Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Patient-centered Medicine’ Category

Immunoediting can be a constant defense in the cancer landscape


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

 

There are many considerations in the cancer immunoediting landscape of defense and regulation in the cancer hallmark biology. The cancer hallmark biology in concert with key controls of the HLA compatibility affinity mechanisms are pivotal in architecting a unique patient-centric therapeutic application. Selection of random immune products including neoantigens, antigens, antibodies and other vital immune elements creates a high level of uncertainty and risk of undesirable immune reactions. Immunoediting is a constant process. The human innate and adaptive forces can either trigger favorable or unfavorable immunoediting features. Cancer is a multi-disease entity. There are multi-factorial initiators in a certain disease process. Namely, environmental exposures, viral and / or microbiome exposure disequilibrium, direct harm to DNA, poor immune adaptability, inherent risk and an individual’s own vibration rhythm in life.

 

When a human single cell is crippled (Deranged DNA) with mixed up molecular behavior that is the initiator of the problem. A once normal cell now transitioned into full threatening molecular time bomb. In the modeling and creation of a tumor it all begins with the singular molecular crisis and crippling of a normal human cell. At this point it is either chop suey (mixed bit responses) or a productive defensive and regulation response and posture of the immune system. Mixed bits of normal DNA, cancer-laden DNA, circulating tumor DNA, circulating normal cells, circulating tumor cells, circulating immune defense cells, circulating immune inflammatory cells forming a moiety of normal and a moiety of mess. The challenge is to scavenge the mess and amplify the normal.

 

Immunoediting is a primary push-button feature that is definitely required to be hit when it comes to initiating immune defenses against cancer and an adaptation in favor of regression. As mentioned before that the tumor microenvironment is a “mixed bit” moiety, which includes elements of the immune system that can defend against circulating cancer cells and tumor growth. Personalized (Precision-Based) cancer vaccines must become the primary form of treatment in this case. Current treatment regimens in conventional therapy destroy immune defenses and regulation and create more serious complications observed in tumor progression, metastasis and survival. Commonly resistance to chemotherapeutic agents is observed. These personalized treatments will be developed in concert with cancer hallmark analytics and immunocentrics affinity and selection mapping. This mapping will demonstrate molecular pathway interface and HLA compatibility and adaptation with patientcentricity.

References:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/immunoediting-cancer-landscape-john-catanzaro/

 

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31609-9

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309432057_Circulating_tumor_cell_clusters_What_we_know_and_what_we_expect_Review

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190561/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5840207/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593672/

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00414/full

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593672/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190561/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4388310/

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cancer-hallmark-analytics-omics-data-pathway-studio-review-catanzaro/

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Stem Cells Differentiated into Insulin-Producing Cells in Mice

Reported: Irina Robu, PhD

Dr. Douglas Melton team from Harvard University funded in part by NIH’s National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases set out to transform stem cells into beta cells that have the potential to replace damaged beta cells. While scientists have been able to change stem cells into insulin-producing cells, these cells don’t have markers that indicate they are beta cells, and they aren’t responsive to glucose.

Since diabetes is a disorder of elevated blood sugars where the body does not harvest enough insulin to meet where the body does not harvest enough insulin to respond properly to the insulin being made. When blood glucose levels rise, beta cells in the pancreas normally make the hormone insulin. Insulin triggers cells throughout the body to take up sugar from the blood. In type 2 diabetes, the most common form, tissues in the body lose their sensitivity to insulin, and pancreatic beta cells can’t make enough insulin to keep glucose levels in check. In type 1 diabetes, the body’s own immune system attacks and destroys beta cells. High blood glucose levels can lead to heart disease, blindness, and other health problems over time.

One approach to treat diabetes is to replace destroyed beta cells. Transplanted human pancreatic cells from deceased donors have been successfully used to treat people with type 1 diabetes. But this method is restricted by the accessibility of donor cells and the side effects of immunosuppression. The other approach is to develop functioning beta cells from stem cells which have the potential to transform into many different cell types. These cells can grow indefinitely in the laboratory and can differentiate, into any cell type found in the body.
In this experiment, the researchers grew a human embryonic stem cell line and 2 human-induced pluripotent stem cell lines in a culture system that allowed them to produce large numbers of cells. The researchers tested more than 150 combinations of over 70 compounds to figure out a method to produce functional human beta cells from the cultured stem cells which when added in exact combinations over a period of several weeks, they transformed human pluripotent stem cells into beta cells that functioned similarly to normal adult beta cells.

The cultured beta cells had specific markers that were found on normal beta cells which displayed changes in calcium levels when exposed to glucose and packaged insulin into granules. However, when transplanted into mice these cells secreted insulin in response to glucose. However, when the cells were transplanted into diabetic mice, abnormally high blood glucose levels lowered. More work is needed to develop these cells for clinical use. However, at this point they can serve as a useful screening tool for diabetes drugs.

SOURCE
http://www.frontlinegenomics.com/news/26168/stem-cells-turned-into-insulin-producing-cells-in-mice/

 

 

Read Full Post »


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

 

Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of long-term disability amongst adults, more particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. Increasing evidence suggests that disordered physiological variables following acute ischaemic stroke, especially hyperglycaemia, adversely affect outcomes.

 

Post-stroke hyperglycaemia is common (up to 50% of patients) and may be rather prolonged, regardless of diabetes status. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that hyperglycaemia has a deleterious effect upon clinical and morphological stroke outcomes. Therefore, hyperglycaemia represents an attractive physiological target for acute stroke therapies.

 

However, whether intensive glycaemic manipulation positively influences the fate of ischaemic tissue remains unknown. One major adverse event of management of hyperglycaemia with insulin (either glucose-potassium-insulin infusions or intensive insulin therapy) is the occurrence of hypoglycaemia, which can also induce cerebral damage.

 

Doctors all over the world have debated whether intensive glucose management, which requires the use of IV insulin to bring blood sugar levels down to 80-130 mg/dL, or standard glucose control using insulin shots, which aims to get glucose below 180 mg/dL, lead to better outcomes after stroke.

 

A period of hyperglycemia is common, with elevated blood glucose in the periinfarct period consistently linked with poor outcome in patients with and without diabetes. The mechanisms that underlie this deleterious effect of dysglycemia on ischemic neuronal tissue remain to be established, although in vitro research, functional imaging, and animal work have provided clues.

 

While prompt correction of hyperglycemia can be achieved, trials of acute insulin administration in stroke and other critical care populations have been equivocal. Diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia per se are associated with poor cerebrovascular health, both in terms of stroke risk and outcome thereafter.

 

Interventions to control blood sugar are available but evidence of cerebrovascular efficacy are lacking. In diabetes, glycemic control should be part of a global approach to vascular risk while in acute stroke, theoretical data suggest intervention to lower markedly elevated blood glucose may be of benefit, especially if thrombolysis is administered.

 

Both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia may lead to further brain injury and clinical deterioration; that is the reason these conditions should be avoided after stroke. Yet, when correcting hyperglycaemia, great care should be taken not to switch the patient into hypoglycaemia, and subsequently aggressive insulin administration treatment should be avoided.

 

Early identification and prompt management of hyperglycaemia, especially in acute ischaemic stroke, is recommended. Although the appropriate level of blood glucose during acute stroke is still debated, a reasonable approach is to keep the patient in a mildly hyperglycaemic state, rather than risking hypoglycaemia, using continuous glucose monitoring.

 

The primary results from the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) study, a large, multisite clinical study showed that intensive glucose management did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days after stroke compared to standard glucose therapy. In addition, intense glucose therapy increased the risk of very low blood glucose (hypoglycemia) and required a higher level of care such as increased supervision from nursing staff, compared to standard treatment.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-provides-answer-long-held-debate-blood-sugar-control-after-stroke

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27873213

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342845

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20491782

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211743

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690907

 

Read Full Post »


The Puzzle of Stem Cells and Cancer Stem Cells: The MIT Stem Cell Initiative

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

The MIT Stem Cell Initiative is looking to research fundamental biological questions about normal adult stem cells and their malignant counterparts, cancer stem cells. The MIT Stem Cell Initiative is applying new technologies and approaches in pursuit of this goal. In particular, the MIT Stem Cell Initiative has focused on the breast and colon, as these tissues are quite different from each other, yet each constitutes a major portion of cancer occurrence. The program purposes are to

(a) identify the stem cells and cancer stem cells in various tissues and tumor types,

(b) control how these cells change during aging or with disease progression and

(c) determine the similarities and differences between

  • normal cells, and
  • cancer stem cells,

with the goal of finding weaknesses in cancer stem cells that can be feasible and exact targets for treatment.

In due course, the ability to identify, purify, and establish several populations of stem cells and cancer stem cells could aid researchers to understand the biology of these cells, and learn how to exploit them more efficiently in regenerative medicine applications and target them in cancer.

Normal adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells within a tissue that divide to produce two daughter cells and divide periodically to replenish or repair the tissue. One of the two daughter cells remain in the stem cell state and the other adopts a partially differentiated state, then goes on to divide and differentiate further to harvest multiple cell types that form that tissue. The division process is through a precise process to ensure that tissues are restricted to the appropriate size and cell content.

Cancer stem cells perform the same division but, rather than differentiating, the additional cells produced by the second daughter cell amass to form the bulk of the tumor.

  • Cancer stem cells can regrow the tumor, and
  • are frequently resistant to chemotherapy.

This exclusive ability of normal and cancer stem cells to both self-renew and form a tissue or tumor is referred to by researchers as “stemness,” and has important implications for biomedical applications.

As a result, cancer stem cells are thought to be responsible for

  • tumor recurrence after remission, and also for the
  • formation of metastases, which account for the majority of cancer-associated deaths.

Accordingly, an anti-cancer stem cell therapy that can target and kill cancer stem cells is one of the holy grail of cancer treatment as means to suppress both tumor recurrence and metastatic disease. One of the important tasks to studying normal and cancer stem cells, and to ultimately harnessing that knowledge is developing the ability to identify, purify, and propagate these cells. Accordingly, the main goal in stem cell and cancer stem cell research is discovering ways to distinguish them, preferably by identifying unique surface markers that can be used to cleanse stem cell and cancer stem cell populations and enable their study.

New technologies are permitting the researchers to make significant headway in these investigations, progress that was not possible just a few years ago. Explicitly, they are using

  • a mixture of specially cultured cells,
  • highly controllable mouse models of cancer, and s
  • ingle-cell RNA sequencing and
  • computational analysis techniques that are extremely matched to extracting an excessive deal of information from the moderately small number of stem cells.

SOURCE

http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-initiative-delves-into-stem-cell-biology-1015

Read Full Post »


Role of Informatics in Precision Medicine: Notes from Boston Healthcare Webinar: Can It Drive the Next Cost Efficiencies in Oncology Care?

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

Boston Healthcare sponsored a Webinar recently entitled ” Role of Informatics in Precision Medicine: Implications for Innovators”.  The webinar focused on the different informatic needs along the Oncology Care value chain from drug discovery through clinicians, C-suite executives and payers. The presentation, by Joseph Ferrara and Mark Girardi, discussed the specific informatics needs and deficiencies experienced by all players in oncology care and how innovators in this space could create value. The final part of the webinar discussed artificial intelligence and the role in cancer informatics.

 

Below is the mp4 video and audio for this webinar.  Notes on each of the slides with a few representative slides are also given below:

Please click below for the mp4 of the webinar:

 

 


  • worldwide oncology related care to increase by 40% in 2020
  • big movement to participatory care: moving decision making to the patient. Need for information
  • cost components focused on clinical action
  • use informatics before clinical stage might add value to cost chain

 

 

 

 

Key unmet needs from perspectives of different players in oncology care where informatics may help in decision making

 

 

 

  1.   Needs of Clinicians

– informatic needs for clinical enrollment

– informatic needs for obtaining drug access/newer therapies

2.  Needs of C-suite/health system executives

– informatic needs to help focus of quality of care

– informatic needs to determine health outcomes/metrics

3.  Needs of Payers

– informatic needs to determine quality metrics and managing costs

– informatics needs to form guidelines

– informatics needs to determine if biomarkers are used consistently and properly

– population level data analytics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are the kind of value innovations that tech entrepreneurs need to create in this space? Two areas/problems need to be solved.

  • innovations in data depth and breadth
  • need to aggregate information to inform intervention

Different players in value chains have different data needs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Depth: Cumulative Understanding of disease

Data Depth: Cumulative number of oncology transactions

  • technology innovators rely on LEGACY businesses (those that already have technology) and these LEGACY businesses either have data breath or data depth BUT NOT BOTH; (IS THIS WHERE THE GREATEST VALUE CAN BE INNOVATED?)
  • NEED to provide ACTIONABLE as well as PHENOTYPIC/GENOTYPIC DATA
  • data depth more important in clinical setting as it drives solutions and cost effective interventions.  For example Foundation Medicine, who supplies genotypic/phenotypic data for patient samples supplies high data depth
  • technologies are moving to data support
  • evidence will need to be tied to umbrella value propositions
  • Informatic solutions will have to prove outcome benefit

 

 

 

 

 

How will Machine Learning be involved in the healthcare value chain?

  • increased emphasis on real time datasets – CONSTANT UPDATES NEED TO OCCUR. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING BUT VALUED BY MANY PLAYERS IN THIS SPACE
  • Interoperability of DATABASES Important!  Many Players in this space don’t understand the complexities integrating these datasets

Other Articles on this topic of healthcare informatics, value based oncology, and healthcare IT on this OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL include:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that the federal healthcare program will cover the costs of cancer gene tests that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration

Broad Institute launches Merkin Institute for Transformative Technologies in Healthcare

HealthCare focused AI Startups from the 100 Companies Leading the Way in A.I. Globally

Paradoxical Findings in HealthCare Delivery and Outcomes: Economics in MEDICINE – Original Research by Anupam “Bapu” Jena, the Ruth L. Newhouse Associate Professor of Health Care Policy at HMS

Google & Digital Healthcare Technology

Can Blockchain Technology and Artificial Intelligence Cure What Ails Biomedical Research and Healthcare

The Future of Precision Cancer Medicine, Inaugural Symposium, MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine, December 13, 2018, 8AM-6PM, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA

Live Conference Coverage @Medcity Converge 2018 Philadelphia: Oncology Value Based Care and Patient Management

2016 BioIT World: Track 5 – April 5 – 7, 2016 Bioinformatics Computational Resources and Tools to Turn Big Data into Smart Data

The Need for an Informatics Solution in Translational Medicine

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Gene-editing Second International Summit in Hong Kong: George Church, “Let’s be quantitative before we start being accusatory”

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 11/30/2018

Gene editing takes a foreboding leap forward

He Jiankui. Photo: Zhang Wei/Chinese News Service/VCG via Getty Images

 

China is temporarily suspending the work of scientists who claimed twins were born after being genetically edited as embryos.

Why it matters: The scientific consensus is that gene editing embryos at this stage of science is “irresponsible.” But, while this particular experiment has not been verified, the fact is the technology is available to researchers, so there’s a growing call for international limitations on its use.

ICYMI: Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced earlier this week that twins were born after he used the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to cut the CCR5 gene that’s known to play a role in HIV infection.

  • He stirred even more dismay when he mentioned the possibility of a second pregnancy.
  • China currently bans human implantation of gene-edited embryos. Its Ministry of Science and Technology is investigating the claims, per Xinhua.

There are concerns about the safety, efficacy and possible mosaicism, where a person can contain genes in both its edited and unedited forms, from cutting genes.

  • Editing embryos raises an even bigger concern: The genetic changes and all the unknowns around them can be passed down to future generations.

Between the lines: Not everyone viewed it as a complete disaster. For instance, Harvard Medical School’s George Daley suggested that it may be time to reconsider the massive amounts of research done over the past several years and look for plausible methods of moving forward.

What to watch: Scientists are cautious about predicting what the impact will be, in part because the details of this claim are thin. However, the debate is heating up and one concern is it will dampen important research.

  • Medical ethicist Jonathan Moreno from the University of Pennsylvania says the situation reminds him of other times in history where there were tremors in the science world, like the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in 1999 from a gene therapy trial that led to years of diminished research.

The bottom line: The alarm over what could be next is real. But scientists hope the current debate will promote consensus on firm limits and promote transparency.

Go deeper:

SOURCE

From: Andrew Freedman <andrew.freedman@axios.com>

Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM

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

Subject: Axios Science: About that climate report — Gene editing takes a foreboding step — Building in harms’ way

 

 

He Jiankui spoke at the second international summit on human genome editing in Hong Kong. (Alex Hofford/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

CRISPR-baby scientist faces the music

The scientist who claims to have helped produce the first people born with edited genomes faced a tough crowd yesterday at a gene-editing summit in Hong Kong. He Jiankui gave a 20-minute talk about his unpublished work in animals and humans before opening a 40-minute Q&A session (watch it here). He faced difficult questions about the ethics of his work and his choice to keep it mostly under wraps until after the babies were born, and left many unanswered.

Meanwhile, prominent geneticist George Church is one of the few scientists who seem to be looking on the bright side of He’s controversial claim. “Let’s be quantitative before we start being accusatory,” Church told Science. “As long as these are normal, healthy kids it’s going to be fine for the field and the family.”

Nature | 9 min read & Science | 6 min read

Read more: Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry

 

SOURCE

From: Nature Briefing <briefing@nature.com>

Reply-To: Nature Briefing <briefing@nature.com>

Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 12:18 PM

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

Subject: CRISPR-baby scientist faces the music at gene-editing summit

 

See

SAVE

The ethical red flags of genetically edited babies

Driving the news: Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced Sunday night that a pair of twin girls had been born from embryos he modified using the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR.

  • He hasn’t provided solid proof, but if it‘s true, it would be the first time the technology has been used to engineer a human.

What they’re saying: The inventors of CRISPR technology did not seem pleased with the development — one called for a moratorium on implantation edited embryos into potential mothers.

  • “I hope we will be more cautious in the next thing we try to do, and think more carefully about when you should use technology versus when you could use technology,” said Jessica Berg, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University.

Between the lines: Several specific factors in He’s work sent up ethical red flags.

  • Many scientists had assumed that, when this technology was first used in humans, it would edit out mutations tied to a single gene that were certain to cause a child pain and suffering once it was born — essentially, as a last resort.
  • But He used CRISPR to, as he put it, “close a door” that HIV could have one day traveled through. That has prompted some speculation that this project was more about testing the technology than serving an acute medical need.
  • “That should make us very uneasy about the whole situation,” Berg said. “Of all the things to have started with, it does make you a little suspicious about this particular choice.”

The intrigue: There’s a lot we still don’t know about He’s work, and that’s also contributing to an attitude of skepticism.

  • How many embryos did he edit and implant before these live births?
  • How will he know it worked? As the children age, they’ll likely have their blood drawn and those samples will be exposed to HIV in a lab, but researchers aren’t going to tell them to go out and have unprotected sex or use intravenous drugs — another reason HIV seems like an odd starting place for human gene editing.
  • How did this even happen? The university where He worked said he was on leave, and Chinese officials have said he’s under investigation. But gene editing is a pretty hard thing to freelance.

The other side: He defended his work in a video message, saying, “I understand my work will be controversial but I believe families need this technology and I’m willing to take the criticism for them.”

  • “Their parents don’t want a designer baby, just a child who won’t suffer from a disease which medicine can now prevent,” He said.

Yes, but: Now that this threshold may have been crossed, attempts to create “designer babies” — within the limitations of what CRISPR can do — probably aren’t far off, some experts fear.

  • There are “likely to be places that are less regulated than others, where people are going to attempt to see what they can do,” Berg said. “I wouldn’t say everything in the world has changed now, but it’s certainly the next step.”
SOURCE

https://www.axios.com/genetic-editing-baby-china-ethics-controversy-b33f8414-8b83-445c-bad5-d8407f8841f4.html

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/11/26/jennifer-doudna-and-npr-science-correspondent-joe-palca-several-interviews/

Read Full Post »


LIVE eProceedings Day Two – The 14th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference: The Business of Personalization, November 15, 2018, HMS, Boston

Real Time Coverage: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

PART II

 

The Business of Personalization

The successful implementation of [personalized medicine] will depend on the embrace of [its] principles in the business community.

 RAJU KUCHERLAPATI, PH.D.
Paul C. Cabot Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School

*** Speakers will be added to the schedule on a rolling basis as they are confirmed. ***

7:00 a.m.
Registration and Continental Breakfast

Joseph B. Martin Conference Center at Harvard Medical School
77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, MA 02115

8:00 a.m.
Opening Remarks

SPEAKER | Stephen L. Eck, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, Immatics U.S. Inc; Board Chair, Personalized Medicine Coalition

8:10 a.m.
Pioneering Precision: Inside the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Push Toward Personalized Medicine — A Fireside Chat

MODERATOR | Meg Tirrell, Reporter, CNBC

Daniel O’Day, CEO, Roche Pharmaceuticals

8:55 a.m.
Considering Costs: Evaluating Emerging Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industry Business Models in Personalized Medicine

The pharmaceutical industry is deeply invested in commercializing personalized therapies that must recoup fixed development costs from smaller patient populations covered by health insurance companies that are increasingly concerned about rising health care costs. In that context, this diverse panel will explore the viability of the business model for developing and paying for personalized medicines, tackling issues related to costs, prices, and access.

MODERATOR | Meg Tirrell, Reporter, CNBC

Peter Juhn, M.D., M.P.H., Global Head of Value-Based Partnerships, Amgen

Nick Leschly, CEO, Bluebird Bio

Michael Sherman, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Senior Vice President, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care

Sean Tunis, M.D., Founder, CEO, Center for Medical Technology Policy

9:55 a.m.
Networking Break

Light refreshments provided.

Sponsored By

10:25 a.m.
Reinventing Research: Are Adaptive Platform Trials the Model of the Future? (A Harvard Business School Case Study)

Recognizing that traditional randomized controlled clinical trials can only study the safety and efficacy of a single therapy in one large population of patients, researchers in personalized medicine increasingly hope that “adaptive platform trials,” which employ advanced statistical techniques to simultaneously test the effectiveness of several personalized treatments in multiple sub-populations of patients, may be the key to new drug approvals in the future. Adaptive platform trials may make drug development more efficient by revealing which of several drug candidates are most promising for which patients, but maximizing the potential of these trials requires unprecedented collaboration among the institutions conducting and sponsoring research on various personalized treatments — and no obvious business models have emerged.

During this interactive case study discussion, professors from Harvard Business School will help us examine how researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute considered and addressed myriad challenges in their effort to design and operationalize an adaptive platform trial for glioblastoma patients, a deadly disease state for which there are few existing treatment options.

PRESENTED BY

Richard Hamermesh, D.B.A., Co-Faculty Chair, Harvard Business School Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator; and

Ariel D. Stern, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Technology and Operations Management Unit, Harvard Business School

11:40 a.m.
The 14th Annual Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award

INTRODUCTION | Steven D. Averbuch, M.D., Vice President, Head of Precision Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb

  • Ellen V. Sigal head of Friends of Cancer Research
  • Advanced science by Diagnostics Tests
  • Cancer Moonshot Program
  • Revolution therapies brought to market by Sigel’s sponsorship

AWARDEE | Ellen V. Sigal, Ph.D., Chairperson, Founder, Friends of Cancer Research

Friendly conversation:

  • Thanks to PMC
  • sister die on breast cancer at 40 with child of 4 1/2.
  • appointed to celebrate 20th year of American Cancer Association – Funding for Research, money spend in Washington is for Patients.
  • After ten years, interested in measurement of achieving evaluation, FDA structure was of interest.
  • Precision Medicine: biomarkers and targets for patients to define success for each patient, WHat is the right population for any drug, responders to drug therapy, if no response, change the drug.
  • Patient perspective: Challenges: 90% are treated in the Community and they need a second opinion, insurance, access, clinical trials done out of the community in Academic hospitals – patients are scared to death. Patients are asking for options: Right testing, access to testing involve insurance
  • combination therapy  – 6-8 months in advance,
12:10 p.m.
Bag Lunch
1:10 p.m.
Predicting and Preventing: Evaluating Progress Toward Personalized Medicine

The original architects of the personalized medicine paradigm envisioned an era in which clinicians could predict, prevent and treat disease based on an improved understanding of how human biology interacts with external environments. During this session, a panel of experts will examine our progress on each of these fronts during a wide-ranging conversation about personalized medicine’s past, present and future.

MODERATOR | Cynthia Casson Morton, Ph.D., William Lambert Richardson Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School

  • 1 Million volunteer participants for genome sequencing and microbiome data
  • PM Past, Present and Future
  • Issues that are rapidly evolving: Physician, Patients

Birgit Funke, Ph.D., F.A.C.M.G., Vice President, Clinical Affairs, Veritas Genetics; Associate Professor of Pathology (Part-Time), Harvard Medical School

  • Risk prevention,
  • driving DOWN operating cost curation of the Genome

Luba Greenwood, J.D., Strategic Business Development and Corporate Ventures, Verily (an Alphabet company)

  • view on diagnostics from Roche, CHemist and lawyer, Venture capital, beyond Genomics, from diagnosis to prognosis,at Verily projects tapping into the entire life span aspect of health
  • treatment solution therapeutics except og Oncology threatment is a strugle in the genomics field and pharmaco-genomics
  • Power the patients vs Genomics in Diabetes
  • Diagnostics in use to keep patients OUT of hospitals – management of chronic diseases
  • Patient need to own the genome data not a Databank

Keith Stewart, M.B., CH.B., Carlson and Nelson Endowed Director, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic

  • Hematologist, genomics apply genomics for detection of predisposition, inherited , Health genome sequencing,
  • Barriers to deploy genomics: Knowledge, readiness of providers, cost of uninsured,
  • Diagnostics high value low cost
  • drug adherence, pharmacists to be involved in drug adherence before refill
2:10 p.m.
Assessing the Assays: Determining the Clinical and Economic Utility of Genomic Sequencing

Advocates for personalized medicine have contended that genomic sequencing can deliver clinical and economic value to patients and the health system by allowing providers to more efficiently diagnose disease and develop treatment plans. Following increased use of genomic sequencing in clinical settings, many stakeholders, including payers, have begun to examine that value proposition more closely. During this session, a pharmaceutical industry representative, a payer, and a health economist will discuss the status and future of the emerging evidence regarding the clinical and economic utility of genomic sequencing, including studies recently commissioned by the Personalized Medicine Coalition.

MODERATOR Daryl Pritchard, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Science Policy, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • genetic profiling, adopt policy and procedures for mass deployment of NGS
  • show that it works – demonstrate value, payers and providers
  • a little more that evidence exist for payer to cover
  • rare diagnosed disease

Kristine Bordenave, M.D., F.A.C.P., Corporate Medical Director, Humana

  • labs, payers, providers, pharma — the GAP to be bridged
  • opportunities to prevent and treat disease
  • Payer, MDs, cost and impact, markers,
  • Humana has a research division Use Testing to find value, pharmacogenomics  – on Medicare, Medicaid patients
  • cost of doing the test vs not doing this test – assess value
  • pharmacisit, economist, statisticians – CMS – provide data on what is covered and what is not Humana: any missed opportunities, MD order tests of no impact per medical record
  • What test needed to be ordered? Patient stay healthy
  • NGS $650 – $2000 in 2018, in 2016 it was $25,000 cost of testing, cost of drugs
  • show us any value as good value – avoiding patient going to MDs Office, Hospital, ER – cost increase due to Pharmacogenomics testing $5K per test
  • Guidelines on ordering genomic testing, AI can assist providers, MDs need to catch up on a weekly basis
  • CMS Guideline: every test ordered must guide treatment otherwise not covered

Scott Ramsey, M.D., Ph.D., Full Member, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Director, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research

  • Value and utility are interconnected
  • cost effectiveness of NGS in melanoma: single gene testing – EGFR vs NGS – help clinicians to evaluate Lung Cancer
  • Flariton Database, 300 centers  – 140,000 – Patients got NGS – 7% ADDITIONAL patients founded mutations beyond EGFR
  • Survival in this cohort NGS vs EGFR – improved survival 6 month longer, mean survival 3 weeks long, not significant.
  • Increased survivals, why? cost of sequencing  – #14 most influential – cost does not drive value
  • #1 drug cost was the factor
  • #2 survival
  • marginal cost in platform comparison
  • Pricing of Testing NGS and Targeted therapy represent a threat to adoption of Genomics in Medicine
  • disparities and access – cost and patients: Partners and Mayo clinic patients are lucky

 

3:10 p.m.
PhRMA Foundation Challenge Awards: Developing Value Assessment Strategies That Align With Personalized Medicine

INTRODUCTION | Daryl Pritchard, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Science Policy, Personalized Medicine Coalition

PRESENTER | Shreeram Aradhye, M.D., Head of Global Medical Affairs, Chief Medical Officer, Pharmaceuticals, Novartis; Board Member, PhRMA Foundation

#1 Prize $50,000 – Dr. Garrison, UK

#2 Prize $25,000 – Dr. Robim Hayeems, Hospital for Sick Children Institute, Toronto, Canada

#3 Prize @ $10,000  – Dr. A Le, PharmD., PhD, Western University of Health Sciences

3:20 p.m.
Networking Break

Light refreshments provided.

3:50 p.m.
Impasse or Inflection Point? — An Investment Analysis

Sustaining the pace of innovation in personalized medicine will require continued investment in new initiatives, but the financial outlook for the field remains unclear. In that context, this panel of investors will examine whether personalized medicine is at an impasse, an inflection point or somewhere in between.

MODERATOR | William A. Sahlman, Ph.D., Baker Foundation Professor, Harvard Business School

  • market – can it sustain the opportunity – winners and losers
  • innovative financial models
  • Biotech IPO, VC, windows slam shut, drug failure – drivers and non
  • Increasing return to scale: AI, NGS, screening, – foreign money, China
  • Tsinghua University went back to China from Silicon Valley

Cary Pfeffer, M.D., Partner, Third Rock Ventures

  • was a decade at Biogen, MS indication drug, no biomarkers for patients – efficacy was in 50% non respondents 25%
  • Genomic sequencing to identify patient populations – no good effective medicine without target therapy
  • Mayocardia – drug in CVD for patients identified by Genomics
  • Genomics information needed to develop drugs

Michael Pellini, M.D., Managing Partner, Section 32; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • Impasse or Inflection Point? it s Inflection Point NOT an Impasse
  • Diagnostics component inside 4.8 Trillion in the therapeutics selection in the system as a whole
  • Foundation Medicine saw Roche as Big brother with International reach
  • Patients and Consumers will force in five years figuring out – every diagnosis of cancer will be sequenced and the infrastructure to interpret results and paid for

Salveen Richter, C.F.A., Vice President, Research Division, Goldman Sachs

  • innovative and disruptive, orphan drugs, Health IT, US Market 3 trillion – size of the opportunity 80% genetically driven
  • Cancer, CART therapy, easier to pay by performance, cost of the drug itself. profit in the 1st generation od Pharma manufacturers
  • One time pricing vs further indications, annuity type system, Hemophilia – $19Million market,
  • Europe successful in financing Health care — in the US — system must change – investment will flee, to fund pricing drug is key in changing the system CART Pricing is still difficult to pay for
  • Sequencing cost plunged, public investors placing funding in start ups even without return in the horizon, companies with multiple modalities spurring innovation – confusing in the investment side, technologies become obsolete very fast
  • Europe vs US, China is different no regulation like FDA,talent from US Pharma went back to China

 

4:50 p.m.
Closing Remarks

SPEAKER | Edward Abrahams, Ph.D., President, Personalized Medicine Coalition

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »