such as cancer vaccines and immunotherapies and combination chemotherapies. Molecular and personalized therapies such as trastuzumab and aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer, imatnib for CML and GIST related tumors, bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer have been a direct result of molecular discoveries into the nature of cancer. This then leads to an interesting question (one to be tackled in another post):

Would shifting focus less on cancer genome and back to cancer biology limit the progress we’ve made in personalized medicine?

 

In a 2012 post Genomics And Targets For The Treatment Of Cancer: Is Our New World Turning Into “Pharmageddon” Or Are We On The Threshold Of Great Discoveries? Dr. Leonard Lichtenfield, MD, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the ACS, comments on issues regarding the changes which genomics and personalized strategy has on oncology drug development. As he notes, in the past, chemotherapy development was sort of ‘hit or miss’ and the dream and promise of genomics suggested an era of targeted therapy, where drug development was more ‘rational’ and targets were easily identifiable.

To quote his post

That was the dream, and there have been some successes–even apparent cures or long term control–with the used of targeted medicines with biologic drugs such as Gleevec®, Herceptin® and Avastin®. But I think it is fair to say that the progress and the impact hasn’t been quite what we thought it would be. Cancer has proven a wily foe, and every time we get answers to questions what we usually get are more questions that need more answers. The complexity of the cancer cell is enormous, and its adaptability and the genetic heterogeneity of even primary cancers (as recently reported in a research paper in the New England Journal of Medicine) has been surprising, if not (realistically) unexpected.

                                                                               ”

Indeed the complexity of a given patient’s cancer (especially solid tumors) with regard to its genetic and mutation landscape (heterogeneity) [please see post with interview with Dr. Swanton on tumor heterogeneity] has been at the forefront of many clinicians minds [see comments within the related post as well as notes from recent personalized medicine conferences which were covered live on this site including the PMWC15 and Harvard Personalized Medicine conference this past fall].

In addition, Dr. Lichtenfeld makes some interesting observations including:

  • A “pharmageddon” where drug development risks/costs exceed the reward so drug developers keep their ‘wallets shut’. For example even for targeted therapies it takes $12 billion US to develop a drug versus $2 billion years ago
  • Drugs are still drugs and failure in clinical trials is still a huge risk
  • “Eroom’s Law” (like “Moore’s Law” but opposite effect) – increasing costs with decreasing success
  • Limited market for drugs targeted to a select mutant; what he called “slice and dice”

The pros and cons of focusing solely on targeted therapeutic drug development versus using a systems biology approach was discussed at the 2013 Institute of Medicine’s national Cancer Policy Summit.

  • Andrea Califano, PhD – Precision Medicine predictions based on statistical associations where systems biology predictions based on a physical regulatory model
  • Spyro Mousses, PhD – open biomedical knowledge and private patient data should be combined to form systems oncology clearinghouse to form evolving network, linking drugs, genomic data, and evolving multiscalar models
  • Razelle Kurzrock, MD – What if every patient with metastatic disease is genomically unique? Problem with model of smaller trials (so-called N=1 studies) of genetically similar disease: drugs may not be easily acquired or re-purposed, and greater regulatory burdens

So, discoveries of oncogenes, tumor suppressors, mutant variants, high-end sequencing, and the genomics and bioinformatic era may have led to advent of targeted chemotherapies with genetically well-defined patient populations, a different focus in chemotherapy development

… but as long as we have the conversation open I have no fear of myopia within the field, and multiple viewpoints on origins and therapeutic strategies will continue to develop for years to come.

References

  1. Parada LF, Tabin CJ, Shih C, Weinberg RA: Human EJ bladder carcinoma oncogene is homologue of Harvey sarcoma virus ras gene. Nature 1982, 297(5866):474-478.
  2. Friend SH, Bernards R, Rogelj S, Weinberg RA, Rapaport JM, Albert DM, Dryja TP: A human DNA segment with properties of the gene that predisposes to retinoblastoma and osteosarcoma. Nature 1986, 323(6089):643-646.
  3. Hahn WC, Counter CM, Lundberg AS, Beijersbergen RL, Brooks MW, Weinberg RA: Creation of human tumour cells with defined genetic elements. Nature 1999, 400(6743):464-468.
  4. Weinberg RA: Coming full circle-from endless complexity to simplicity and back again. Cell 2014, 157(1):267-271.

 

UPDATED 1/08/2020

from the Washington Post

Cancer death rate posts biggest one-year drop ever

The 2.2 percent decline in 2017 is part of a long-term decrease in mortality rates.

Jan. 8, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. EST

The cancer death rate in the United States fell 2.2 percent in 2017 — the biggest single-year drop ever reported — propelled by gains against lung cancer, the American Cancer Society said Wednesday.

Declines in the mortality rate for lung cancer have accelerated in recent years in response to new treatments and falling smoking rates, said Rebecca Siegel, lead author of Cancer Statistics 2020, the latest edition of the organization’s annual report on cancer trends.

The improvement in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, is part of a long-term drop in cancer mortality that reflects, to a large extent, the smoking downturn. Since peaking in 1991, the cancer death rate has fallen 29 percent, which translates into 2.9 million fewer deaths.

Norman “Ned” Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institute, which was not involved in the report, said the data reinforces that “we are making steady progress” on cancer. For lung cancer, he pointed to new immunotherapy treatments and so-called targeted therapies that stop the action of molecules key to cancer growth. He predicted that the mortality rate would continue to fall “as we get better at using these therapies.” Multiple clinical trials are exploring how to combine the new approaches with older ones, such as chemotherapy.

Sharpless expressed concern, however, that progress against cancer would be undermined by increased obesity, which is a risk factor for several malignancies.

The cancer society report projected 1.8 million new cases of cancer in the United States this year and more than 606,000 deaths. Nationally, cancer is the second-leading cause of death after heart disease in both men and women. It is the No. 1 cause in many states, and among Hispanic and Asian Americans and people younger than 80, the report said.

The cancer death rate is defined as deaths per 100,000 people. The cancer society has been reporting the rate since 1930.

Because lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths, accounting for 1 in 4, any change in the mortality rate has a large effect on the overall cancer death rate, Siegel noted.

She described the gains against lung cancer, and against another often deadly cancer, melanoma, as “exciting.” But, she added, “the news this year is mixed” because of slower progress against colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. Those cancers often can be detected early by screening, she said.

The report said substantial racial and geographic disparities remain for highly preventable cancers, such as cervical cancer, and called for “the equitable application” of cancer control measures.

The five-year survival rate for all cancers diagnosed from 2009 through 2015 was 67 percent overall — 68 percent for whites and 62 percent for African Americans.

In recent years, melanoma has showed the biggest mortality-rate drop of any cancer. That’s largely a result of breakthrough treatments such as immunotherapy, which unleashes the patient’s own immune system to fight the cancer and was approved for advanced melanoma in 2011.

Other posts on this site on The War on Cancer and Origins of Cancer include:

 

2013 Perspective on “War on Cancer” on December 23, 1971

Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?

World facing cancer ‘tidal wave’, warns WHO

2013 American Cancer Research Association Award for Outstanding Achievement in Chemistry in Cancer Research: Professor Alexander Levitzki

Genomics and Metabolomics Advances in Cancer

The Changing Economics of Cancer Medicine: Causes for the Vanishing of Independent Oncology Groups in the US

Cancer Research Pioneer, after 71 years of Immunology Lab Research, Herman Eisen, MD, MIT Professor Emeritus of Biology, dies at 96

My Cancer Genome from Vanderbilt University: Matching Tumor Mutations to Therapies & Clinical Trials

Articles on Cancer-Related Topic in http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com Scientific Journal

Issues in Personalized Medicine in Cancer: Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing

Issues in Personalized Medicine: Discussions of Intratumor Heterogeneity from the Oncology Pharma forum on LinkedIn

Introduction – The Evolution of Cancer Therapy and Cancer Research: How We Got Here?

Read Full Post »

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

 

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

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Article ID #169: Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting. Published on 3/11/2015

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Achievement Beyond Regulatory Approval – Design for Commercial Success

philly2nightStephen J. Williams, Ph.D.: Reporter

The Mid-Atlantic group Life Sciences Collaborative, a select group of industry veterans and executives from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device sectors whose mission is to increase the success of emerging life sciences businesses in the Mid-Atlantic region through networking, education, training and mentorship, met Tuesday March 3, 2015 at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (USP) to discuss post-approval regulatory issues and concerns such as designing strong patent protection, developing strategies for insurance reimbursement, and securing financing for any stage of a business.

The meeting was divided into three panel discussions and keynote speech:

  1. Panel 1: Design for Market Protection– Intellectual Property Strategy Planning
  2. Panel 2: Design for Market Success– Commercial Strategy Planning
  3. Panel 3: Design for Investment– Financing Each Stage
  4. Keynote Speaker: Robert Radie, President & CEO Egalet Corporation

Below are Notes from each PANEL Discussion:

For more information about the Life Sciences Collaborative SEE

Website: http://www.lifesciencescollaborative.org/

Or On Facebook

Or On Twitter @LSCollaborative

Panel 1: Design for Market Protection; Intellectual Property Strategy Planning

Take-home Message: Developing a very strong Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio and strategy for a startup is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT for its long-term success. Potential investors, partners, and acquirers will focus on the strength of a startup’s IP so important to take advantage of the legal services available. Do your DUE DIGILENCE.

Panelists:

John F. Ritter, J.D.., MBA; Director Office Tech. Licensing Princeton University

Cozette McAvoy; Senior Attorney Novartis Oncology Pharma Patents

Ryan O’Donnell; Partner Volpe & Koenig

Panel Moderator: Dipanjan “DJ” Nag, PhD, MBA, CLP, RTTP; President CEO IP Shaktl, LLC

Notes:

Dr. Nag:

  • Sometimes IP can be a double edged sword; e.g. Herbert Boyer with Paul Berg and Stanley Cohen credited with developing recombinant technology but they did not keep the IP strict and opened the door for a biotech revolution (see nice review from Chemical Heritage Foundation).
  • Naked patent licenses are most profitable when try to sell IP

John Ritter: Mr. Ritter gave Princeton University’s perspective on developing and promoting a university-based IP portfolio.

  • 30-40% of Princeton’s IP portfolio is related to life sciences
  • Universities will prefer to seek provisional patent status as a quicker process and allows for publication
  • Princeton will work closely with investigators to walk them through process – Very Important to have support system in place INCLUDING helping investigators and early startups establish a STRONG startup MANAGEMENT TEAM, and making important introductions to and DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIOPS with investors, angels
  • Good to cast a wide net when looking at early development partners like pharma
  • Good example of university which takes active role in developing startups is University of Pennsylvania’s Penn UPstart program.
  • Last 2 years many universities filing patents for startups as a micro-entity

Comment from attendee: Universities are not using enough of their endowments for purpose of startups. Princeton only using $500,00 for accelerator program.

Cozette McAvoy: Mrs. McAvoy talked about monetizing your IP from an industry perspective

  • Industry now is looking at “indirect monetization” of their and others IP portfolio. Indirect monetization refers to unlocking the “indirect value” of intellectual property; for example research tools, processes, which may or may not be related to a tangible product.
  • Good to make a contractual bundle of IP – “days of the $million check is gone”
  • Big companies like big pharma looks to PR (press relation) buzz surrounding new technology, products SO IMPORTANT FOR STARTUP TO FOCUS ON YOUR PR

Ryan O’Donnell: talked about how life science IP has changed especially due to America Invests Act

  • Need to develop a GLOBAL IP strategy so whether drug or device can market in multiple countries
  • Diagnostics and genes not patentable now – Major shift in patent strategy
  • Companies like Unified Patents can protect you against the patent trolls – if patent threatened by patent troll (patent assertion entity) will file a petition with the USPTO (US Patent Office) requesting institution of inter partes review (IPR); this may cost $40,000 BUT WELL WORTH the money – BE PROACTIVE about your patents and IP

Panel 2: Design for Market Success; Commercial Strategy Planning

Take-home Message: Commercial strategy development is defined market facing data, reimbursement strategies and commercial planning that inform labeling requirements, clinical study designs, healthcare economic outcomes and pricing targets. Clarity from payers is extremely important to develop any market strategy. Develop this strategy early and seek advice from payers.

Panelists:

David Blaszczak; Founder, Precipio Health Strategies

Terri Bernacchi, PharmD, MBA; Founder & President Cambria Health Advisory Professionals

Paul Firuta; President US Commercial Operations, NPS Pharma

 

Panel Moderator: Matt Cabrey; Executive Director, Select Greater Philadelphia

 

Notes:

David Blaszczak:

  • Commercial payers are bundling payment: most important to get clarity from these payers
  • Payers are using clinical trials to alter marketing (labeling) so IMPORTANT to BUILD LABEL in early clinical trial phases (phase I or II)
  • When in early phases of small company best now to team or partner with a Medicare or PBM (pharmacy benefit manager) and payers to help develop and spot tier1 and tier 2 companies in their area

Terri Bernacchi:

  • Building relationship with the payer is very important but firms like hers will also look to patients and advocacy groups to see how they respond to a given therapy and decrease the price risk by bundling
  • Value-based contracting with manufacturers can save patient and payer $$
  • As most PBMs formularies are 80% generics goal is how to make money off of generics
  • Patent extension would have greatest impact on price, value

Paul Firuta:

  • NPS Pharma developing a pharmacy benefit program for orphan diseases
  • How you pay depends on mix of Medicare, private payers now
  • Most important change which could affect price is change in compliance regulations

Panel 3: Design for Investment; Financing Each Stage

Take-home Message: VC is a personal relationship so spend time making those relationships. Do your preparation on your value and your market. Look to non-VC avenues: they are out there.

Panelists:

Ting Pau Oei; Managing Director, Easton Capital (NYC)

Manya Deehr; CEO & Founder, Pediva Therapeutics

Sanjoy Dutta, PhD; Assistant VP, Translational Devel. & Intl. Res., Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

 

Panel Moderator: Shahram Hejazi, PhD; Venture Partner, BioAdvance

  • In 2000 his experience finding 1st capital was what are your assets; now has changed to value

Notes:

Ting Pau Oei:

  • Your very 1st capital is all about VALUE– so plan where you add value
  • Venture Capital is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
  • 1) you need the management team, 2) be able to communicate effectively                  (Powerpoint, elevator pitch, business plan) and #1 and #2 will get you important 2nd Venture Capital meeting; VC’s don’t decide anything in 1st meeting
  • VC’s don’t normally do a good job of premarket valuation or premarket due diligence but know post market valuation well
  • Best advice: show some phase 2 milestones and VC will knock on your door

Manya Deehr:

  • Investment is more niche oriented so find your niche investors
  • Define your product first and then match the investors
  • Biggest failure she has experienced: companies that go out too early looking for capital

Dr. Dutta: funding from a non-profit patient advocacy group perspective

  • Your First Capital: find alliances which can help you get out of “valley of death
  • Develop a targeted product and patient treatment profile
  • Non-profit groups ask three questions:

1) what is the value to patients (non-profits want to partner)

2) what is your timeline (we can wait longer than VC; for example Cystic Fibrosis Foundation waited long time but got great returns for their patients with Kalydeco™)

3) when can we see return

  • Long-term market projections are the knowledge gaps that startups have (the landscape) and startups don’t have all the competitive intelligence
  • Have a plan B every step of the way

Other posts on this site related to Philadelphia Biotech, Startup Funding, Payer Issues, and Intellectual Property Issues include:

PCCI’s 7th Annual Roundtable “Crowdfunding for Life Sciences: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?” May 12 2014 Embassy Suites Hotel, Chesterbrook PA 6:00-9:30 PM
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on KannaLife Sciences and the Discipline and Potential of Pharmacognosy
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Computer-Aided Drug Design and Gfree Bio, LLC
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Vaccines and Philimmune, LLC
The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: The Bigger Better VC?
Foundations as a Funding Source
Venture Capital Funding in the Life Sciences: Phase4 Ventures – A Case Study
10 heart-focused apps & devices are crowdfunding for American Heart Association’s open innovation challenge
Funding, Deals & Partnerships
Medicare Panel Punts on Best Tx for Carotid Plaque
9:15AM–2:00PM, January 27, 2015 – Regulatory & Reimbursement Frameworks for Molecular Testing, LIVE @Silicon Valley 2015 Personalized Medicine World Conference, Mountain View, CA
FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg on HealthCare for 310Million Americans and the Role of Personalized Medicine
Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers
Litigation on the Way: Broad Institute Gets Patent on Revolutionary Gene-Editing Method
The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century

 

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »