Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Genetics & Innovations in Treatment’ Category


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now regarded as a huge clinical success which has benefitted an estimated 16 million parents, at the time the development not only sparked moral outrage but led to political and legislative constraints. Patients undergoing IVF may be presented with numerous assisted reproductive treatments purportedly increasing the chances of pregnancy. Such commercialised “IVF add-ons” often come at high costs without clinical evidence of validity. Additionally, long-term studies of children born through IVF have historically been scarce and inconsistent in their data collection. This has meant that potential genetic predispositions, such as increased body fat composition and blood pressure, as well as congenital abnormalities long associated with IVF births, lack proof of causality.

 

With Preimplantation genetic testing mutated embryos are automatically discarded, whereas CRISPR could correct mutations to increase the number of viable embryos for implantation. Moreover, in instances where all embryos in a given cycle are destined to develop with severe or lethal mutations, CRISPR could bring success for otherwise doomed IVF treatments. Genetic screening programs offered to couples in hot-spot areas of carrier frequency of monogenic disorders have had huge success in alleviating regional disease burdens. Carried out since the 1970s these programs have altered the course of natural evolution, but few would dispute their benefits in preventing heritable disease transmission.

 

Mutations are as inevitable as death and taxes. Whilst age is considered one of the largest factors in de-novo mutation generation, it appears that these are inherited primarily from the paternal line. Thus, the paternal age of conception predominantly determines the mutation frequency inherited by children. Whereas advanced maternal age is not associated with mutagenic allele frequency but chromosomal abnormalities. The risk of aneuploidy rises steadily in mothers over the age of 26. Although embryos are screened for aneuploidy prior to implantation, with so many other factors simultaneously being screened the probability of having enough embryos remaining to allow for 50% rate of blastocyte development in-vitro are often fairly low.

 

Despite IVF being used routinely for over 40 years now, it’s not abundantly clear if, or how often, IVF may introduce genomic alternations or off-target affects in embryos. Likewise, scientists and clinicians are often unable to scrutinise changes produced through natural cellular processes including recombination and aging. So, it may be OK to do controlled experiments on using CRISPR to try and prevent multi-generational suffering. But, there has to be a long term investigation on the side effects of germline genome editing. Science has advanced a lot but still there are lot of things that are yet to be described or discovered by science. Trying to reduce human suffering should not give rise to new bigger sufferings and care must be taken not to create a Frankenstein.

 

References:

 

http://www.frontlinegenomics.com/news/29321/opinion-piece-morally-is-germline-genome-editing-all-that-different-to-ivf/

 

Read Full Post »


Medicine in 2045 – Perspectives by World Thought Leaders in the Life Sciences & Medicine

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

This report is based on an article in Nature Medicine | VOL 25 | December 2019 | 1800–1809 | http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine

Looking forward 25 years: the future of medicine.

Nat Med 25, 1804–1807 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0693-y

 

Aviv Regev, PhD

Core member and chair of the faculty, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; director, Klarman Cell Observatory, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; professor of biology, MIT; investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; founding co-chair, Human Cell Atlas.

  • millions of genome variants, tens of thousands of disease-associated genes, thousands of cell types and an almost unimaginable number of ways they can combine, we had to approximate a best starting point—choose one target, guess the cell, simplify the experiment.
  • In 2020, advances in polygenic risk scores, in understanding the cell and modules of action of genes through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and in predicting the impact of combinations of interventions.
  • we need algorithms to make better computational predictions of experiments we have never performed in the lab or in clinical trials.
  • Human Cell Atlas and the International Common Disease Alliance—and in new experimental platforms: data platforms and algorithms. But we also need a broader ecosystem of partnerships in medicine that engages interaction between clinical experts and mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers

Feng Zhang, PhD

investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; core member, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT.

  • fundamental shift in medicine away from treating symptoms of disease and toward treating disease at its genetic roots.
  • Gene therapy with clinical feasibility, improved delivery methods and the development of robust molecular technologies for gene editing in human cells, affordable genome sequencing has accelerated our ability to identify the genetic causes of disease.
  • 1,000 clinical trials testing gene therapies are ongoing, and the pace of clinical development is likely to accelerate.
  • refine molecular technologies for gene editing, to push our understanding of gene function in health and disease forward, and to engage with all members of society

Elizabeth Jaffee, PhD

Dana and Albert “Cubby” Broccoli Professor of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; deputy director, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins.

  • a single blood test could inform individuals of the diseases they are at risk of (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.) and that safe interventions will be available.
  • developing cancer vaccines. Vaccines targeting the causative agents of cervical and hepatocellular cancers have already proven to be effective. With these technologies and the wealth of data that will become available as precision medicine becomes more routine, new discoveries identifying the earliest genetic and inflammatory changes occurring within a cell as it transitions into a pre-cancer can be expected. With these discoveries, the opportunities to develop vaccine approaches preventing cancers development will grow.

Jeremy Farrar, OBE FRCP FRS FMedSci

Director, Wellcome Trust.

  • shape how the culture of research will develop over the next 25 years, a culture that cares more about what is achieved than how it is achieved.
  • building a creative, inclusive and open research culture will unleash greater discoveries with greater impact.

John Nkengasong, PhD

Director, Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • To meet its health challenges by 2050, the continent will have to be innovative in order to leapfrog toward solutions in public health.
  • Precision medicine will need to take center stage in a new public health order— whereby a more precise and targeted approach to screening, diagnosis, treatment and, potentially, cure is based on each patient’s unique genetic and biologic make-up.

Eric Topol, MD

Executive vice-president, Scripps Research Institute; founder and director, Scripps Research Translational Institute.

  • In 2045, a planetary health infrastructure based on deep, longitudinal, multimodal human data, ideally collected from and accessible to as many as possible of the 9+ billion people projected to then inhabit the Earth.
  • enhanced capabilities to perform functions that are not feasible now.
  • AI machines’ ability to ingest and process biomedical text at scale—such as the corpus of the up-to-date medical literature—will be used routinely by physicians and patients.
  • the concept of a learning health system will be redefined by AI.

Linda Partridge, PhD

Professor, Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing.

  • Geroprotective drugs, which target the underlying molecular mechanisms of ageing, are coming over the scientific and clinical horizons, and may help to prevent the most intractable age-related disease, dementia.

Trevor Mundel, MD

President of Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  • finding new ways to share clinical data that are as open as possible and as closed as necessary.
  • moving beyond drug donations toward a new era of corporate social responsibility that encourages biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to offer their best minds and their most promising platforms.
  • working with governments and multilateral organizations much earlier in the product life cycle to finance the introduction of new interventions and to ensure the sustainable development of the health systems that will deliver them.
  • deliver on the promise of global health equity.

Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD

Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO); president, European Society for Medical Oncology (2018–2019).

  • genomic-driven analysis will continue to broaden the impact of personalized medicine in healthcare globally.
  • Precision medicine will continue to deliver its new paradigm in cancer care and reach more patients.
  • Immunotherapy will deliver on its promise to dismantle cancer’s armory across tumor types.
  • AI will help guide the development of individually matched
  • genetic patient screenings
  • the promise of liquid biopsy policing of disease?

Pardis Sabeti, PhD

Professor, Harvard University & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

  • the development and integration of tools into an early-warning system embedded into healthcare systems around the world could revolutionize infectious disease detection and response.
  • But this will only happen with a commitment from the global community.

Els Toreele, PhD

Executive director, Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign

  • we need a paradigm shift such that medicines are no longer lucrative market commodities but are global public health goods—available to all those who need them.
  • This will require members of the scientific community to go beyond their role as researchers and actively engage in R&D policy reform mandating health research in the public interest and ensuring that the results of their work benefit many more people.
  • The global research community can lead the way toward public-interest driven health innovation, by undertaking collaborative open science and piloting not-for-profit R&D strategies that positively impact people’s lives globally.

Read Full Post »


Risks from Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) may be reduced by Genotyping Guidance of Cardiac Patients

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Genotyping Cardiac Patients May Reduce Risks From DAPT

-STEMI patient study reaches noninferiority mark for adverse cardiac events

In the investigational arm, all 1,242 patients were tested for CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles *2 or *3. Carriers received ticagrelor or prasugrel, while noncarriers received clopidogrel, considered to be less powerful.

No genetic testing was performed in the standard treatment arm (n=1,246), in which patients largely went on to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. Nearly all patients in both cohorts received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin.

Following primary PCI, patients went on to the P2Y12 inhibitor for at least 12 months, with drug adherence similar between the genotype-guided (84.5%) and standard groups (82.0%).

For patients with CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles in the genotype-guided arm, 38% received ticagrelor and 1% received prasugrel. The remaining 61% of patients — the noncarriers — received clopidogrel. In the control arm, 91% were treated with ticagrelor, 2% with prasugrel, and 7% with clopidogrel, according to local protocol.

Ten Berg said that prasugrel is not typically used in the Netherlands, where eight of the centers in the trial were located, but that this might change given that the drug lowered rates of ischemic events versus ticagrelor in the head-to-head ISAR REACT 5 trial, which was also presented at ESC.

Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Gene Therapy 2.0: No Longer Science Fiction 1:00-2:15 pm June 3 Philadelphia PA

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams Ph.D. @StephenJWillia2

kkjk

Other Articles on Gene Therapy on this Open Access Journal Include:

Read Full Post »


Human gene editing continues to hold a major fascination within a biomedical and biopharmaceutical industries. It’s extraordinary potential is now being realized but important questions as to who will be the beneficiaries of such breakthrough technologies remained to be answered. The session will discuss whether gene editing technologies can alleviate some of the most challenging unmet medical needs. We will discuss how research advances often never reach minority communities and how diverse patient populations will gain access to such breakthrough technologies. It is widely recognize that there are patient voids in the population and we will explore how community health centers might fill this void to ensure that state-of-the-art technologies can reach the forgotten patient groups . We also will touch ethical questions surrounding germline editing and how such research and development could impact the community at large.

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

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

Read Full Post »


First Cost-Effectiveness Study of Multi-Gene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Shows Moderate Cost-Effectiveness, Exposes Crucial Practice Gap

WASHINGTON (June 27, 2019) — The results of the first economic modeling study to estimate the cost-effectiveness of “multi-gene panel sequencing” (MGPS) as compared to standard-of-care, single-gene tests for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) show that the MGPS tests are moderately cost-effective but could deliver more value if patients with test results identifying actionable genetic mutations consistently received genetically guided treatments. The results of the study, which was commissioned by the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC), underline the need to align clinical practices with an era of personalized medicine in which physicians can use diagnostic tests to identify specific biological markers that inform targeted prevention and treatment plans.

The study, which was published yesterday in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, analyzed the clinical and economic value of using MGPS testing to identify patients with tumors that over-express genetic mutations that could be targeted by available therapies designed to inhibit the function of those genes — a mainstay of modern care for aNSCLC patients. Using data provided by Flatiron Health, researchers examined clinical and cost information associated with the care of 5,688 patients with aNSCLC treated between 2011 – 2016, separating them into cohorts who received MGPS tests that assess at least 30 genetic mutations at once and those who received only “single-marker genetic testing” (SMGT) of less than 30 genes.

Compared to SMGT, the MGPS testing strategy, including downstream treatment and monitoring of disease, incurred costs equal to $148,478 for each year of life that it facilitated, a level suggesting that MGPS is moderately cost-effective compared to commonly cited thresholds in the U.S., which range from $50,000 to $200,000 per life year (LY) gained.

The authors of the study point out, however, that physicians only prescribed a targeted therapy to some of the patients whose MGPS test results revealed actionable mutations. MGPS tests can only improve downstream patient outcomes if actionable results are used to put the patient on a targeted treatment regimen that is more effective than the therapy they would otherwise have been prescribed. It is therefore impossible for the cost of an MGPS test to translate into additional LYs if actionable results do not result in the selection of a targeted treatment regimen.

Although MGPS testing revealed actionable mutations in 30.1 percent of the patients in the study cohort, only 21.4 percent of patients who underwent MGPS testing received a targeted treatment.

The study’s authors calculated that if all MGPS-tested patients with actionable mutations had received a targeted therapy, MGPS testing would deliver measurably better value ($110,000 per LY gained).

“This research underlines the importance of ensuring that clinical practices keep pace with scientific progress in personalized medicine so that we can maximize the benefits of diagnostic tests that can improve patient care and make the health system more efficient by ensuring that safe and effective targeted therapies are prescribed to those patients who will benefit,” said PMC President Edward Abrahams.

The study’s authors include Dr. Lotte Steuten, Vice President and Head of Consulting, The Office of Health Economics, London, U.K., and Affiliate Associate Faculty Member, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Dr. Bernardo Goulart, Associate Faculty Member, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Dr. Neal Meropol, Vice President, Research Oncology, Flatiron Health; Dr. Daryl Pritchard, Senior Vice President, Science Policy, Personalized Medicine Coalition; and Dr. Scott Ramsey, Director, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

###

About the Personalized Medicine Coalition:

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

SOURCE

From: Personalized Medicine Coalition <pmc@personalizedmedicinecoalition.org>

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

Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:32 AM

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

Subject: First Cost-Effectiveness Study of MGPS in aNSCLC Shows Moderate Cost-Effectiveness, Exposes Crucial Practice Gap

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Chat with @FDA Commissioner, & Challenges in Biotech & Gene Therapy June 4 Philadelphia

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

  • taking patient concerns and voices from anecdotal to data driven system
  • talked about patient accrual hearing patient voice not only in ease of access but reporting toxicities
  • at FDA he wants to remove barriers to trial access and accrual; also talk earlier to co’s on how they should conduct a trial

Digital tech

  • software as medical device
  • regulatory path is mixed like next gen sequencing
  • wearables are concern for FDA (they need to recruit scientists who know this tech

Opioids

  • must address the crisis but in a way that does not harm cancer pain patients
  • smaller pain packs “blister packs” would be good idea

Clinical trial modernization

  • for Alzheimers disease problem is science
  • for diabetes problem is regulatory
  • different diseases calls for different trial design
  • have regulatory problems with rare diseases as can’t form control or placebo group, inhumane. for example ras tumors trials for MEK inhibitors were narrowly focused on certain ras mutants
Realizing the Promise of Gene Therapies for Patients Around the World

103ABC, Level 100

Speakers
Lots of promise, timeline is progressing faster but we need more education on use of the gene therapy
Regulatory issues: Cell and directly delivered gene based therapies have been now approved. Some challenges will be the ultrarare disease trials and how we address manufacturing issues.  Manufacturing is a big issue at CBER and scalability.  If we want to have global impact of these products we need to address the manufacturing issues
 of scalability.
Pfizer – clinical grade and scale is important.
Aventis – he knew manufacturing of biologics however gene therapy manufacturing has its separate issues and is more complicated especially for regulatory purposes for clinical grade as well as scalability.  Strategic decision: focusing on the QC on manufacturing was so important.  Had a major issue in manufacturing had to shut down and redesign the system.
Albert:  Manufacturing is the most important topic even to the investors.  Investors were really conservative especially seeing early problems but when academic centers figured out good efficacy then they investors felt better and market has exploded.  Now you can see investment into preclinical and startups but still want mature companies to focus on manufacturing.  About $10 billion investment in last 4 years.

How Early is Too Early? Valuing and De-Risking Preclinical Opportunities

109AB, Level 100

Speakers
Valuing early-stage opportunities is challenging. Modeling will often provide a false sense of accuracy but relying on comparable transactions is more art than science. With a long lead time to launch, even the most robust estimates can ultimately prove inaccurate. This interactive panel will feature venture capital investors and senior pharma and biotech executives who lead early-stage transactions as they discuss their approaches to valuing opportunities, and offer key learnings from both successful and not-so-successful experiences.
Dr. Schoenbeck, Pfizer:
  • global network of liaisons who are a dedicated team to research potential global startup partners or investments.  Pfizer has a separate team to evaluate academic laboratories.  In Most cases Pfizer does not initiate contact.  It is important to initiate the first discussion with them in order to get noticed.  Could be just a short chat or discussion on what their needs are for their portfolio.

Question: How early is too early?

Luc Marengere, TVM:  His company has early stage focus, on 1st in class molecules.  The sweet spot for their investment is a candidate selected compound, which should be 12-18 months from IND.  They will want to bring to phase II in less than 4 years for $15-17 million.  Their development model is bad for academic labs.  During this process free to talk to other partners.

Dr. Chaudhary, Biogen:  Never too early to initiate a conversation and sometimes that conversation has lasted 3+ years before a decision.  They like build to buy models, will do convertible note deals, candidate compound selection should be entering in GLP/Tox phase (sweet spot)

Merck: have MRL Venture Fund for pre series A funding.  Also reiterated it is never too early to have that initial discussion.  It will not put you in a throw away bin.  They will have suggestions and never like to throw out good ideas.

Michael Hostetler: Set expectations carefully ; data should be validated by a CRO.  If have a platform, they will look at the team first to see if strong then will look at the platform to see how robust it is.

All noted that you should be completely honest at this phase.  Do not overstate your results or data or overhype your compound(s).  Show them everything and don’t have a bias toward compounds you think are the best in your portfolio.  Sometimes the least developed are the ones they are interested in.  Also one firm may reject you however you may fit in others portfolios better so have a broad range of conversations with multiple players.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »