Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
We, the Weizmann Institute of Science community, deeply mourn the passing of Prof. Zelig Eshhar of the Department of Immunology and Regenerative Biology. Prof. Eshhar was a trailblazing scientist in the field of cancer immunotherapy, a recipient of the Israel Prize in Life Science, and an acclaimed researcher who dedicated his life to life-saving research. May he rest in peace.
This Fourth of July weekend, a time when freedom and new beginnings are celebrated, we mourn the loss of one of science’s great liberators, Dr. Zelig Eshhar. His passing is deeply personal to me and profoundly impactful for the field of cancer immunotherapy.
Zelig was more than a scientist. He was a visionary who redefined what was possible in cancer treatment. As the “father” of CAR T therapy, he broke the bounds of conventional oncology and empowered the immune system to do what it was always meant to do: fight cancer. His pioneering work on chimeric antigen receptors, which began at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and continued at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the The National Institutes of Health under another cancer legend, Dr. Steve Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., sparked a revolution that now brings hope to thousands of patients worldwide.
In December 2013, Kite Pharma licensed the groundbreaking CAR constructs Zelig had pioneered, forming the scientific backbone of our mission. His trust in our team was instrumental in building Kite, and he served on our Scientific Advisory Board with the humility and wisdom of a true giant. I will never forget when Zelig signed his agreement with Kite and inscribed a 50-shekel note in front of Ran Nussbaum, a fellow board member, and I, to mark “a new beginning” for CAR T therapy. Though small in size, that note carries monumental symbolic value – a belief in a better future.
One of my most cherished photographs is from 2013, standing with Dr. Zelig Eshhar and Dr. Rosenberg, two visionaries who helped launch a new chapter in medicine. That image captures more than a historic moment; it marks the start of a true paradigm shift. I knew I was among giants, but I didn’t yet grasp how life-changing that moment would be. It was Zelig who first showed us how to combine the precision of antibodies with the power of T cells, creating a therapeutic approach that would redefine what’s possible, not just in oncology, but across the spectrum of disease.
The Fourth of July celebrates independence. How fitting that we remember Zelig on this day, a man who gave medicine its own independence from the limitations of traditional cancer therapies. His legacy is not just in the patents he held or the publications he authored, but in every patient who now lives longer, stronger, and freer because of CAR T cell therapy.
To me, Zelig Eshhar will always be remembered not only as a pioneering scientist but also as a quiet hero, a generous mentor, and a dear friend. We honor him not just with words, but with action, by continuing to build, to innovate, and to carry forward the mission he began.
Zelig, your vision endures in every cell, every cure, and every life saved.
Prof. Selig Ashchar – one of the fathers of immunotherapy research in Israel – has passed away
Israel Prize laureate Prof. Zelig Ashchar, who was head of immunology research at Ichilov, has died at the age of 84. “My real prize is saving lives,” Ashchar said before receiving the Israel Prize 10 years ago. Ichilov Hospital paid tribute: “Beyond his unprecedented scientific achievements, Prof. Ashchar was a guide, mentor and an extraordinary human being – dedicated to his students, his colleagues and to science.”
Israel Prize laureate, Prof. Selig Ashchar of the Weizmann Institute of Science, who was head of immunological research at Ichilov Hospital and a pioneer in immunotherapy research for cancer treatment, passed away at the age of 84. He is survived by three children and grandchildren
Ichilov Hospital paid tribute to him: “It is with deep sadness that we at Ichilov Hospital say goodbye to the late Prof. Selig Ashchar – a groundbreaking scientist, Israel Prize laureate, and the one who served as the head of immunological research at Ichilov. Prof. Ashchar was one of the fathers of CAR-T therapy, a real revolution in the field of cancer research, which gave new hope and life to countless patients around the world. Thanks to him, Israel became a world leader in the field of immunotherapy, and patients who had no hope – were given a new chance.”
Prof. Zelig Ashchar upon receiving the Israel Prize in 2015
( Photo: Gil Yohanan )
Ichilov also said that “Beyond his unprecedented scientific achievements, Prof. Ashhar was a guide, mentor, and an extraordinary human being – dedicated to his students, his colleagues, and to science. His spirit and legacy will continue to inspire generations of researchers and therapists. We send our deepest condolences to his family, his loved ones, and all his partners in scientific and clinical endeavors. May his memory be blessed – and a light for the path of those who seek to change the world through science and medicine.”
Dr. Anat Gloverson Levin, principal investigator of the Laboratory for Immunology and Advanced Cellular Therapy using CAR-T at Ichilov, began her doctorate at the Weizmann Institute in 2006 under the supervision of Prof. Ashchar. In a post on the social network LinkedIn, she wrote: “I share with you my deep sorrow at the death of my legendary mentor, Prof. Selig Ashchar. Selig was not only a groundbreaking scientist whose invention saved many lives, but also an extraordinary, caring, generous, and endlessly inspiring human being.”
“I had the privilege of learning from him, witnessing his passion for discovery, and being guided by his wisdom and creativity. His ideas were always ahead of their time, and his dedication to science and his students was unparalleled. I have so many wonderful memories of our time together,” she added.
Prof. Zelig Ashhar was Professor Emeritus in the Department of Immunology at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and a recipient of the 2015 Israel Prize in Life Sciences. Ashhar was an expert in the genetic engineering of T cells, and was among those who laid the foundations for the clinical application of CAR-T technology that works against cancer cells. In 2021, he also won the Dan David Prize for his groundbreaking research that led to the development of dozens of medical treatments based on the revolution he led in editing T cells to attack cancerous tumors, and for laying the foundations, together with Dr. Steven Rosenberg, for the clinical application of this technology to fight cancer.
Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.
Biomolecular Condensates: A new approach to biology originated @MIT – Drug Discovery at DewPoint Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA gets new leaders, Ameet Nathwani, MD (ex-Sanofi, ex-Novartis) as Chief Executive Officer and Arie Belldegrun, PhD (ex-Kite Therapeutics) on R&D
LPBI Group’s decision to publish the Table of Contents of this Report does not imply endorsement of the Report
Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Founder 1.0 & 2.0 LPBI Group
Guest Reporter: MIKE WOOD
Marketing Executive BIOTECH FORECASTS
ABOUT BIOTECH FORECASTS
BIOTECH FORECASTS is a full-service market research and business- consulting firm primarily focusing on healthcare, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. BIOTECH FORECASTS provides global as well as medium and small Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology businesses with unmatched quality of “Market Research Reports” and “Business Intelligence Solutions”. BIOTECH FORECASTS has a targeted view to provide business insights and consulting to assist its clients to make strategic business decisions, and achieve sustainable growth in their respective market domain.
CAR T-cell therapy as a part of adoptive cell therapy (ACT), has become one of the most rapidly growing and promising fields in the Immuno-oncology. As compared to the conventional cancer therapies, CAR T-cell therapy is the single-dose solution for the treatment of various cancers, significantly for some lethal forms of hematological malignancies.
CAR T-cell therapy mainly involves the use of engineered T-cells, the process starts with the extraction of T-cells through leukapheresis, either from the patient (autologous) or a healthy donor (allogeneic). After the expression of a synthetic receptor (Chimeric Antigen Receptor) in the lab, the altered T-cells are expanded to the right dose and administered into the patient’s body. where they target and attach to a specific antigen on the tumor surface, to kill the cancerous cells by igniting the apoptosis.
The global CAR T-cell therapy market was valued at $734 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $4,078 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 23.91% from 2020 to 2027.
Factors that drive the market growth involve, (1)Increased in fundingfor R&D activities pertaining to cell and gene therapy. By H1 2020 cell and gene therapy companies set new records in the fundraising despite the pandemic crisis. For Instance, by June 2020 totaled $1,452 Million raised in Five IPOs including, Legend Biotech ($487M), Passage Bio ($284M), Akouos ($244M), Generation Bio ($230M), and Beam Therapeutics ($207M), which is 2.5 times the total IPO of 2019.
Moreover, in 2019 cell therapy companies specifically have raised $560 million of venture capital, including Century Therapeutics ($250M), Achilles Therapeutics Ltd. ($121M in series B), NKarta Therapeutics Inc. ($114M), and Tmunity Therapeutics ($75M in Series B).
(2)Increased in No. of Approved Products, By July 2020, there are a total of 03 approved CAR T-cell therapy products, including KYMRIAH®, YESCARTA®, and the most recently approved TECARTUS™ (formerly KTE-X19). Furthermore, two CAR T-cell therapies BB2121, and JCAR017 are expected to get the market approval by the end of 2020 or in early 2021.
Other factors that boost the market growth involves; (3) increase in government support, (4) ethical acceptance of Cell and Gene therapy for cancer treatment, (5) rise in the prevalence of cancer, and (6) an increase in awareness regarding the CAR T-cell therapy.
However, high costs associated with the treatment (KYMRIAH® cost around $475,000, and YESCARTA® costs $373,000 per infusion), long production hours, obstacles in treating solid tumors, and unwanted immune responses & potential side effects might hamper the market growth.
The report also presents a detailed quantitative analysis of the current market trends and future estimations from 2020 to 2027.
The forecasts cover 2 Approach Types, 5 Antigen Types, 5 Application Types, 4 Regions, and 14 Countries.
The report comes with an associated file covering quantitative data from all numeric forecasts presented in the report, as well as with a Clinical Trials Data File.
KEY FINDINGS
The report has the following key findings:
The global CAR T-cell therapy market accounted for $734 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $4,078 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 23.91% from 2020 to 2027.
By approach type the autologous segment was valued at $655.26 million in 2019 and is estimated to reach $ 3,324.52 million by 2027, registering a CAGR of 22.51% from 2020 to 2027.
By approach type, the allogeneic segment exhibits the highest CAGR of 32.63%.
Based on the Antigen segment CD19 was the largest contributor among the other segments in 2019.
The Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) segment generated the highest revenue and is expected to continue its dominance in the future, followed by the Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) segment.
North America dominated the global CAR T-cell therapy market in 2019 and is projected to continue its dominance in the future.
China is expected to grow the highest in the Asia-Pacific region during the forecast period.
TOPICS COVERED
The report covers the following topics:
Market Drivers, Restraints, and Opportunities
Porters Five Forces Analysis
CAR T-Cell Structure, Generations, Manufacturing, and Pricing Models
Top Winning Strategies, Top Investment Pockets
Analysis of by Approach Type, Antigen Type, Application, and Region
51 Company Profiles, Product Portfolio, and Key Strategies
Approved Products Profiles, and list of Expected Approvals
COVID-19 Impact on the Cell and Gene Therapy Industry
CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials analysis from 1997 to 2019
Market analysis and forecasts from 2020 to 2027
FORECAST SEGMENTATION
By Approach Type
Autologous
Allogeneic
By Antigen Type
CD19
CD20
BCMA
MSLN
Others
By Application
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)
Diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
Multiple Myeloma (MM)
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
Other Cancer Indications
By Region
North America: USA, Canada, Mexico
Europe: UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Rest of Europe
Asia-Pacific: China, Japan, India, South Korea, Rest of Asia-Pacific
LAMEA: Brazil, South Africa, Rest of LAMEA
Contact at info@biotechforecasts.com for any Queries or Free Report Sample
there have been many instances of off-target effects where genes, other than the selected target, are edited out. This ‘off-target’ issue has hampered much of the utility of CRISPR in gene-therapy and CART therapy
However, an article in Science by Jon Cohen explains a Nature paper’s finding of a new tool in the CRISPR arsenal called prime editing, meant to increase CRISPR specificity and precision editing capabilities.
Primeediting promises to be a cut above CRISPR Jon Cohen CRISPR, an extraordinarily powerful genome-editing tool invented in 2012, can still be clumsy. … Primeediting steers around shortcomings of both techniques by heavily modifying the Cas9 protein and the guide RNA. … ” Primeediting “well may become the way that disease-causing mutations are repaired,” he says.
The effort, led by Drs. David Liu and Andrew Anzalone at the Broad Institute (Cambridge, MA), relies on the modification of the Cas9 protein and guide RNA, so that there is only a nick in a single strand of the double helix. The canonical Cas9 cuts both strands of DNA, and so relies on an efficient gap repair activity of the cell. The second part, a new type of guide RNA called a pegRNA, contains an RNA template for a new DNA sequence to be added at the target location. This pegRNA-directed synthesis of the new template requires the attachment of a reverse transcriptase enzymes to the Cas9. So far Liu and his colleagues have tested the technology on over 175 human and rodent cell lines with great success. In addition, they had also corrected mutations which cause Tay Sachs disease, which previous CRISPR systems could not do. Liu claims that this technology could correct over 89% of pathogenic variants in human diseases.
A company Prime Medicine has been formed out of this effort.
As was announced, prime editing for human therapeutics will be jointly developed by both Prime Medicine and Beam Therapeutics, each focusing on different types of edits and distinct disease targets, which will help avoid redundancy and allow us to cover more disease territory overall. The companies will also share knowledge in prime editing as well as in accompanying technologies, such as delivery and manufacturing.
Reader of StatNews.: Can you please compare the pros and cons of prime editing versus base editing?
The first difference between base editing and prime editing is that base editing has been widely used for the past 3 1/2 years in organisms ranging from bacteria to plants to mice to primates. Addgene tells me that the DNA blueprints for base editors from our laboratory have been distributed more than 7,500 times to more than 1,000 researchers around the world, and more than 100 research papers from many different laboratories have been published using base editors to achieve desired gene edits for a wide variety of applications. While we are very excited about prime editing, it’s brand-new and there has only been one paper published thus far. So there’s much to do before we can know if prime editing will prove to be as general and robust as base editing has proven to be.
We directly compared prime editors and base editors in our study, and found that current base editors can offer higher editing efficiency and fewer indel byproducts than prime editors, while prime editors offer more targeting flexibility and greater editing precision. So when the desired edit is a transition point mutation (C to T, T to C, A to G, or G to A), and the target base is well-positioned for base editing (that is, a PAM sequence exists approximately 15 bases from the target site), then base editing can result in higher editing efficiencies and fewer byproducts. When the target base is not well-positioned for base editing, or when other “bystander” C or A bases are nearby that must not be edited, then prime editing offers major advantages since it does not require a precisely positioned PAM sequence and is a true “search-and-replace” editing capability, with no possibility of unwanted bystander editing at neighboring bases.
Of course, for classes of mutations other than the four types of point mutations that base editors can make, such as insertions, deletions, and the eight other kinds of point mutations, to our knowledge prime editing is currently the only approach that can make these mutations in human cells without requiring double-stranded DNA cuts or separate DNA templates.
Nucleases (such as the zinc-finger nucleases, TALE nucleases, and the original CRISPR-Cas9), base editors, and prime editors each have complementary strengths and weaknesses, just as scissors, pencils, and word processors each have unique and useful roles. All three classes of editing agents already have or will have roles in basic research and in applications such as human therapeutics and agriculture.
Most genetic variants that contribute to disease1 are challenging to correct efficiently and without excess byproducts2,3,4,5. Here we describe prime editing, a versatile and precise genome editing method that directly writes new genetic information into a specified DNA site using a catalytically impaired Cas9 endonuclease fused to an engineered reverse transcriptase, programmed with a prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA) that both specifies the target site and encodes the desired edit. We performed more than 175 edits in human cells, including targeted insertions, deletions, and all 12 types of point mutation, without requiring double-strand breaks or donor DNA templates. We used prime editing in human cells to correct, efficiently and with few byproducts, the primary genetic causes of sickle cell disease (requiring a transversion in HBB) and Tay–Sachs disease (requiring a deletion in HEXA); to install a protective transversion in PRNP; and to insert various tags and epitopes precisely into target loci. Four human cell lines and primary post-mitotic mouse cortical neurons support prime editing with varying efficiencies. Prime editing shows higher or similar efficiency and fewer byproducts than homology-directed repair, has complementary strengths and weaknesses compared to base editing, and induces much lower off-target editing than Cas9 nuclease at known Cas9 off-target sites. Prime editing substantially expands the scope and capabilities of genome editing, and in principle could correct up to 89% of known genetic variants associated with human diseases.
From Anzolone et al. Nature 2019 Figure 1.
Prime editing strategy
Cas9 targets DNA using a guide RNA containing a spacer sequence that hybridizes to the target DNA site. We envisioned the generation of guide RNAs that both specify the DNA target and contain new genetic information that replaces target DNA nucleotides. To transfer information from these engineered guide RNAs to target DNA, we proposed that genomic DNA, nicked at the target site to expose a 3′-hydroxyl group, could be used to prime the reverse transcription of an edit-encoding extension on the engineered guide RNA (the pegRNA) directly into the target site (Fig. 1b, c, Supplementary Discussion).
These initial steps result in a branched intermediate with two redundant single-stranded DNA flaps: a 5′ flap that contains the unedited DNA sequence and a 3′ flap that contains the edited sequence copied from the pegRNA (Fig. 1c). Although hybridization of the perfectly complementary 5′ flap to the unedited strand is likely to be thermodynamically favoured, 5′ flaps are the preferred substrate for structure-specific endonucleases such as FEN122, which excises 5′ flaps generated during lagging-strand DNA synthesis and long-patch base excision repair. The redundant unedited DNA may also be removed by 5′ exonucleases such as EXO123.
The authors reasoned that preferential 5′ flap excision and 3′ flap ligation could drive the incorporation of the edited DNA strand, creating heteroduplex DNA containing one edited strand and one unedited strand (Fig. 1c).
DNA repair to resolve the heteroduplex by copying the information in the edited strand to the complementary strand would permanently install the edit (Fig. 1c).
They had hypothesized that nicking the non-edited DNA strand might bias DNA repair to preferentially replace the non-edited strand.
Results
The authors evaluated the eukaryotic cell DNA repair outcomes of 3′ flaps produced by pegRNA-programmed reverse transcription in vitro, and performed in vitro prime editing on reporter plasmids, then transformed the reaction products into yeast cells (Extended Data Fig. 2).
Reporter plasmids encoding EGFP and mCherry separated by a linker containing an in-frame stop codon, +1 frameshift, or −1 frameshift were constructed and when plasmids were edited in vitro with Cas9 nickase, RT, and 3′-extended pegRNAs encoding a transversion that corrects the premature stop codon, 37% of yeast transformants expressed both GFP and mCherry (Fig. 1f, Extended Data Fig. 2).
They fused a variant of M—MLV-RT (reverse transcriptase) to Cas9 with an extended linker and this M-MLV RT fused to the C terminus of Cas9(H840A) nickase was designated as PE1. This strategy allowed the authors to generate a cell line containing all the required components of the primer editing system. They constructed 19 variants of PE1 containing a variety of RT mutations to evaluate their editing efficiency in human cells
Generated a pentamutant RT incorporated into PE1 (Cas9(H840A)–M-MLV RT(D200N/L603W/T330P/T306K/W313F)) is hereafter referred to as prime editor 2 (PE2). These were more thermostable versions of RT with higher efficiency.
Optimized the guide (pegRNA) using a series of permutations and recommend starting with about 10–16 nt and testing shorter and longer RT templates during pegRNA optimization.
In the previous attempts (PE1 and PE2 systems), mismatch repair resolves the heteroduplex to give either edited or non-edited products. So they next developed an optimal editing system (PE3) to produce optimal nickase activity and found nicks positioned 3′ of the edit about 40–90 bp from the pegRNA-induced nick generally increased editing efficiency (averaging 41%) without excess indel formation (6.8% average indels for the sgRNA with the highest editing efficiency) (Fig. 3b).
The cell line used to finalize and validate the system was predominantly HEK293T immortalized cell line
Together, their findings establish that PE3 systems improve editing efficiencies about threefold compared with PE2, albeit with a higher range of indels than PE2. When it is possible to nick the non-edited strand with an sgRNA that requires editing before nicking, the PE3b system offers PE3-like editing levels while greatly reducing indel formation.
Off Target Effects: Strikingly, PE3 or PE2 with the same 16 pegRNAs containing these four target spacers resulted in detectable off-target editing at only 3 out of 16 off-target sites, with only 1 of 16 showing an off-target editing efficiency of 1% or more (Extended Data Fig. 6h). Average off-target prime editing for pegRNAs targeting HEK3, HEK4, EMX1, and FANCFat the top four known Cas9 off-target sites for each protospacer was <0.1%, <2.2 ± 5.2%, <0.1%, and <0.13 ± 0.11%, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 6h).
The PE3 system was very efficient at editing the most common mutation that causes Tay-Sachs disease, a 4-bp insertion in HEXA(HEXA1278+TATC).
References
Landrum, M. J. et al. ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D862–D868 (2016).
Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science337, 816–821 (2012).
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).
T-cell receptors (TCR) can recognize the intracellular targets whereas antibodies only recognize the 25% of potential extracellular targets
survivin is expressed in multiple cancers and correlates with poor survival and prognosis
CD3 bispecific TCR to survivn (Ab to CD3 on T- cells and TCR to survivin on cancer cells presented in MHC Class A3)
ABBV184 effective in vivo in lung cancer models as single agent;
in humanized mouse tumor models CD3/survivin bispecific can recruit T cells into solid tumors; multiple immune cells CD4 and CD8 positive T cells were found to infiltrate into tumor
therapeutic window as measured by cytokine release assays in tumor vs. normal cells very wide (>25 fold)
ABBV184 does not bind platelets and has good in vivo safety profile
First- in human dose determination trial: used in vitro cancer cell assays to determine 1st human dose
looking at AML and lung cancer indications
phase 1 trial is underway for safety and efficacy and determine phase 2 dose
survivin has very few mutations so they are not worried about a changing epitope of their target TCR peptide of choice
The discovery of TNO155: A first in class SHP2 inhibitor
SHP2 is an intracellular phosphatase that is upstream of MEK ERK pathway; has an SH2 domain and PTP domain
knockdown of SHP2 inhibits tumor growth and colony formation in soft agar
55 TKIs there are very little phosphatase inhibitors; difficult to target the active catalytic site; inhibitors can be oxidized at the active site; so they tried to target the two domains and developed an allosteric inhibitor at binding site where three domains come together and stabilize it
they produced a number of chemical scaffolds that would bind and stabilize this allosteric site
block the redox reaction by blocking the cysteine in the binding site
lead compound had phototoxicity; used SAR analysis to improve affinity and reduce phototox effects
was very difficult to balance efficacy, binding properties, and tox by adjusting stuctures
TNO155 is their lead into trials
SHP2 expressed in T cells and they find good combo with I/O with uptick of CD8 cells
TNO155 is very selective no SHP1 inhibition; SHP2 can autoinhibit itself when three domains come together and stabilize; no cross reactivity with other phosphatases
they screened 1.5 million compounds and got low hit rate so that is why they needed to chemically engineer and improve on the classes they found as near hits
Scientists at Cardiff University have revealed a new type of killer T-cell which offers hope of a “one-size-fits-all” cancer therapy. Cancer-targeting via MR1-restricted T-cells is a thrilling new frontier, it increases the prospect of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ cancer treatment; a single type of T-cell that could be proficient of destroying numerous different types of cancers across the population.
T-cell therapies for cancer anywhere immune cells are removed, modified and returned to the patient’s blood to seek and destroy cancer cells – are the latest paradigm in cancer treatments. The most extensively-used therapy, known as CAR-T (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy) encompasses genetic modification of patient’s autologous T-cells to express a CAR specific for a tumor antigen, subsequent by ex vivo cell expansion and re-infusion back to the patient. The therapy is personalized to each patient, but targets only a few types of cancers.
Currently, Cardiff academics discovered T-cells equipped with a new type of T-cell receptor (TCR) which recognizes and kills most human cancer types, while ignoring healthy cells. This new TCR distinguishes when a molecule is present on the surface of a wide range of cancer cells and is able to distinguish between cancerous and healthy cells. Normal T-cells scans the surface of other cells to find anomalies and eliminate cancerous cells, yet ignores cells that contain only normal proteins.
The researchers at Cardiff was published in Nature Immunology, labels a unique TCR that can identify various types of cancer via a single HLA-like molecule called MR1 which varies in the human population. HLA differs extensively between individuals, which has previously prevented scientists from creating a single T-cell-based treatment that targets most cancers in all people. To investigate the therapeutic potential of these cells in vivo, the investigators injected T-cells able to identify MR1 into mice bearing human cancer and with a human immune system.
The Cardiff group were able to demonstrate that T-cells of melanoma patients modified to express this new TCR could destroy not only the patient’s own cancer cells, but also other patients’ cancer cells in the laboratory, irrespective of the patient’s HLA type. Experiments are under way to regulate the exact molecular mechanism by which the new TCR differentiates between healthy cells and cancer.
Discover Brigham is hosted by the Brigham Research Institute (BRI), under the umbrella of Brigham Health. Launched in 2005, the BRI’s mission is to accelerate discoveries that improve human health by bridging the gaps between science, communication and funding. The BRI’s resources help to foster groundbreaking interdepartmental and interdisciplinary research. They provide a voice for the research community and raise the profile of Brigham Research.
2. ENTER THE EVENT CODE: DB19. THEN HIT JOIN!
3. PICK THE SESSION YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. THEN ASK YOUR QUESTION!
4. YOUR QUESTION WILL BE REVIEWED AND MAY BE FORWARDED TO THE CHAIR TO ASK THE SPEAKER(S).
IT WORKS ON ANY DEVICE, YOU DO NOT NEED TO INSTALL ANYTHING!
Registration will open at 9:00 AM and will be located throughout the hospital including
Schlager Atrium (formerly known as Cabot Atrium, 45 Francis Street Lobby),
Schuster Lobby (75 Francis Street Entrance),
Shapiro Cardiovascular Center (70 Francis Street Entrance), and the
Hale Building for Transformative Medicine (HBTM) 1st Floor (60 Fenwood Road).
Please visit one of the registration desks listed below to check-in, receive your badge, and collect any necessary materials. Registration will begin starting at 9:00 AM at each of the locations below.
Click on each location below for directions.
SCHLAGER ATRIUM, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CABOT ATRIUM (45 FRANCIS ST. LOBBY)
SCHUSTER LOBBY (75 FRANCIS ST. LOBBY)
CARL J. AND RUTH SHAPIRO
CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER
HALE BUILDING FOR
TRANSFORMATIVE MEDICINE
SESSION LOCATIONS
Below you will find directions to each of the session locations.
MARSHALL A. WOLF CONFERENCE ROOM
HALE BUILDING FOR TRANSFORMATIVE MEDICINE
SESSION ROOM
FROM 60 FENWOOD ROAD: Enter at 60 Fenwood Rd lobby entrance.
STAIRS:
Take the lobby staircase to the 2nd floor. Walk past the balcony overlooking the atrium and take the stairs on the left (Stair 2) to the 3rd floor. Once on the 3rd floor, exit the stairwell and take a right. The room is to your right through the double glass door, straight ahead.
ELEVATOR:
Take S Elevator to 3rd floor. Take a right out of the elevator. The room is past the stairwell, on your right through the double glass doors.
HALE VTC 02006B CONFERENCE ROOM
HALE BUILDING FOR TRANSFORMATIVE MEDICINE
OVERFLOW ROOM FOR MARSHALL A. WOLF CONFERENCE ROOM
FROM 60 FENWOOD ROAD: Enter at 60 Fenwood Rd lobby entrance.
STAIRS:
Take the lobby staircase to the 2nd floor. The conference room will be on your right near the display monitor.
ELEVATOR:
Enter at 60 Fenwood Rd main entrance and take the S Elevator to the 2nd floor. Once you exit the elevator, take a right and walk past the balcony overlooking the atrium and the conference room will be straight ahead near the display monitor.
ZINNER BREAKOUT ROOM
CARL J. AND RUTH SHAPIRO CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER
SESSION ROOM
FROM 70 FRANCIS STREET: The Zinner Breakout Room is located in the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at 70 Francis Street, Boston, MA. Upon entering the building at the street level, walk straight towards the escalators in the rear of the building. The Zinner Conference Center is located on your right; the Breakout room is through the large doors on the left.
ZINNER BOARDROOM
CARL J. AND RUTH SHAPIRO CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER
OVERFLOW ROOM FOR ZINNER BREAKOUT ROOM
FROM 70 FRANCIS STREET:
The Zinner Boardroom is located in the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at 70 Francis Street, Boston, MA. Upon entering the building at the street level, walk straight towards the escalator, keeping to the left side of the building. The Conference Center is located on your right; the Boardroom is through the large doors on the back wall.
BORNSTEIN FAMILY AMPHITHEATER
MAIN PIKE, 45 FRANCIS STREET LOBBY
SESSION ROOM
FROM 45 FRANCIS STREET: Coming from 45 Francis Street lobby, walk towards the Main Pike (2nd floor hallway). Then take left on the Main Pike, 2nd door on right.
AGENDA
10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Opening remarks
Elizabeth G. Nabel, MD, President Brigham Health, Prof. Medicine @HarvardMed
8th event since 2012
show casing amazing research
Open to the Public: Patients, Families to educate
90 Posters
Health equity perspective as DNA of the Brigham
Learn a new idea, meet someone new, create a new idea
FROM 70 FRANCIS STREET: The Zinner Breakout Room is located in the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at 70 Francis Street, Boston, MA. Upon entering the building at the street level, walk straight towards the escalators in the rear of the building. The Zinner Conference Center is located on your right; the Breakout room is through the large doors on the left.
Aaron Goldman
HaeLin Jang
Greog K. Gerber
Microbiome – Bacteria and Fungus therapies – computational tools for applications on microbiome
Diagnostics
Microbiome in early childhood
temporal variability during adulthood
host disease bacteriptherapeutics: C-Diff
Bugs as drugs
Gnotobiotic mice model for c-Diff in mice
MDSINE – Microbial dynamin model interaction model
cancer microbiome: Bacteria causing cancer, cancer changing the bacteria environment
Jeff Karp BENG PhD @MrJeffKarp
tissue based patch to seal open foramane ovale. Project remained in Academic settings however
GLUE component was commercialized
bioinspiration from living organs in Nature, slugs
Viscose secretions
Hydrophobic secretions and snails and sand castle worms
Anna Krichevsky, PhD HMS Initiative for RNA Medicine
paradox of organismal complexity and # protein encoding genes
Human genome, 70% Transcriptome Non-coding RNA only 2% encode proteins
Non-coding RNA small, long, multifunctional
biogenesis of offending RNAs can be drugged
RNA novel therapies: RNA as a Drug,
Indications: Brain Tumors and AD: MicroRNA (miRNA)the smallest Glioblastoma – only 4 drugs FDA approved in 25 years miRNA – 10b inhibition kills gliomacells miR-132 most neuroprotective RNA
Cardiovascular
Paul Anderson, MD, PhD
ALS and FTD – Fronto Temporal Dimensia
Riluzone 1970 – anti Anti-glutamateric
Edarabone 2017 drugs approved – anti-oxidative
Andogenesis role in Motor protection from Stress Cytoplasmatic tRNA – ANdiogenin (ANG) production
SPECIAL PHOTO-OP TO CELEBRATE YOU!
WE WILL TAKE A GROUP PHOTO DURING THE RECEPTION AND AWARDS CEREMONY TO CELEBRATE YOU, OUR INNOVATORS!
THE PHOTO WILL BE DISPLAYED AT THE BRIGHAM IN THE HALE BUILDING. WE HOPE YOU CAN JOIN US IN CELEBRATING YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS.
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
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.
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.
TWEETS by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 at #IESYMPOSIUM – @kochinstitute 2019 #Immune #Engineering #Symposium, 1/28/2019 – 1/29/2019
Real Time Press Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
2.1.3.4 TWEETS by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 at #IESYMPOSIUM – @kochinstitute 2019 #Immune #Engineering #Symposium, 1/28/2019 – 1/29/2019, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair
eProceedings for Day 1 and Day 2
LIVE Day One – Koch Institute 2019 Immune Engineering Symposium, January 28, 2019, Kresge Auditorium, MIT
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Aviv Regev @kochinstitute Melanoma: malignant cells with resistance in cold niches in situ cells express the resistance program pre-treatment: resistance UP – cold Predict checkpoint immunotherapy outcomes CDK4/6 abemaciclib in cell lines
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Diane Mathis @HMS Age-dependent Treg and mSC changes – Linear with increase in age Sex-dependent Treg and mSC changes – Female Treg loss in cases of Obesity leading to fibrosis Treg keep IL-33-Producing mSCs under rein Lean tissue/Obese tissue
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Martin LaFleur @HMS Loss of Ptpn2 enhances CD8+ T cell responses to LCMV and Tumors PTpn2 deletion in the immune system enhanced tumor immunity CHIME enables in vivo screening
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Alex Shalek @MIT@kochinstitute Identifying and rationally modulating cellular drivers of enhanced immunity T Cells, Clusters Expression of Peak and Memory Immunotherapy- Identifying Dendritic cells enhanced in HIV-1 Elite Controllers
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Glenn Dranoff @Novartis Adenosine level in blood or tissue very difficult to measure in blood even more than in tissue – NIR178 + PDR 001 Monotherapy (NIR178) combine with PD receptor blockage (PDR) show benefit A alone vs A+B in Clinical trial
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Glenn Dranoff @Novartis PD-L1 blockade elicits responses in some patients: soft part sarcoma LAG-3 combined with PD-1 – human peripheral blood tumor TIM-3 key regulator of T cell and Myeloid cell function: correlates in the TCGA DB myeloid
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Yvonne Chen @UCLA Activation of t Cell use CAR t Engineer CAR-T to respond to soluble form of antigens: CD19 CAR Responds to soluble CD19 GFP MCAR responds to Dimeric GFP “Tumor microenvironment is a scary place”
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Yvonne Chen @UCLA “Engineering smarter and stronger T cells for cancer immunotherapy” OR-Gate cause no relapse – Probing limits of modularity in CAR Design Bispecific CARs are superior to DualCAR: One vs DualCAR (some remained single CAR)
Ending the 1st session is Cathy Wu of @DanaFarber detailing some amazing work on vaccination strategies for melanoma and glioblastoma patients. They use long peptides engineered from tumor sequencing data. #iesymposium
Some fancy imaging: Duggan gives a nice demo of how dSTORM imaging works using a micropatterend image of Kennedy Institute for Rheumatology! yay! #iesymposium
Lots of interesting talks in the second session of the #iesymposium – effects of lymphoangiogenesis on anti-tumor immune responses, nanoparticle based strategies to improve bNAbs titers/affinity for HIV therapy, and IAPi cancer immunotherapy
Looking forward to another day of the #iesymposium. One more highlight from yesterday – @nm0min from our own lab showcased her work developing cytokine fusions that bind to collagen, boosting efficacy while drastically reducing toxicities
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Preeti Sharma, U Illinois T cell receptor and CAR-T engineering TCR engineering for Targeting glycosylated cancer antigens Nornal glycosylation vs Aberrant Engineering 237-CARs libraries with conjugated (Tn-OTS8) against Tn-antigend In vitro
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Bryan Bryson @MIT Loss of polarization potential: scRNAseq reveals transcriptional differences Thioredoxin facilitates immune response to Mtb is a marker of an inflammatory macrophage state functional spectrum of human microphages
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Bryan Bryson @MIT macrophage axis in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Building “libraries” – surface marker analysis of Microphages Polarized macrophages are functionally different quant and qual differences History of GM-CSF suppresses IL-10
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Jamie Spangler John Hopkins University “Reprogramming anti-cancer immunity RESPONSE through molecular engineering” De novo IL-2 potetiator in therapeutic superior to the natural cytokine by molecular engineering mimicking other cytokines
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Michael Dustin @UniofOxford ESCRT pathway associated with synaptic ectosomes Locatization, Microscopy Cytotoxic T cell granules CTLs release extracellular vescicles similar to T Helper with perforin and granzyme – CTL vesicles kill targets
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Michael Dustin @Oxford Delivery of T cell Effector function through extracellular vesicles Synaptic ectosome biogenisis Model: T cells: DOpamine cascade in germinal cell delivered to synaptic cleft – Effector CD40 – Transfer is cooperative
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Michael Dustin @Oxford Delivery of T cell Effector function through extracellular vesicles Laterally mobile ligands track receptor interaction ICAM-1 Signaling of synapse – Sustain signaling by transient in microclusters TCR related Invadipodia
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Mikael Pittet @MGH Myeloid Cells in Cancer Indirect mechanism AFTER a-PD-1 Treatment IFN-gamma Sensing Fosters IL-12 & therapeutic Responses aPD-1-Mediated Activation of Tumor Immunity – Direct activation and the ‘Licensing’ Model
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Stefani Spranger @MIT KI Response to checkpoint blockade Non-T cell-inflamed – is LACK OF T CELL INFILTRATION Tumor CD103 dendritic cells – Tumor-residing Batf3-drivenCD103 Tumor-intrinsic Beta-catenin mediates lack of T cell infiltration
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Max Krummel @UCSF Gene expression association between two genes: #NK and #cDC1 numbers are tightly linked to response to checkpoint blockage IMMUNE “ACCOMODATION” ARCHYTYPES: MYELOID TUNING OF ARCHITYPES Myeloid function and composition
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Noor Momin, MIT Lumican-cytokines improve control of distant lesions – Lumican-fusion potentiates systemic anti-tumor immunity
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Noor Momin, MIT Lumican fusion to IL-2 improves treatment efficacy reduce toxicity – Anti-TAA mAb – TA99 vs IL-2 Best efficacy and least toxicity in Lumican-MSA-IL-2 vs MSA-IL2 Lumican synergy with CAR-T
excited to attend the @kochinstitute@MIT immune engineering symposium #iesymposium this week! find me there to chat about @CellCellPress and whether your paper could be a good fit for us!
April Pawluk added,
Koch Institute at MITVerified account@kochinstitute
Join leading immunology researchers at our Immune Engineering Symposium on Jan. 28 & 29. Register now: http://bit.ly/2AOUWH6#iesymposium
Bob Schreiber and Tyler Jacks kicked off the #iesymposium with 2 great talks on the role of Class I and Class II neo-Ag in tumor immunogenicity and how the tumor microenvironment alters T cell responsiveness to tumors in vivo
Scott Wilson from @UChicago gave a fantastic talk on glycopolymer conjugation to antigens to improve trafficking to HAPCs and enhanced tolerization in autoimmunity models. Excited to learn more about his work at his @MITChemE faculty talk! #iesymposium
Spending the (literal) first day of my fellowship at the @kochinstitute#iesymposium! @DanaFarber Cathy Wu talking about the use of neoantigen targeting cancer vaccines for the treatment of ‘cold’ glioblastoma tumors in pts
Tyler Jacks talk was outstanding, Needs be delivered A@TED TALKs, needs become contents in the curriculum of Cell Biology graduate seminar as an Online class. BRAVO @pharma_BI@AVIVA1950
Aviva Lev-Ari added,
Anne E Deconinck@AEDeconinck
My boss, @kochinstitute director Tyler Jacks, presenting beautiful, unpublished work at our 3rd #iesymposium.
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Stephanie Dougan (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) Dept. Virology IAPi outperforms checkpoint blockade in T cell cold tumors reduction of tumor burden gencitabine cross-presenting DCs and CD8 T cells – T cell low 6694c2
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Melody Swartz (University of Chicago) Lymphangiogenesis attractive to Native T cells, in VEGF-C tumors T cell homing inhibitors vs block T cell egress inhibitors – Immunotherapy induces T cell killing
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Cathy Wu @MGH breakthrough for Brain Tumor #vaccine based neoantigen-specific T cell at intracranial site Single cells brain tissue vs single cells from neoantigen specific T cells – intratumoral neoantigen-specific T cells: mutARGAP35-spacific
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950 Cathy Wu (Massachusetts General Hospital) – CoFounder of NEON Enduring complete radiographic responses after #Neovax + alpha-PD-1 treatment (anti-PD-1) NeoVax vs IVAC Mutanome for melanoma and Glioblastoma clinical trials
#IESYMPOSIUM@pharma_BI@AVIVA1950@TylerJacks@MIT Interrogating markers of T cell dysfunction – chance biology of cells by CRISPR – EGR2 at 2 weeks dysfuntioning is reduced presence of EDR2 mutant class plays role in cell metabolism cell becomes functional regulator CD8 T cell
What does this mean for Immunotherapy? FDA put a temporary hold on Juno’s JCAR015, Three Death of Celebral Edema in CAR-T Clinical Trial and Kite Pharma announced Phase II portion of its CAR-T ZUMA-1 trial
Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.
Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Article ID #245: Economic Potential of a Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) versus a Cancer Drug in Clinical Trials: CAR-T as a Case in Point, developed by Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017. Published on 10/4/2017
WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman
UPDATED on 2/21/2021
The Announcement of the 2021 Dan David Prize Laureates – YouTube – PRIZE $1MM per Winner for contributors to CAR-T MOA leading to development of immunotherapy anti cancer drugs
Prof. Zelig Eshhar – Weitzmann Institute his student Arie S. Belldegrun was CEO at Kate Pharmaceutics sold to Gilead for $12Bil
Hooked by the science, Arie Belldegrun joins a group of influentials who believe Dewpoint may have the key to the next big thing in biotech John Carroll Editor & Founder Amir Nashat knew he had years of preclinical work to do when he talked to me at the beginning of 2019 about Dewpoint Therapeutics and its rare focus on the role bimolecular condensates could play in crafting a wide-ranging pipeline of therapeutics.
The Cambridge, MA-based Dewpoint team, which will now double in size over the next year, doesn’t have a late-stage preclinical program it can shove into the clinic. The biotech is investing in neurodegeneration, cancer, cardiovascular and other areas for a platform that could, eventually, have extensive applications. But asked about a timeline to proof-of-concept data, Nashat frankly estimates that it will take 4-5 years to birth some hard human data. The money should get them through 3 years and a considerable de-risking approach to their preclinical efforts
The CSO is Mark Murcko, an experienced and well known startup player.
Mark Murcko “When I think about new companies a lot of it is about timing; is it too soon or too late?” Murcko notes enthusiastically in our interview. “Is there enough information available to make you think you can take that and use it toward new drugs? Five years ago it was too early, too nascent.”
Now, Murcko adds, seems like a great time to give this a go.
Gilead is writing off its anti-BCMA CAR-T for multiple myeloma, eliminating one of the many efforts focused on that target and driving a big part of the company’s $820 million impairment charge for R&D in the 4th quarter of last year. But this could just be a taste of what’s to come.
A $12 billion buyout of Kite Pharma in 2017 brought with it the CAR-T therapy Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) and a foothold in immuno-oncology. But last year’s results make clear that return on that investment will be slow to materialize.
Buried in among Gilead’s fourth-quarter results statement is a line revealing it has abandoned an anti-BCMA cell therapy for multiple myeloma, part of its $12 billion acquisition of Kite Pharma.
The failed KITE-585 program and other costs associated with the acquisition resulted in a whopping $820 million impairment charge in the quarter and add to analyst speculation that with sales of approved CAR-T Yescarta still disappointing, Gilead may have to write down the value of the Kite deal entirely, according to a Bloomberg report.
Gilead’s decision to drop the KITE-585 CAR-T program reflects the increasing competition in the anti-BCMA category and doesn’t come out of the blue. The company said at the J.P. Morgan conference (JPM) last month that it would only press ahead with development of KITE-585 if its profile was very compelling.
Robert W. Baird & Co. analyst Brian Skorney says Gilead may have to write down the deal, which the company values at $11.9 billion. That means lowering the projections on its balance sheet, if the multi billion-dollar sales Wall Street expects don’t materialize. The long-time bull cut his rating on the stock to neutral in July following the management exodus.
It’s also clear that public investors did quite well in these deals – unlike some outcomes, both private and public investors can only be happy with these deals. Kite’s IPO investors made over a whopping 10x, and Juno’s nearly a 3.6x (in 3 years, so still a very strong public market return). Even the follow-on financing participants made handsome returns: both Kite’s and Juno’s follow-on financings about 4-6 months prior to acquisition delivered a 2x return in a short period. What’s clear is that participating at any point only these price curves was a positive for investors. Obviously that doesn’t always happen, but great to see when it does.
A final takeaway is that there is “no one size fits all” for how to build business models that can work in biotech these days, even to get to similar product and patient outcomes. While Kite and Juno have remarkably similar products, similar platforms, and similar overall acquisition valuations, the stories were built quite differently when it comes to financing their growth.
Kite Pharma, under Arie Belldegrun, CEO, acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion, 8/2017.
Kite’s Yescarta™ (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) Becomes First CAR T Therapy Approved by the FDA for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy
— Manufacturing Success Rate of 99 Percent in ZUMA-1 Pivotal Trial with a Median 17 Day Turnaround Time —
CAR T therapy is a breakthrough in hematologic cancer treatment in which a patient’s own T cells are engineered to seek and destroy cancer cells. CAR T therapy is manufactured specifically for each individual patient.
“The FDA approval of Yescarta is a landmark for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. This approval would not have been possible without the courageous commitment of patients and clinicians, as well as the ongoing dedication of Kite’s employees,” said Arie Belldegrun, MD, FACS, Founder of Kite. “We must also recognize the FDA for their ability to embrace and support transformational new technologies that treat life-threatening illnesses. We believe this is only the beginning for CAR T therapies.”
“Today is an important day for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who have run out of options and have been waiting for new treatments that may help them in their fight against cancer,” said John Milligan, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead Sciences. “With the combined innovation, talent and drive of the Kite and Gilead teams, we will rapidly advance cell therapy research and aim to bring new options to patients with many other types of cancer.”
The list price of Yescarta in the United States is $373,000.
Yescarta has been granted Priority Medicines (PRIME) regulatory support for DLBCL in the European Union. A Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for axicabtagene ciloleucel is currently under review with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and potential approval is expected in the first half of 2018.
The approval of Yescarta is supported by data from the ZUMA-1 pivotal trial. In this study, 72 percent of patients treated with a single infusion of Yescarta (n=101) responded to therapy (overall response rate) including 51 percent of patients who had no detectable cancer remaining (complete remission; 95% CI: 41, 62). At a median follow-up of 7.9 months, patients who had achieved a complete remission had not reached the estimated median duration of response (95% CI: 8.1 months, not estimable [NE]).
In the study, 13 percent of patients experienced grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 31 percent experienced neurologic toxicities. The most common (≥ 10%) Grade 3 or higher reactions include febrile neutropenia, fever, CRS, encephalopathy, infections-pathogen unspecified, hypotension, hypoxia and lung infections. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 52% of patients and included CRS, neurologic toxicity, prolonged cytopenias (including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia), and serious infections. Fatal cases of CRS and neurologic toxicity occurred. FDA approved Yescarta with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.
Yescarta Indication
Yescarta is a CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T cell immunotherapy indicated for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma.
Yescarta is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), accounting for three out of every five cases. In the United States each year, there are approximately 7,500 patients with refractory DLBCL who are eligible for CAR T therapy. Historically, when treated with the current standard of care, patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma had a median overall survival of approximately six months, with only seven percent attaining a complete response. Currently, patients with large B-cell lymphoma in second or later lines of therapy have poor outcomes and greater unmet need, since nearly half of them either do not respond or relapse shortly after transplant.
“With CAR T therapy, we are reengineering a patient’s own immune system to detect and kill cancer cells, and the results have been impressive,” said Frederick L. Locke, MD, ZUMA-1 Co-Lead Investigator and Vice Chair of the Department of Blood and Marrow Transplant and Cellular Immunotherapy at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. “Many of the patients that received CAR T therapy had already relapsed several times with traditional treatments such as chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Now, thanks to this new therapy many patients are in remission for months.”
“This therapy is a new option for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who have run out of treatment options and face a dire prognosis,” said Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS). “Early on, LLS recognized the potential of CAR T therapy and we are proud to be part of making this historic approval possible.”
“Engineered cell therapies like Yescarta represent the potential for a changing treatment paradigm for cancer patients,” said David Chang, MD, PhD, Worldwide Head of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer at Kite. “Together, Gilead and Kite will accelerate studies of CAR T therapy in multiple blood cancers and advance other cell therapy approaches for solid tumors, with the goal of helping patients with diverse cancers benefit from this new era of personalized cancer therapy.”
ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)
ABOUT Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma
ABOUT the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun – Interviewed by Globes
ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes
ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel
I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point is “one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.”
I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that this Case in Point should have been a TEVA commercialization effort. It is a regrettable reality that the development and the manufacturing will not benefit the State of Israel, home of the Weitzman Institute where the Patentable invention took place by Prof. Zelig Eshhar.
It is to be acknowledged that for CAR-T – the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry (Juno has related process) – is bringing to the Oncology arena a NOVEL treatment for hematological malignancies cancer patients
I agree with Prof. Zelig Eshhar that the Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. It is exactly, therefore, all need to acknowledge that the Drug Development process and the COMMERCIALIZATION GENIUS of Arie Belldegrun is inseparable from the breakthrough invention of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to develop the drug from the Lab bench to the FDA accelerated process of Drug approval.
The Biotech industry in Israel needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Arie Belldegrun and with his entrepreneur acumen, keenness and depth of perception, discernment, discrimination especially in practical aspects of Translation Medicine, Clinical Research, Clinical Trial Design and abilities to engage in innovating the FDA processes.
The Biotech industry in US needs to develop more MDs, PhDs with the level of training of Prof. Zelig Eshhar to carry the scientific gravitas and the creativity to become inventors of novel drugs.
ABOUT Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent)
Pioneers of Cancer Cell Therapy: Turbocharging the Immune System to Battle Cancer Cells — Success in Hematological Cancers vs. Solid Tumors
FDA has approved the world’s first CAR-T therapy, Novartis for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma, no approved drug and Canakinumab for Lung Cancer (may be?)
ABOUT the Perspective of Drug Invention (Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Weitzman Institute, registered the patent) following the Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma – Interviewed by Globes
Kite Pharma was a $12b missed opportunity for Israel – Interview with Professor Zelig Eshhar
Some Israeli media headlines depicted Kite as an Israeli exit. But it is a US company that does no business in Israel and has no employees here.
Professor Zelig Eshhar is the man who registered the patent on the cancer treatment drug developed by Kite Pharma, recently acquired by Gilead for $11.9 billion.
“Globes”: Do you believe that any party in Israel could have financed the product and brought it where it is today?
Eshhar: “On the one hand, yes. The level of investment in the product before it reached Nasdaq was something that an Israeli concern could certainly have financed. On the other hand, Kite Pharma founder Professor Arie Belldegrun, with his energy and connections, brought it to a completely different place (Eshhar previously tried to interest various concerns in Israel in financing the drug, but all of them told him that it was too early, or that the product was not effective enough, E.T.).
Was the development already in its final form in the 1980s?
“Almost. I went to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where I met for the first time Professor Steven Rosenberg, who later became the first doctor to conduct clinical trials with the technology. Rosenberg heard about my technology, and offered me exceptional conditions. We set up a team there, and had the best of everything. I only wish I had it now.”
They say that Belldegrun didn’t want the product at first. Today, he’s devoting all his efforts to it.
“When Arie founded Cougar Biotechnology, which developed a drug for prostate cancer, and was eventually sold to Johnson & Johnson for $1 billion, I contacted him and offered him the technology, but he was busy with Cougar’s product, and maybe didn’t think that he had enough capital for such a production. Only after he sold Cougar did he get back to me with an offer to buy the rights to my patent. At that time (2009-2010), the technology was already arousing great interest, and there were negotiations with several large companies.” (from an April 2015 “Globes” interview with Eshhar, who was awarded the Israel Prize).
Israelis can be very provincial. In at least some of the media headlines, Kite Pharma was portrayed as a “huge Israeli exit,” and the impression was given that it was an Israeli company. The truth is very different. Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company; it is a 100% US company. It does no business in Israel; its nearly $12 billion exit has no significance whatsoever for the Israeli economy, and will contribute nothing to it: no jobs, and the tax contribution will be marginal, and certainly not on the scale of Mobileye, for example. Let me say it again: Kite Pharma does not have even one employee in Israel (and has no reason to employ anyone here), and certainly does not pay taxes in Israel. There are no Israelis on the company’s management team or board of directors. This is a US company for all intents and purposes. The word “Israel” appears exactly once in the company’s full documents – where registration of the company’s patents is concerned. The fact that every story about the company mentions the small holdings of several Israeli financial institutions in it is a bad joke. Everyone should remember that Israeli financial institutions are of course entitled to invest in any foreign share, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple Computers, and so forth. Kite Pharma is one of those foreign shares, and nothing more.
Of course, there is cause for pride in the fact that Eshhar, owner of the patent for Kite Pharma’s drug is “one of ours,” i.e. an Israeli researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Another source of pride is Kite Pharma founder and CEO Arie Belldegrun, a graduate of the Hebrew University Medical School who did his post-doctorate at the Weizmann Institute, where he met Eshhar, and Kite Pharma later bought his patent for the cancer drug. Belldegrun was also a director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) until recently, resigning at the peak of that company’s crisis. Beyond this Israeli connection, however, the Kite Pharma exit has no great significance for Israel. All it means is that one more invention, or parts of an invention, came from an Israeli laboratory (at the Weizmann Institute in this case) and fell into foreign hands. It is another enormous missed opportunity in the field of biomedicine and ethical drugs.
It is necessary to realize that while Belldegrun is indeed a big biomedical brain with many achievements in the field, he is a brain that has left Israel, and we all have to ask ourselves why he left, why Kite Pharma is not an Israeli company, and why its (as yet non-existent) product was not developed in Israel and will not be manufactured there. The headline in Israel for the Kite Pharma exit should ask why Israel lost out on it, even though the patent came from Israeli laboratories, albeit with US cooperation.
Belldegrun is likely to keep his experiences on the Teva board of directors to himself. Of all the directors in the company, what he has to say is the most interesting, but he is unlikely to divulge what happened there with the inflated deal with Allergan, and exactly what he said at the board of directors meeting that approved the deal that led Teva into its current major crisis. The Kite Pharma exit and his other exits only highlight the lost opportunity. Kite Pharma, still without a product and without approval for a product, was sold for $11.9 billion in cash. Teva yesterday hit another low point, with a market cap of $16 billion. It is simply inconceivable: a company with an enormous potential, but no product, is worth three quarters of a huge veteran company with at least dozens of products, including products in the ethical drug sector. Kite Pharma is actually one of the indirect reasons for Teva’s decline – for the fact that Teva, which could have been a hothouse for developments like Copaxone, chose a huge inflated gamble on the generics market – a gamble that is now jeopardizing Teva’s future and very existence.
It is true that developing drugs is a very long process, requires huge amounts of capital, and involves many failures, but Teva decided to neglect it, and when a major company like Teva neglects Israeli developments, there are enough competitors in the pharma industry ready to turn Israeli research into gold. Kite Pharma is one example of this research.
The Weizmann Institute is a fruitful source of biomedical research. According to previous estimates published in “Globes,” the Weizmann Institute gets NIS 1 billion each year in royalties on medical and other developments, amounting to half of its budget. Directly and indirectly, the Weizmann Institute, together with other universities in Israel, is responsible for tens of billions of pharmaceutical sales. Only a few billions of this, however, results from drugs developed in Israel, like Copaxone, and far less than that is also made in Israel. The reports by Yeda R&D Company Ltd., the technology transfer arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, are top secret, and there is a good reason for that. Exposing them will only highlight the scale of the missed opportunities. Instead of these inventions providing a base for a major pharmaceutical industry here, the commercialization companies are benefiting only the inventors and the Weizmann Institute itself (that is certainly natural and legitimate, and they are entitled to it), even though the research infrastructure from which they sprung is Israeli know-how, as in the case of Eshhar.
Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry are especially high. Developing ethical drugs is a process requiring huge amounts of time, patience, money, and failures. When it succeeds, however, the profit is enormous – for the industry, the employees, and the state (provided that some tax is paid). For example, Pfizer’s peak sales of Lipitor, a very popular drug for reducing cholesterol and fat in the bloodstream, reached $11 billion, and its profit on the drug was $9 billion, before competition from a generic version began. In addition to money, a great deal of experience and marketing power is required, and that is the reason why most developments wind up in the hands of major companies like Pfizer, Merck, and others at some stage. After all these qualifying statements, everyone who celebrated Kite Pharma’s exit should weep over it – it is another part of the sale of Israeli know-how overseas for a mess of pottage. Instead of consolidating a splendid pharma industry here, Israel is selling the brains with their know-how to foreigners. More than anything else, Teva’s decline and the Kite Pharma exit epitomize this sad and dangerous trend.
Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 30, 2017
ABOUT the Economic significance of Kite Pharma Acquisition for the Venture Capital Investment in Biotech in Israel
Israeli investors profit from $11.9b Kite acquisition
Pontifax fund and Israeli institutional investors will profit from the US personalized cancer drug company’s huge sale. Part of the technology was developed at the Weizmann Institute
Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences Inc. has announced that it will acquire US company Kite Pharma Inc., developer of personalized cancer treatment drugs, at a company value of $11.9 billion. This is one of the biggest ever acquisitions of a company whose products have not yet been approved for marketing. The company value for the acquisition reflects a 29% premium on the market price.
Kite Pharma has developed a new method for genetically engineering immune system cells, so that they will make a focused attack on the malignant tumor. The company was founded in the US by Israeli-American Professor Arie Belldegrun, who already has two exits to his credit. He is also a former director at Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) (whose current value is not much more than the value at which Kite Pharma, a company with no products approved for marketing yet, is being acquired).
A significant part of the technology on which the product is based was developed by Professor Zelig Eshhar of the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Kite Pharma is waiting for marketing approval of its first product, following a successful trial on 100 patients on a very abbreviated track for innovative cancer products. The product was initially designed for treatment of blood cancer, but it is now hoped that its use can later be expanded to treatment of other types of cancer. Gilead is making a big gamble, first of all that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will fulfill its commitment to approve the product, even though the development plan it devised, together with the company, was very short and limited. The second gamble involves the process of treatment using the drug – personalized genetic engineering of each patient’s cells – a grafting process with no precedent in the pharmaceutical industry.
Speaking about the talks to sell Kite, Prof. Arie Belldegrun told “Globes.” “We handled like in the IDF 669 unit. Nobody knew anything. Nobody heard anything. We held meetings in places where nobody would see us. And before we announced it only five employees knew about it.”
Published by Globes [online], Israel Business News – www.globes-online.com – on August 28, 2017
Cancer Therapies: Metabolic, Genomics, Interventional, Immunotherapy and Nanotechnology in Therapy Delivery (Series C Book 2) – on Amazon since 5/18/2017
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa