Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pharmaceutical Analytics’ Category

The late Cambridge Mayor Alfred Vellucci welcomed Life Sciences Labs to Cambridge, MA – June 1976

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

How Cambridge became the Life Sciences Capital

Worth watching is the video below, which captures the initial Cambridge City Council hearing on recombinant DNA research from June 1976. The first speaker is the late Cambridge mayor Alfred Vellucci.

Vellucci hoped to pass a two-year moratorium on gene splicing in Cambridge. Instead, the council passed a three-month moratorium, and created a board of nine Cambridge citizens — including a nun and a nurse — to explore whether the work should be allowed, and if so, what safeguards would be necessary. A few days after the board was created, the pro and con tables showed up at the Kendall Square marketplace.

At the time, says Phillip Sharp, an MIT professor, Cambridge felt like a manufacturing town that had seen better days. He recalls being surrounded by candy, textile, and leather factories. Sharp hosted the citizens review committee at MIT, explaining what the research scientists there planned to do. “I think we built a relationship,” he says.

By early 1977, the citizens committee had proposed a framework to ensure that any DNA-related experiments were done under fairly stringent safety controls, and Cambridge became the first city in the world to regulate research using genetic material.

 

WATCH VIDEO

http://www.betaboston.com/news/2016/03/17/how-cambridge-became-the-life-sciences-capital/

Scott Kirsner can be reached at kirsner@pobox.com. Follow him on Twitter@ScottKirsner and on betaboston.com.

SOURCE

How Cambridge became the life sciences capital

http://www.betaboston.com/news/2016/03/17/how-cambridge-became-the-life-sciences-capital/

Read Full Post »

Pharmaceutical Biology: Top Keynote Speakers You Should Look Out For

Guest Author: Samantha Thorenson

 

The Top Keynote Speakers You Should Look Out For in the Field of Pharmaceutical Biology

When selecting speakers for an event, it’s important to find those who are knowledgeable about the latest developments in pharmaceutical biology, especially in regards to specific issues or conditions. However, these speakers must also be engaging and offer something of value to their listeners to draw people in to the speaking event. Several speakers have developed a reputation in this field which makes them the top choices for many organizations and special events.

Scott Gottlieb

Dr. Gottlieb is an MD, who has a longstanding career in the field and is recognized as an expert in health policy. He was the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Science Affairs from 2005 to 2007. He has served in other capacities for the FDA, including as the Senior Advisor for Medical Technology to the Commissioner. He has been asked to give testimony on regulatory issues before both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Articles he has written on health policy have appeared in such prestigious publications as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, along with numerous medical journals. Dr. Gottlieb currently serves on several boards, including the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the New York University School of Medicine.

John Avellanet

John Avellanet is a businessman, author and entrepreneur in the field of pharmaceutical regulations. He was awarded the title of Best of Business Services from the Small Business Commerce Association in 2009 and 2011. He has developed, implemented and managed multiple compliance systems for the FDA and other organizations. Recently, he was a co-author for the book, Pharmaceutical Regulatory Inspections. He also wrote Get to Market Now! Turn FDA Compliance into a Competitive Ede in the Era of Personalized Medicine. Mr. Avellanet also has an independent consulting and training firm, which is Cerulean Associates LLC.

Richard A. Lindberg

Dr. Lindberg is a Ph.D. and Executive Director and Head for the Centers for Therapeutic Innovation-California at Pfizer. In his position, he is responsible for developing and managing research sites in San Diego and San Francisco and works with universities and other institutions. He works with UCSD, UCSF and Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute currently in new collaboration efforts to move basic scientific information into Phase 1 clinical trials. He has been the co-author of more than 70 patents and scientific articles.

Dr. Mao Mao

Dr. Mao Mao is the Research Fellow at Pfizer Oncology Research. In addition, he is the President of Asian Cancer Research Group, Inc. which is a not-for-profit organization that was established by Pfizer, Merch, and Eli Lilly. He coordinated collaborations with various universities and other academic institutions to promote cancer therapy in the Asia Pacific region. In addition to his extensive work in cancer therapy and testing, Dr. Mao Mao has invented over ten patent applications and has had numerous articles published in medical journals. He was also one of the founding members for the National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.

Sources:

http://www.aei.org/scholar/scott-gottlieb/

http://ceruleanllc.com/about/john-avellanet/

http://sabpa.org/html/the-12th-annual-symposium-on-bio-pharmaceuticals-speakers/

 

SOURCE

From: Samantha Thorenson <samantha@titaniumsuccess.com>

Reply-To: Samantha Thorenson <samantha@titaniumsuccess.com>

Date: Monday, March 14, 2016 at 4:19 PM

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

Subject: Re: Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

Read Full Post »

Rapid regression of HER2 breast cancer

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Anti-HER2 Combo Shrunk Breast Tumors in Under 2 Weeks

Translating genetic drivers into new targeted therapies for breast cancer
Speaker: D. Tripathy (USA)
Key Objectives

Translating Genetic Drivers into New Targeted Therapies for Breast Cancer

Key Objectives

Objective 1: To review critical genomic drivers of breast carcinogenesis

Objective 2: To describe resistance drivers and evolutionary changes that develop under treatment pressure

Objective 3: To understand the rationale, early results, and future clinical applications of targeted biological therapies for breast cancer

 

The role of tumour typing and grading
Speaker: M.P. Foschini (Italy)
Key Objectives

1) Explain the importance of histotyping, with special focus on low grade tumours and on triple negative low grade tumours.
2) Explain the prognostic importance of correct grading on surgical specimens.
3) Explain the value and limits of grading and histotyping on pre-operative biopsies.

 

“This has groundbreaking potential because it allows us to identify a group of patients who, within 11 days, have had their tumors disappear with anti-HER2 therapy alone and who potentially may not require subsequent chemotherapy,” said researcher Nigel Bundred, MD, professor of surgical oncology at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, in a statement. “This offers the opportunity to tailor treatment for each individual woman.”

Following initial news reports of the EPHOS-B trial, the authors earlier today issued a statement urging caution in interpreting the results: “While we do not wish to downplay the significance of the findings,” they wrote, “we wish to emphasize that our research has shown this treatment to be suitable for a group of women with a particular type of breast cancer. We have no evidence that it would be effective for anything other than patients with newly diagnosed, HER2-positive breast tumors.”

The trial was split into two parts and included 257 newly diagnosed, operable, HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

In the first part of the trial, 130 patients were randomized to a control group that received no pre-operative treatment, or to one of three treatment arms that received therapy for 11 days prior to surgery: trastuzumab alone, lapatinib alone, or the combination of trastuzumab and lapatinib. All patients were treated with standard of care after surgery.

In the second part of the trial, 127 patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab alone (n = 32), the combination of trastuzumab and lapatinib (n = 66), or a control group that received no pre-operative treatment (n = 29). Results from this part of the trial showed that in patients who received the combination treatment, 11% had a pathologic complete response (pCR) and 17% had minimal residual disease (MRD). In patients who received trastuzumab alone, none had a pCR and only 3% had MRD. No patient in the control group had either a pCR or MRD. Patients in the combination treatment arm also had a reduction in Ki67, a marker of apoptosis.

Median age of patients in the trial was 52 years, 48% of women had tumors greater than 2 cm, and 51% were grade 3 as assessed by biopsy.

“These results show that we can get an early indication of pathologic response within 11 days, in the absence of chemotherapy, in these patients on combination treatment. Most previous trials have only looked at the pathologic response after several months of treatment,” said Judith Bliss, MD, of the Institute of Cancer Research in London and Vice-Chair of the UK Breast Intergroup, who took part in the clinical trial, at a press conference.

The study researchers emphasized that these results need to be confirmed in larger trials.

“This study proposes a simple way to identify those patients very early on, which could help spare them unnecessary chemotherapy. What is now indispensable is to confirm if these early responses translate into better or equal long-term survival,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, chair of EBCC-10 and director of the breast unit at the Champalimaud Clinical Centre in Lisbon, in a statement.

The EPHOS-B trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and GlaxoSmithKline.

 

Breast Cancer Drug Combination Could Shrink Tumors in Days

Seth Augenstein, Digital Reporter    http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/news/2016/03/breast-cancer-drug-combination-could-shrink-tumors-days

A combination of breast cancer drugs administered before surgery could drastically shrink particular tumors within days – and potentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy in some patients, according to British researchers.

Herceptin (trastuzumab) in concert with lapatinib on tumors that are HER-2 positive can shrink or even destroy tumors within just 11 days before surgery, according to The Institute of Cancer Research in London.

Some 20 percent of all breast cancers are HER-2 positive, according to analysis by the Mayo Clinic.

The theory was the two drugs would work as a one-two punch: the Herceptin would block the HER-2 proteins on which the tumors rely, and then the lapatinib would inhibit other enzymes that may potentially remain unaffected by the other drug.

The study observed the tumor size in 257 women in the days-long window between diagnosis and removal of the tumors.

The participants were initially split up into three groups – one each getting one of the drugs, and a third getting no treatment for the 11 days before the surgery, according to the scientists.

However, other trials had indicated the drug combination could have a dramatic effect, so additional women were put in the lapatinib group and also given the Herceptin.

Roughly a quarter of the 66 women who got both drugs had tumors that were too small for the second measurement before surgery, they found.

“Our trial set out to try to use the window between diagnosis and surgery to find clues that combined treatment with (Herceptin) and lapatinib was having a biological effect on HER-2 positive tumors,” said Judith Bliss, director of the Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at the Institute of Cancer Research. “So it was unexpected to see quite such dramatic responses to the (Herceptin) and lapatinib within 11 days.”

The results were presented at the European Breast Cancer Conference on Thursday.

“These results are very promising if they stand up in the long run and could be the starting step of finding a new way to treat HER-2 positive breast cancers,” said Arnie Purushotham, senior clinical adviser at Cancer Research UK.

 

Breast cancer cells stained for DNA (red), NFkB (green), and a reactive oxygen species probe (blue). Julia Sero the ICR, 2011

Breast cancer cells stained for DNA (red), NFkB (green), and a reactive oxygen species probe (blue) (photo: Julia Sero/the ICR)

 

A drug combination – of lapatinib and trastuzumab (Herceptin) – before surgery shrinks and may even destroy tumours in women with HER2 positive disease within 11 days, according to new research.

The EPHOS B trial, led by researchers at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, the University of Manchester and University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, studied 257 women with HER2 positive breast cancer in the short gap between initial diagnosis and surgery to remove their tumours.

The research may lead to fewer women needing chemotherapy.

The results, from a Cancer Research UK-funded trial, are being presented at the 10th European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC10) today (Thursday).

In the trial, women were split into three groups and treated for 11 days before their surgery. Initially, women were randomised to receive either trastuzamab, or lapatinib or no treatment – but halfway through the trial, after evidence emerged from other trials of the effectiveness of the combination, the design was altered so that additional women allocated to the lapatinib group were also prescribed trastuzumab.

Official 10th European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC-10)

Statement on EPHOS-B (lapatinib/trastuzumab combination) trialLead researchers: Prof. Judith Bliss, Prof. Nigel  Bundred, Prof. David Cameron

We wish to emphasise that our research has shown this treatment to be suitable for a group of women with a particular type of breast cancer. We have no evidence that it would be effective for anything other than patients with newly-diagnosed, HER2 positive breast tumours. In addition, we do not yet know what effect the treatment will have on long-term survival.  While we do not wish to downplay the significance of the findings, we also urge caution in their interpretation.  Further trials will be needed before we can confirm these results, even in HER2 positive patients.

 

Breast Cancer Vaccines and Checkpoint-Inhibitor Immunotherapy

Q&A | March 15, 2016 | MBCC 2016, Breast Cancer
By Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD

Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD
As part of our coverage of the 33rd Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference, held March 10-13 in Miami Beach, Florida, we spoke with Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD, associate professor at the department of breast surgical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, who presented at the meeting on cancer vaccines and checkpoint inhibitors.
Cancer Network: How has being both a surgeon and immunologist, shaped your views of the potential clinical roles of cancer vaccines?

Dr. Mittendorf: As a surgeon, I see and treat patients with early-stage breast cancer that is potentially curable. Unfortunately, despite our best treatment—surgery, chemotherapy when indicated, radiation if required—we still see recurrences in up to 20% of these patients. I think it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that this recurrence is in part attributable to a failure of the immune response against the cancer—hence my enthusiasm for vaccines that could potentially augment that antitumor immunity, thereby decreasing the risk of recurrence.

Cancer Network: In what settings do breast cancer vaccines show the most promise?

Dr. Mittendorf: Secondary prevention. There is currently one vaccine that is being investigated in a phase III trial—NeuVax—which is made up of an immunogenic peptide combined with an immunoadjuvant. The trial is vaccinating patients in the adjuvant setting with the goal being to determine if vaccination can decrease the risk of recurrence.

Cancer Network: Is there reason for optimism that cancer vaccines might prove useful against advanced breast cancers?

Dr. Mittendorf: In my opinion, vaccines as monotherapy are not likely to be successful in advanced breast cancer. With that said, it is possible that vaccines could be administered as part of a combination strategy with other drugs that could augment the immune response such as certain chemotherapy regimens, trastuzumab, or other immunomodulatory drugs such as the checkpoint blockade agents.

Cancer Network: What insights do epidemiologic studies, such as those regarding childhood infections and cancer risk, offer for cancer immunotherapy?

Dr. Mittendorf: There is epidemiologic data to suggest that individuals who have had childhood infections (ie, chicken pox, pertussis, and other febrile illnesses) have a decreased risk of developing cancer. It is likely that these individuals develop adaptive immune responses against epithelial antigens. These responses could be augmented in the setting of a premalignant condition (ie, a colonic adenoma, or ductal carcinoma in situ), thereby tipping the scales back in favor of the immune response, leading to elimination of the threat of malignancy.

Cancer Network: Are the KEYNOTE trial reports to date reason for optimism about immune checkpoint blockade’s potential against breast cancer?

Dr. Mittendorf: Absolutely. These trials have confirmed that pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) is fairly well tolerated by breast cancer patients and suggest some clinical activity. Through the portfolio of KEYNOTE trials, which have enrolled the different subtypes of breast cancer, we’re likely to learn more about which subtypes of breast cancer are most likely to respond to pembrolizumab as monotherapy, which in turn would suggest which subtypes might need additional immune stimulation (ie, a combination strategy) in order for the checkpoint blockade agent to be effective.

Cancer Network: What is the significance of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells vs the tumor microenvironment?

Dr. Mittendorf: Whether PD-L1 expression on the tumor cells is required for response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy remains a subject of much discussion. Data from the JAVELIN trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in December suggested that PD-L1 expression on the tumor was less important than PD-L1 expression on immune cells in the microenvironment—what they referred to as “immune hotspots.”

Cancer Network: Do you anticipate clinical roles for checkpoint blockade in secondary prevention? Breast cancer treatment in combination with other agents, like trastuzumab? (Are there other promising combinations? Do you anticipate immunotherapy combinations that exploit different immune system pathways?)

Dr. Mittendorf: I see a potential role for checkpoint blockade in the adjuvant setting (effectively secondary prevention) in high-risk patients in whom the risk/benefit ratio favors using these agents, which do have some toxicity associated with them. As an example, the SWOG cooperative group is developing a trial that will evaluate pembrolizumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who have at least 1 cm of tumor or positive lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. With respect to using in combination with other agents—yes; in fact the PANACEA trial currently accruing in Europe is combining pembrolizumab with trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/mbcc-2016/breast-cancer-vaccines-and-checkpoint-inhibitor-immunotherapy#sthash.UenTvjsF.dpuf

 

 

Prognostic DCIS Score: ‘Ready for Prime Time’

News | March 14, 2016 | MBCC 2016, Breast Cancer
By Bryant Furlow
Not all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is dangerous, and the prognostic genomic Oncotype DX DCIS Score allows for routine risk stratification of patients to avoid unnecessary treatment, reported Patrick I. Borgen, MD, chair of the department of surgery at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. Dr. Borgen spoke at the 33rd Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference, held March 10–13 in Miami Beach, Florida.
Recent jumps in DCIS diagnoses have been driven by overdetection. “There’s a reservoir of DCIS in the female breast that was never going to become invasive—or would do so, so slowly that it was never going to threaten our patient,” Dr. Borgen noted.

Graphing the utilization of mammography over time, one sees that it “completely parallels the increase in DCIS diagnoses,” Dr. Borgen said. “There’s a similar slope of percent-change over time for DCIS and mammography screening. That either means the mammograms are causing DCIS, or, much more likely, that some of this [DCIS] was not going to become clinically relevant.”

When more sensitive digital mammography became more widely used, DCIS rates jumped again, he added. “Better imaging, more DCIS.”

The prevalence of occult DCIS in autopsy studies is “about an order of magnitude higher” than what we see in screening studies, Dr. Borgen noted, as further evidence for subclinical DCIS.

Thanks to landmark prospective randomized studies like the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-17 study, the standard of care for DCIS is lumpectomy and radiation. Those studies did not identify subsets of patients who failed to benefit from radiation, but they did find that 80% of patients would do well with surgery alone. “We focus on the 10% who do better with radiotherapy, but 10% recur despite radiotherapy. The challenge is, how do we find the 80% of patients who, much later—15, 20, 25 years later—are going to be well?”

Nomograms “leave significant room for improvement,” he noted. “It is possible that clinical parameters alone are insufficient to predict outcome. We have moved away from morphology—from looking down a microscope to determine whether it’s a bad lesion.”

Instead, the field has turned to prognostic analyses of DCIS genomics.

“The Oncotype DX DCIS Score isn’t a mathematical model and doesn’t require bootstrapping,” he said. “It looks at DCIS genomics in the patient in front of you—a subset of the 21-gene assay that we use routinely.”

It has been validated in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) E5194 and Ontario DCIS Cohort studies for recurrence prognostication and risk stratification of women with DCIS who underwent breast-conserving surgery and had negative margins.

“I would argue that it’s ready for prime time” in routine clinical use, Dr. Borgen told attendees.

The DCIS Score divides patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk DCIS categories, with 65% of patients falling into the low-risk group, meaning that at 10 years, they face a 4% chance of developing invasive breast cancer.

Dr. Borgen noted that the addition of radiation doesn’t diminish the DCIS Score’s predictability. “The DCIS Score is associated with the risk of local recurrence in a population of patients with pure DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery, with or without radiation. It’s almost certain there’s a very high-risk cohort of the disease, as well, and those patients may benefit from an entirely different treatment.”

http://www.cancernetwork.com/mbcc-2016/prognostic-dcis-score-ready-prime-time

Read Full Post »

Success in Psoriasis Treatment

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

 

Anti-IL17A Tx Clears Most Cases of Psoriasis

Durable long-term responses with ixekizumab, secukinumab

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAD/56597?xid=nl_mpt_guptaguide_2016-03-07

  • Note that these studies were published as abstracts and presented at a conference.
  • These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • More than half of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis remained clear of lesions after a year of treatment with the interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab.
  • Note that in another study, comparing two monoclonal antibodies for secukinumab (Cosentyx) or ustekinumab (Stelara) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. showed sustained superiority for secukinumab (Cosentyx) over ustekinumab (Stelara).

More than half of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis remained clear of lesions after a year of treatment with the interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekzumab, according to data reported here.

The 60-week follow-up data showed that 54% of patients treated with either of two doses of ixekizumab had 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100). More than 70% achieved PASI 90, and more than 80% met criteria for PASI 75 response.

In general, the monoclonal antibody demonstrated good tolerability, associated with a discontinuation rate of about 5%, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting.

“Izekizumab treatment led to high clinical response rates and sustained efficacy in a majority of patients,” Blauvelt said. “More than half of ixekizumab-treated patients achieved complete resolution of psoriatic plaques at week 60. The safety profile for ixekizumab was similar to what was observed during the 12-week induction period.”

Ixekizumab is a specific inhibitor of the IL-17A receptor. The antibody was compared against placebo and etanercept (Enbrel) in two phase III trials that evaluated two ixekizumab dosing schedules (administration every 2 or 4 weeks). More than 1,200 patients were randomized 1:2:2:2 to placebo, etanercept (Enbrel) or one of the ixekizumab schedules.

As previously reported, the antibody demonstrated superior efficacy after a 12-week induction period. PASI 75 response rates were 7.3% with placebo, 53.4% with etanercept, and 84.2% and 87.3% with the two ixekizumab regimens. PASI 90 rates were 3.1%, 25.7%, 65.3%, and 68.1%. PASI 100 responses were attained by 0%, 73%, 35%, and 37.7%.

Upon completion of the induction phase, all patients transitioned to open-label ixekizumab, administered every 4 weeks. Blauvelt reported findings for patients who received only ixekizumab for the entire 60-week follow-up period.

The data showed that response rates attained at 12 weeks with ixekizumab held up through the 60-week follow-up period. The intention-to-treat analysis (n=771) showed response rates of 82%, 72%, and 54% for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100. A per-protocol analysis (n=722) showed a PASI 75 response rate of 87%, PASI 90 response rate of 77%, and PASI 100 response rate of 57%.

Cosentyx Versus Stelara

In another study reported here, long-term follow-up from a randomized trial comparing two other biologic drugs showed sustained superiority for secukinumab (Cosentyx) over ustekinumab (Stelara) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

The randomized comparison of secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ustekinumab involved almost 700 patients who had a baseline mean PASI score ≥12, an investigator global assessment score ≥3, and body surface area involvement ≥10%. They were randomized to the monclonal antibodies, and the primary endpoint was PASO 90 response at 16 weeks. As reported last year, secukinumab resulted in a PASI 90 rate of 80.1% versus 59.0% for ustekinumab (P<0.0001). PASI 100 rates were 45% and 29.2% (P<0.0001).

Follow-up in both groups continued to week 52, during which time patients treated with secukinumab continued to have better psoriasis clearance rates compared with those treated with ustekinumab, said Diamant Thaci, MD, of the University of Lubeck in Germany. The secukinumab group had a PASI 90 rate of 76.2% compared with 60.6% for the ustekinumab group (P<0.0001). PASI 100 rates (a secondary endpoint) were 45.9% and 35.8% with secukinumab and ustekinumab, respectively (P<0.05).

Investigators in the trial collected quality of life data by means of the Dermatology Qualty of Life Index (DLQI). A secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a DLQI score of 0 or 1 at week 52 (responder). Response rates were 71.6% with secukinumab and 59.2% with ustekinumab (P=0.0008). A significant between-group difference emerged at 4 weeks and persisted throughout the 52-week follow-up period, Thaci said.

Secukinumab and ustekinumab had similar and favorable safety profiles. No new or unexpected adverse events or toxicities occurred in either group. No patient developed tuberculosis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis. The only notable difference was a higher incidence of candida infection with secukinumab (6.4% versus 1.6%). Thaci said none of the infections were serious.

 

The ixekizumab trial was supported by Eli Lilly.

Blauvelt disclosed relevant relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dermira, Genentech, Janssen Ortho Biotech, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sandoz.

The secukinumab trial was supported by Novartis.

Thaci disclosed relevant relationships with AbbVie, Almiral, Amgen, Astellas, Biogen-Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dignity, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Maruho, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Pharema, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Galapagos, Xenoport, Roche, and Mundipharma.

 

 

Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):541-51. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60125-8. Epub 2015 Jun 10.
Comparison of ixekizumab with etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3): results from two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND:

Ixekizumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody against the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin 17A. We report two studies of ixekizumab compared with placebo or etanercept to assess the safety and efficacy of specifically targeting interleukin 17A in patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS:

In two prospective, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 studies (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a confirmed diagnosis of chronic plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before baseline (randomisation), 10% or greater body-surface area involvement at both screening and baseline visits, at least a moderate clinical severity as measured by a static physician global assessment (sPGA) score of 3 or more, and a psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score of 12. Participants were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) by computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous placebo, etanercept (50 mg twice weekly), or one injection of 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks, or every 4 weeks after a 160 mg starting dose. Blinding was maintained with a double-dummy design. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients achieving sPGA score 0 or 1 and 75% or greater improvement in PASI at week 12. Analysis was by intention to treat. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01597245 and NCT01646177.

FINDINGS:

Between May 30, 2012, and Dec 30, 2013, 1224 patients in UNCOVER-2 were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous placebo (n=168), etanercept (n=358), or ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=351) or every 4 weeks (n=347); between Aug 11, 2012, and Feb 27, 2014, 1346 patients in UNCOVER-3 were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=193), etanercept (n=382), ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=385), or ixekizumab every 4 weeks (n=386). At week 12, both primary endpoints were met in both studies. For UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 respectively, in the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, PASI 75 was achieved by 315 (response rate 89·7%; [effect size 87·4% (97·5% CI 82·9-91·8) vs placebo; 48·1% (41·2-55·0) vs etanercept]) and 336 (87·3%; [80·0% (74·4-85·7) vs placebo; 33·9% (27·0-40·7) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group, by 269 (77·5%; [75·1% (69·5-80·8) vs placebo; 35·9% (28·2-43·6) vs etanercept]) and 325 (84·2%; [76·9% (71·0-82·8) vs placebo; 30·8% (23·7-37·9) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group, by four (2·4%) and 14 (7·3%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 149 (41·6%) and 204 (53·4%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, sPGA 0/1 was achieved by 292 (response rate 83·2%; [effect size 80·8% (97·5% CI 75·6-86·0) vs placebo; 47·2% (39·9-54·4) vs etanercept]) and 310 (80·5%; [73·8% (67·7-79·9) vs placebo; 38·9% (31·7-46·1) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group by 253 (72·9%; [70·5% (64·6-76·5) vs placebo; 36·9% (29·1-44·7) vs etanercept]) and 291 (75·4%; [68·7% (62·3-75·0) vs placebo; 33·8% (26·3-41·3) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group by four (2·4%) and 13 (6·7%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 129 (36·0%) and 159 (41·6%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In combined studies, serious adverse events were reported in 14 (1·9%) of 734 patients given ixekizumab every 2 weeks, 14 (1·9%) of 729 given ixekizumab every 4 weeks, seven (1·9%) of 360 given placebo, and 14 (1·9%) of 739 given etanercept; no deaths were noted.

INTERPRETATION:

Both ixekizumab dose regimens had greater efficacy than placebo and etanercept over 12 weeks in two independent studies. These studies show that selectively neutralising interleukin 17A with a high affinity antibody potentially gives patients with psoriasis a new and effective biological therapy option.

FUNDING:

Eli Lilly and Co.

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Read Full Post »

President Carter’s Status

Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

 

Most Experts Not Surprised by Carter’s Status 

But early response does not mean ‘cure’

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/SkinCancer/55076

 

http://clf1.medpagetoday.com/media/images/55xxx/55076.jpg

by Charles Bankhead
Staff Writer, MedPage Today

 

Former President Jimmy Carter’s announcement that he is free of metastatic melanoma surprised many people but, not most melanoma specialists contacted by MedPage Today.

With the evolution of modern radiation therapy techniques and targeted drugs, more patients with metastatic melanoma achieve complete and partial remissions, including remission of small brain metastases like the ones identified during the evaluation and initial treatment of Carter. However, the experts — none of whom have direct knowledge of Carter’s treatment or medical records — cautioned that early remission offers no assurance that the former president is out of the woods.

“If I had a patient of my own with four small brain mets undergoing [stereotactic radiation therapy], I would tell them that I fully expected the radiation to take care of those four lesions,” said Vernon K. Sondak, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa. “The fact that President Carter reports that it has done just that is not a surprise to me at all.

“I would also tell my patient that the focused radiation only treats the known cancer in the brain, and that if other small areas of cancer are present, they will likely eventually grow large enough to need radiation or other treatment as well, and that periodic brain scans will be required to monitor for this possibility.”

Carter also is being treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which is known to stimulate immune cells that then migrate to tumor sites to eradicate the lesions, noted Anna Pavlick, DO, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Melanoma is no longer a death sentence, and we are really changing what happens to patients,” said Pavlick. “It really is amazing.”

Carter’s melanoma story began to emerge in early August when he had surgery to remove what was described as “a small mass” from his liver. Following the surgery, Carter announced that his doctors had discovered four small melanoma lesions in his brain, confirming a suspicion the specialists had shared with him at the time of the surgery.

Carter subsequently underwent focused radiation therapy to eradicate the brain lesions and initiated a 12-week course of treatment with pembrolizumab. The radiation therapy-targeted therapy combination was a logical option for Carter, given observations that the PD-L1 inhibitor has synergy with radiation, noted Stergios Moschos, MD, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at Chapel Hill.

“I have seen this in other patients with metastatic melanoma,” said Gary K. Schwartz, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. “It is remarkable but absolutely possible within the realm of immunotherapy today.”

Although Carter’s announcement is undeniably good news, the optimism should be tempered by a long-term perspective, suggested Nagla Abdel Karim, MD, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

“We do have similar stories; however, we would be careful to call it a ‘complete remission’ and ‘disease control’ and not a ‘cure,’ so far,” said Karim. “We would resume therapy and follow-up any autoimmune side effects. Most important is the quality of life, which he seems to enjoy, and we are very happy with that.”

Darrell S. Rigel, MD, also of NYU Langone Medical Center, represented the lone dissenter among specialists who responded to MedPage Today‘s request for comments.

“I’m happy for him, but it’s very unusual, especially in older men, who usually have a worse prognosis,” said Rigel. “He is on a new drug that may have a little more promise, but there is no definitive cure at this point.”

 

 

Read Full Post »

Treatments for macular degenaration

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

 

Eylea outperforms Avastin for diabetic macular edema with moderate or worse vision loss

NIH-funded clinical trial shows Eylea, Avastin, and Lucentis perform similarly when vision loss is mild.

http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/eylea-outperforms-avastin-diabetic-macular-edema-moderate-or-worse-vision-loss

image of a patient having an eye exam

A two-year clinical trial that compared three drugs for diabetic macular edema (DME) found that gains in vision were greater for participants receiving the drug Eylea (aflibercept) than for those receiving Avastin (bevacizumab), but only among participants starting treatment with 20/50 or worse vision.  Gains after two years were about the same for Eylea and Lucentis (ranibizumab), contrary to year-one results from the study, which showed Eylea with a clear advantage. The three drugs yielded similar gains in vision for patients with 20/32 or 20/40 vision at the start of treatment. The clinical trial was conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net), which is funded by the National Eye Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health.

“This rigorous trial confirms that Eylea, Avastin, and Lucentis are all effective treatments for diabetic macular edema,” said NEI Director Paul A. Sieving, M.D., Ph.D. “Eye care providers and patients can have confidence in all three drugs.”

Eylea, Avastin, and Lucentis are all widely used to treat DME, a consequence of diabetes that can cause blurring of central vision due to the leakage of fluid from abnormal blood vessels in the retina. The macula is the area of the retina used when looking straight ahead. The drugs are injected into the eye and work by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a substance that can promote abnormal blood vessel growth and leakage. Although the drugs have a similar mode of action, they differ significantly in cost. Based on Medicare allowable charges, the per-injection costs of each drug at the doses used in this study were about $1850 for Eylea, about $60 for Avastin, and about $1200 for Lucentis.

DRCR.net investigators enrolled 660 people with DME at 89 clinical trial sites across the United States. When the study began, participants on average were 61 years old with 17 years of type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Only people with a visual acuity of 20/32 or worse were eligible to participate (to see clearly, a person with 20/32 vision would have to be 20 feet away from an object that a person with normal vision could see clearly at 32 feet). At enrollment, about half the participants had 20/32 to 20/40 vision. The other half had 20/50 or worse vision. In many states, a corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least one eye is required for a driver’s license that allows both day- and nighttime driving.

Each participant was assigned randomly to receive Eylea (2.0 milligrams/0.05 milliliter), Avastin (1.25 mg/0.05 mL), or Lucentis (0.3 mg/0.05 mL). Participants were evaluated monthly during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year. Most participants received monthly injections during the first six months. Thereafter, participants received additional injections of assigned study drug until DME resolved or stabilized with no further vision improvement.  Subsequently, injections were resumed if DME worsened. Additionally, laser treatment was given if DME persisted without continual improvement after six months of injections. Laser treatment alone was the standard treatment for DME until widespread adoption of anti-VEGF drugs a few years ago.

Among participants with 20/40 or better vision at the trial’s start, all three drugs improved vision similarly on an eye chart. On average, participants’ vision improved from 20/40 vision to 20/25.

Among participants with 20/50 or worse vision at the trial’s start, visual acuity on average improved substantially in all three groups. At two years, Eylea participants were able to read about 3.5 additional lines on an eye chart; Lucentis participants were able to read about three additional lines, and Avastin participants improved about 2.5 lines, compared with visual acuity before treatment. Eylea outperformed Avastin at the one- and two-year time points. While Eylea outperformed Lucentis at the one-year time point, by the two-year time point gains in visual acuity were statistically no different. At the end of the trial, average visual acuity was 20/32 to 20/40 among participants in all three groups.

“The results of the DRCR Network’s comparison of Eylea, Avastin, and Lucentis will help doctors and their patients with diabetic macular edema choose the most appropriate therapy,” said John A. Wells, M.D., the lead author of the study and a retinal specialist at the Palmetto Retina Center, Columbia, South Carolina. “The study suggests there is little advantage of choosing Eylea or Lucentis over Avastin when a patient’s loss of visual acuity from macular edema is mild, meaning a visual acuity of 20/40 or better. However, patients with 20/50 or worse vision loss may benefit from Eylea, which over the course of the two-year study outperformed Lucentis and Avastin.”

The number of injections participants needed was about the same for all three treatment groups. Eylea, Avastin, and Lucentis participants on average required nine injections in the first year of the study and five in the second year.

The need for laser treatment varied among the three treatment groups. By two years, 41 percent of participants in the Eylea group received laser treatment to treat their macular edema, compared with 64 percent of participants in the Avastin group and 52 percent in the Lucentis group.

The risk of heart attack, stroke, or death from a cardiovascular condition or an unknown cause by end of the trial was higher among participants in the Lucentis group. Twelve percent of Lucentis participants had at least one event, compared with five percent of participants in the Eylea group and eight percent of participants in the Avastin group. This difference in cardiovascular rates has not been seen across all other studies, and therefore may be due to chance. Continued assessment of these serious cardiovascular events and their association with these drugs is important in future studies. Cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke are common complications of diabetes. The occurrence of eye complications, such as eye infections and inflammation, was similar for all three drugs.

Results of the study were published online today in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Eylea and Lucentis were provided by drug manufacturers Regeneron and Genentech, respectively. Additional research funding for this study was provided by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, also a part of NIH.

“This important study would not have happened without funding from the National Institutes of Health and the cooperation of two competing companies,” said Adam R. Glassman, M.S., principal investigator of the DRCR.Net Coordinating Center at the Jaeb Center for Health Research.

The DRCR.net is dedicated to facilitating multicenter clinical research of diabetic eye disease. The Network formed in 2002 and comprises more than 350 physicians practicing at more than 140 clinical sites across the country. For more information, visit the DRCR.net website at http://drcrnet.jaeb.org/(link is external).

The study was funded by grants EY14231, EY14229, and EY18817.

The study is registered as NCT01627249 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Macular edema can arise during any stage of diabetic retinopathy and is the most common cause of diabetes-related vision loss. About 7.7 million Americans have diabetic retinopathy. Of these, about 750,000 have DME. The NEI provides information about diabetic eye disease athttp://www.nei.nih.gov/health/diabetic. View an NEI video about how diabetic retinopathy can be detected through a comprehensive dilated eye exam at http://youtu.be/sQ-0RkPu35o(link is external).

NEI leads the federal government’s research on the visual system and eye diseases. NEI supports basic and clinical science programs that result in the development of sight-saving treatments. For more information, visit http://www.nei.nih.gov.

 

 

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and Its Role in Non-Endothelial Cells: Autocrine Signalling by VEGF

Angela M. Duffy, David J. Bouchier-Hayes, and Judith H. Harmey.     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6482/

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a potent angiogenic factor and was first described as an essential growth factor for vascular endothelial cells. VEGF is up-regulated in many tumors and its contribution to tumor angiogenesis is well defined. In addition to endothelial cells, VEGF and VEGF receptors are expressed on numerous non-endothelial cells including tumor cells. This review examines the relevance of VEGF signalling in non-endothelial cells and explores the probable mechanisms involved.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), also known as vascular permeability factor (VPF), was originally described as an endothelial cell-specific mitogen.1 VEGF is produced by many cell types including tumor cells,2,3 macrophages,4 platelets,5 keratinocytes,6 and renal mesangial cells.7 The activities of VEGF are not limited to the vascular system; VEGF plays a role in normal physiological functions such as bone formation,8 hematopoiesis,9wound healing,10 and development.11

Anti-VEGF strategies to treat cancers were designed to target the pro-angiogenic function of VEGF and thereby inhibit neovascularization. However, anti-VEGF therapies may have a dual effect since evidence is accumulating to support the existence of both paracrine and autocrine VEGF loops within tumors. It has been suggested that direct stimulation of tumor cells by VEGF may protect the cells from apoptosis and increase their resistance to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy.12 Chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been shown to increase VEGF within tumors,13 and this increased VEGF may in fact protect tumor cells from these interventions. Anti-VEGF therapies are therefore likely to target both the pro-angiogenic activity of VEGF and the anti-apoptotic/pro-survival functions of VEGF.

VEGF and the Central Nervous System (CNS)      

In the central nervous system (CNS) both positive (pro-migratory) and negative (anti-migratory) regulatory factors are essential for axonal guidance.17 Following prolonged exposure, Sema3A, a member of the semaphorin family, acts as an inhibitor of neuronal migration and induces neuronal cell death18 through the neuropilin-1 receptor (NP-1).19However, in addition to Sema3A binding, NP-1 also acts as an additional receptor for VEGF165 isoform.20 The relationship between Sema3A and VEGF was explored in Dev cells,21 undifferentiated cells derived from a cerebellar medullablastoma that behave as pluripotential neural progenitor cells.22 NP-1 mRNA expression was detected in Dev cells by RT-PCR and in situ hybridization. Western blotting and immunohistochemical analysis confirmed that NP-1 was expressed on the cell surface. VEGF165 or anti-NP-1 antibody blocked the effect of Sema3A on these cells, suggesting that VEGF165 binds competitively to NP-1 to block Sema3A signalling.

Dev cells also expressed VEGFR-1 and blockade of VEGFR-1 reduced the inhibition of neuronal cell migration by Sema3A.21 It appears that both NP-1 and VEGFR-1 are required for Sema3A activity in these neuronal cells. NP-1 binds with high affinity to VEGFR-1.24NP-1 has a very short intracellular domain and appears to require a coreceptor to transduce a signal20 thus, VEGFR-1 may serve as a coreceptor for NP-1 in the modulation of Sema3A signalling. Both VEGF121 and VEGF165 inhibited Sema3A-induced apoptosis, and at higher concentrations reduced apoptosis below basal levels indicating an additional neuroprotective effect.

VEGF is induced in many CNS pathologies where it may have a neuroprotective role. VEGF has a neurotrophic effect and enhances survival of Schwann cells,25 and protects hippocampal neurons from ischemic injury.26 Impaired VEGF induction in the spinal cord results in motor neuron degeneration.27 In addition, when cerebellar granule neurons (CGNs) were exposed to 5% hypoxia for 9 hours VEGF, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 expression increased, and a neutralizing antibody to VEGF, DC 101, inhibited hypoxic preconditioning.28 Thus, VEGF autocrine or paracrine mechanisms appear to play a role in CGN cell survival following hypoxic preconditioning. In CGNs Akt (also known as Protein Kinase B/ PKB) was phosphorylated in response to VEGF and other studies have shown that VEGF stimulation in neurons is linked to PI3-K (Phosphatidylinositol 3′-kinase) and Akt activation and neuronal protection.29

VEGFA       http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P15692

Growth factor active in angiogenesis, vasculogenesis and endothelial cell growth. Induces endothelial cell proliferation, promotes cell migration, inhibits apoptosis and induces permeabilization of blood vessels. Binds to the FLT1/VEGFR1 and KDR/VEGFR2 receptors, heparan sulfate and heparin. NRP1/Neuropilin-1 binds isoforms VEGF-165 and VEGF-145. IsoformVEGF165B binds to KDR but does not activate downstream signaling pathways, does not activate angiogenesis and inhibits tumor growth.

GO:1902336 positive regulation of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance  

ID GO:1902336
Name positive regulation of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance
Ontology Biological Process
Definition Any process that activates or increases the frequency, rate or extent of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance.
PMID:21658587
GONUTS GO:1902336 Wiki Page
Acknowledgements This term was created by the GO Consortium

Synonym

up-regulation of retinal ganglion pathfinding

cell axon pathfinding

up regulation of retinal ganglion cell axon pathfinding

activation of retinal ganglion cell axon pathfinding

activation of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance

upregulation of retinal ganglion cell axon pathfinding

up regulation of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance

up-regulation of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance

upregulation of retinal ganglion cell axon guidance

positive regulation of retinal ganglion cell axon pathfinding

 

What Is Age-Related Macular Degeneration?       http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/macular-degeneration/age-related-macular-degeneration-overview
Macular degeneration is the leading cause of severe vision loss in people over age 60. It occurs when the small central portion of the retina, known as the macula, deteriorates. The retina is the light-sensing nerve tissue at the back of the eye. Because the disease develops as a person ages, it is often referred to as age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Although macular degeneration is almost never a totally blinding condition, it can be a source of significant visual disability.

There are two main types of age-related macular degeneration:

Dry form. The “dry” form of macular degeneration is characterized by the presence of yellow deposits, called drusen, in the macula. A few small drusen may not cause changes in vision; however, as they grow in size and increase in number, they may lead to a dimming or distortion of vision that people find most noticeable when they read. In more advanced stages of dry macular degeneration, there is also a thinning of the light-sensitive layer of cells in the macula leading to atrophy, or tissue death. In the atrophic form of dry macular degeneration, patients may have blind spots in the center of their vision. In the advanced stages, patients lose central vision.
Wet form. The “wet” form of macular degeneration is characterized by the growth of abnormal blood vessels from the choroid underneath the macula. This is called choroidal neovascularization. These blood vessels leak blood and fluid into the retina, causing distortion of vision that makes straight lines look wavy, as well as blind spots and loss of central vision. These abnormal blood vessels and their bleeding eventually form a scar, leading to permanent loss of central vision.
Most patients with macular degeneration have the dry form of the disease and can lose some form of central vision. However, the dry form of macular degeneration can lead to the wet form. Although only about 10% of people with macular degeneration develop the wet form, they make up the majority of those who experience serious vision loss from the disease.

 

 

Read Full Post »

3-D Printed Liver

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

 

3D-printing a new lifelike liver tissue for drug screening

Could let pharmaceutical companies quickly do pilot studies on new drugs
February 15, 2016    http://www.kurzweilai.net/3d-printing-a-new-lifelike-liver-tissue-for-drug-screening

Images of the 3D-printed parts of the biomimetic liver tissue: liver cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (left), endothelial and mesenchymal supporing cells (center), and the resulting organized combination of multiple cell types (right). (credit: Chen Laboratory, UC San Diego)

 

University of California, San Diego researchers have 3D-printed a tissue that closely mimics the human liver’s sophisticated structure and function. The new model could be used for patient-specific drug screening and disease modeling and could help pharmaceutical companies save time and money when developing new drugs, according to the researchers.

The liver plays a critical role in how the body metabolizes drugs and produces key proteins, so liver models are increasingly being developed in the lab as platforms for drug screening. However, so far, the models lack both the complex micro-architecture and diverse cell makeup of a real liver. For example, the liver receives a dual blood supply with different pressures and chemical constituents.

So the team employed a novel bioprinting technology that can rapidly produce complex 3D microstructures that mimic the sophisticated features found in biological tissues.

The liver tissue was printed in two steps.

  • The team printed a honeycomb pattern of 900-micrometer-sized hexagons, each containing liver cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells. An advantage of human induced pluripotent stem cells is that they are patient-specific, which makes them ideal materials for building patient-specific drug screening platforms. And since these cells are derived from a patient’s own skin cells, researchers don’t need to extract any cells from the liver to build liver tissue.
  • Then, endothelial and mesenchymal supporting cells were printed in the spaces between the stem-cell-containing hexagons.

The entire structure — a 3 × 3 millimeter square, 200 micrometers thick — takes just seconds to print. The researchers say this is a vast improvement over other methods to print liver models, which typically take hours. Their printed model was able to maintain essential functions over a longer time period than other liver models. It also expressed a relatively higher level of a key enzyme that’s considered to be involved in metabolizing many of the drugs administered to patients.

“It typically takes about 12 years and $1.8 billion to produce one FDA-approved drug,” said Shaochen Chen, NanoEngineering professor at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. “That’s because over 90 percent of drugs don’t pass animal tests or human clinical trials. We’ve made a tool that pharmaceutical companies could use to do pilot studies on their new drugs, and they won’t have to wait until animal or human trials to test a drug’s safety and efficacy on patients. This would let them focus on the most promising drug candidates earlier on in the process.”

The work was published the week of Feb. 8 in the online early edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Abstract of Deterministically patterned biomimetic human iPSC-derived hepatic model via rapid 3D bioprinting

The functional maturation and preservation of hepatic cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are essential to personalized in vitro drug screening and disease study. Major liver functions are tightly linked to the 3D assembly of hepatocytes, with the supporting cell types from both endodermal and mesodermal origins in a hexagonal lobule unit. Although there are many reports on functional 2D cell differentiation, few studies have demonstrated the in vitro maturation of hiPSC-derived hepatic progenitor cells (hiPSC-HPCs) in a 3D environment that depicts the physiologically relevant cell combination and microarchitecture. The application of rapid, digital 3D bioprinting to tissue engineering has allowed 3D patterning of multiple cell types in a predefined biomimetic manner. Here we present a 3D hydrogel-based triculture model that embeds hiPSC-HPCs with human umbilical vein endothelial cells and adipose-derived stem cells in a microscale hexagonal architecture. In comparison with 2D monolayer culture and a 3D HPC-only model, our 3D triculture model shows both phenotypic and functional enhancements in the hiPSC-HPCs over weeks of in vitro culture. Specifically, we find improved morphological organization, higher liver-specific gene expression levels, increased metabolic product secretion, and enhanced cytochrome P450 induction. The application of bioprinting technology in tissue engineering enables the development of a 3D biomimetic liver model that recapitulates the native liver module architecture and could be used for various applications such as early drug screening and disease modeling.

Fernando

I wonder how equivalent are these hepatic cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) compared with the real hepatic cell populations.
All cells in our organism share the same DNA info, but every tissue is special for what genes are expressed and also because of the specific localization in our body (which would mean different surrounding environment for each tissue). I am not sure about how much of a step forward this is. Induced hepatic cells are known, but this 3-D print does not have liver shape or the different cell sub-types you would find in the liver.

I agree with your observation that having the same DNA information doesn’t account for variability of cell function within an organ. The regulation of expression is in RNA translation, and that is subject to regulatory factors related to noncoding RNAs and to structural factors in protein folding. The result is that chronic diseases that are affected by the synthetic capabilities of the liver are still problematic – toxicology, diabetes, and the inflammatory response, and amino acid metabolism as well. Nevertheless, this is a very significant step for the testing of pharmaceuticals. When we look at the double circulation of the liver, hypoxia is less of an issue than for heart or skeletal muscle, or mesothelial tissues. I call your attention to the outstanding work by Nathan O. Kaplan on the transhydrogenases, and his stipulation that there are significant differences between organs that are anabolic and those that are catabolic in TPNH/DPNH, that has been ignored for over 40 years. Nothing is quite as simple as we would like.

Fernando commented on 3-D printed liver

3-D printed liver Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator LPBI 3D-printing a new lifelike liver tissue for drug …

I wonder how equivalent are these hepatic cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) compared with the real hepatic cell populations.
All cells in our organism share the same DNA info, but every tissue is special for what genes are expressed and also because of the specific localization in our body (which would mean different surrounding environment for each tissue). I am not sure about how much of a step forward this is. Induced hepatic cells are known, but this 3-D print does not have liver shape or the different cell sub-types you would find in the liver.

 

Read Full Post »

A Reconstructed View of Personalized Medicine

Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

There has always been Personalized Medicine if you consider the time a physician spends with a patient, which has dwindled. But the current recognition of personalized medicine refers to breakthrough advances in technological innovation in diagnostics and treatment that differentiates subclasses within diagnoses that are amenable to relapse eluding therapies.  There are just a few highlights to consider:

  1. We live in a world with other living beings that are adapting to a changing environmental stresses.
  2. Nutritional resources that have been available and made plentiful over generations are not abundant in some climates.
  3. Despite the huge impact that genomics has had on biological progress over the last century, there is a huge contribution not to be overlooked in epigenetics, metabolomics, and pathways analysis.

A Reconstructed View of Personalized Medicine

There has been much interest in ‘junk DNA’, non-coding areas of our DNA are far from being without function. DNA has two basic categories of nitrogenous bases: the purines (adenine [A] and guanine [G]), and the pyrimidines (cytosine [C], thymine [T], and  no uracil [U]),  while RNA contains only A, G, C, and U (no T).  The Watson-Crick proposal set the path of molecular biology for decades into the 21st century, culminating in the Human Genome Project.

There is no uncertainty about the importance of “Junk DNA”.  It is both an evolutionary remnant, and it has a role in cell regulation.  Further, the role of histones in their relationship the oligonucleotide sequences is not understood.  We now have a large output of research on noncoding RNA, including siRNA, miRNA, and others with roles other than transcription. This requires major revision of our model of cell regulatory processes.  The classic model is solely transcriptional.

  • DNA-> RNA-> Amino Acid in a protein.

Redrawn we have

  • DNA-> RNA-> DNA and
  • DNA->RNA-> protein-> DNA.

Neverthess, there were unrelated discoveries that took on huge importance.  For example, since the 1920s, the work of Warburg and Meyerhoff, followed by that of Krebs, Kaplan, Chance, and others built a solid foundation in the knowledge of enzymes, coenzymes, adenine and pyridine nucleotides, and metabolic pathways, not to mention the importance of Fe3+, Cu2+, Zn2+, and other metal cofactors.  Of huge importance was the work of Jacob, Monod and Changeux, and the effects of cooperativity in allosteric systems and of repulsion in tertiary structure of proteins related to hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions, which involves the effect of one ligand on the binding or catalysis of another,  demonstrated by the end-product inhibition of the enzyme, L-threonine deaminase (Changeux 1961), L-isoleucine, which differs sterically from the reactant, L-threonine whereby the former could inhibit the enzyme without competing with the latter. The current view based on a variety of measurements (e.g., NMR, FRET, and single molecule studies) is a ‘‘dynamic’’ proposal by Cooper and Dryden (1984) that the distribution around the average structure changes in allostery affects the subsequent (binding) affinity at a distant site.

What else do we have to consider?  The measurement of free radicals has increased awareness of radical-induced impairment of the oxidative/antioxidative balance, essential for an understanding of disease progression.  Metal-mediated formation of free radicals causes various modifications to DNA bases, enhanced lipid peroxidation, and altered calcium and sulfhydryl homeostasis. Lipid peroxides, formed by the attack of radicals on polyunsaturated fatty acid residues of phospholipids, can further react with redox metals finally producing mutagenic and carcinogenic malondialdehyde, 4-hydroxynonenal and other exocyclic DNA adducts (etheno and/or propano adducts). The unifying factor in determining toxicity and carcinogenicity for all these metals is the generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Various studies have confirmed that metals activate signaling pathways and the carcinogenic effect of metals has been related to activation of mainly redox sensitive transcription factors, involving NF-kappaB, AP-1 and p53.

I have provided mechanisms explanatory for regulation of the cell that go beyond the classic model of metabolic pathways associated with the cytoplasm, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and lysosome, such as, the cell death pathways, expressed in apoptosis and repair.  Nevertheless, there is still a missing part of this discussion that considers the time and space interactions of the cell, cellular cytoskeleton and extracellular and intracellular substrate interactions in the immediate environment.

There is heterogeneity among cancer cells of expected identical type, which would be consistent with differences in phenotypic expression, aligned with epigenetics.  There is also heterogeneity in the immediate interstices between cancer cells.  Integration with genome-wide profiling data identified losses of specific genes on 4p14 and 5q13 that were enriched in grade 3 tumors with high microenvironmental diversity that also substratified patients into poor prognostic groups. In the case of breast cancer, there is interaction with estrogen , and we refer to an androgen-unresponsive prostate cancer.

Finally,  the interaction between enzyme and substrates may be conditionally unidirectional in defining the activity within the cell.  The activity of the cell is dynamically interacting and at high rates of activity.  In a study of the pyruvate kinase (PK) reaction the catalytic activity of the PK reaction was reversed to the thermodynamically unfavorable direction in a muscle preparation by a specific inhibitor. Experiments found that in there were differences in the active form of pyruvate kinase that were clearly related to the environmental condition of the assay – glycolitic or glyconeogenic. The conformational changes indicated by differential regulatory response were used to present a dynamic conformational model functioning at the active site of the enzyme. In the model, the interaction of the enzyme active site with its substrates is described concluding that induced increase in the vibrational energy levels of the active site decreases the energetic barrier for substrate induced changes at the site. Another example is the inhibition of H4 lactate dehydrogenase, but not the M4, by high concentrations of pyruvate. An investigation of the inhibition revealed that a covalent bond was formed between the nicotinamide ring of the NAD+ and the enol form of pyruvate.  The isoenzymes of isocitrate dehydrogenase, IDH1 and IDH2 mutations occur in gliomas and in acute myeloid leukemias with normal karyotype. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are remarkably specific to codons that encode conserved functionally important arginines in the active site of each enzyme. In this case, there is steric hindrance by Asp279 where the isocitrate substrate normally forms hydrogen bonds with Ser94.

Personalized medicine has been largely viewed from a lens of genomics.  But genomics is only the reading frame.  The living activities of cell processes are dynamic and occur at rapid rates.  We have to keep in mind that personalized in reference to genotype is not complete without reconciliation of phenotype, which is the reference to expressed differences in outcomes.

 

Read Full Post »

There are three calcium-channel blocking drugs available, but only verapamil possesses significant clinical antiarrhythmic effects. Since the drug affects

Sourced through Scoop.it from: my-medstore-canada.net

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular Disease: PHARMACO-THERAPY

Read Full Post »

Horizons of drug discovery

Larry H. Bernstein, MD., FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Phenotypic and Biomarker-based Drug Discovery

NY Acad Sci.    http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Ebriefings/Detail.aspx

Organizers: Michael Foley (Tri-Institutional Therapeutics Discovery Institute), Ralph Garippa (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center), David Mark (F. Hoffmann-La Roche), Lorenz Mayr (Astra Zeneca), John Moffat (Genentech), Marco Prunotto (F. Hoffmann-La Roche), and Sonya Dougal (The New York Academy of Sciences)Presented by the Biochemical Pharmacology Discussion Group

Reported by Robert Frawley | Posted January 12, 2016

 

http://www.nyas.org/image.axd?id=7fb0ef88-6198-465b-9f1f-52ec1e0b0b3d&t=635616760148070000

Overview

There are two major methods for designing pharmaceutical drugs. In traditional drug discovery (TDD), or empiric design, researchers target a particular domain or protein after working to understand its mechanisms and molecular biology. In phenotypic drug discovery (PDD), many different compounds are tested on a system until one results in an observable phenotype of success, and the compounds’ mechanisms of action are not considered. The Phenotypic and Biomarker-based Drug Discovery symposium, presented by the Academy’s Biochemical Pharmacology Discussion Group on October 27, 2015, featured current work in PDD and highlighted the need to bridge commercial and academic research to improve phenotypic drug design.

Phenotypic drug discovery—screening of thousands of substances for functional cellular outputs such as gene expression, growth arrest, and cancer cell death—has led to the development of more commercial drugs than TDD, the more common method of discovery. Indeed, as Jonathan A. Lee of Eli Lilly noted, spending on TDD is out of sync with the rate of new drugs reaching approval; the number of new drugs per billion dollars spent dropped sharply in the last few decades. He argued that the need for functionally validated drugs could be met through a renewed focus on PDD.

http://www.nyas.org/image.axd?id=a4ee4660-5709-4c34-a954-15dc2da625a6&t=635863102808800000

Spending has increased while drug discovery has flattened, leading to historic reductions in new molecular entities (NMEs) per billion dollars spent. Noted are the introduction of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) and the mapping of the human genome sequence, which should have aided targeted drug discovery. (Image presented by Jonathan A. Lee)

 

Bruce A. Posner started the morning session with a discussion of a phenotypic screen conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center which identified two chemical scaffolds that are effective in killing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells but are harmless to the non-cancer cells tested. In further studies, the group showed that an optimized analog of one scaffold arrested tumor growth in a mouse xenograft model of NSCLC. Both chemical scaffolds appear to work through a novel mechanism targeting stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD), which is known to be important in unsaturated fatty acid synthesis. These compounds were found to be specific, effective, and potent in NSCLC cell lines that express elevated levels of Cyp4F11 and/or related Cyp family members. The group also showed that these scaffolds function as prodrugs that are activated only in cancer cells expressing these Cyp isoforms and that the Cyps produce metabolites of the prodrug that bring about cancer-specific cell toxicity. The group is working to improve these scaffolds and to develop a putative biomarker based on Cyp expression.

The Broad Institute’s LINCS (Library of Network-based Cellular Signatures) database is designed to keep track of small-molecule therapeutics, collecting data on cellular responses to “perturbagens” (drugs, factors, and others stimuli). Data are generated using the L1000 assay, which assesses the expression of 1000 genes known to explain 80% of genetic variation in assayed cell lines. Aravind Subramanian explained that the technique can identify the majority of drug effects for a fraction of the cost of RNA sequencing. Although it examines only a subset of molecules and relies on measuring genetic responses, the technique can help predict the likelihood that new compounds will elicit desired effects.

Martin Main of AstraZeneca described phenotypic drug discovery at AstraZeneca. The company’s model for discovery is to check phenotypic markers at every step, as drugs are moved from cell lines to patients. Main’s team identified a molecule that enhances the regenerative function of cardiac myocytes after infarction. Using cells from several donors, the team validated a promising compound that increases proliferation of cardiac myocytes and drives epicardium-derived progenitor cells to assume a myocyte lineage. In another discovery, the team used islet β-cell regeneration as the phenotype, discovering a compound the researchers believe will reach clinical trials for type 2 diabetes.

Andras J. Bauer of Boehringer Ingelheim discussed a method to increase predictive strength in compound selection before phenotypic screening. By cataloging the structures of known target–reference compound binding pairs, the team can compare those structures to untested compounds, and then assess only the most promising compounds. The THICK (Target Hypothesis Information from Curated Knowledge bases) database gives interaction-probability scores to untested compounds on the basis of structure. Bauer also described a method to verify target–compound interaction without labeling the molecules, in which phenotypic results were verified with mass spectrometry.

In the afternoon session, Myles Fennell of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center described his work testing small interfering RNA (siRNA) libraries to find siRNAs that alter macropinocytosis (MP), cell-surface ruffling that is seen in prostate cancer cells. The surface phenotype allows TMR-dextran uptake, which the researchers measured in the screen. MP is driven by RAS (a commonly affected gene family in cancers) and the pathways are already popular drug targets. The researchers tested two libraries of siRNAs, which block translation of specific proteins, using TMR as a marker to report MP severity, as well as sensitive single-cell assays to determine siRNA efficacy. The team identified promising target sequences and used a data-analysis pipeline called KNIME to define several hits, which the researchers are pursuing in therapeutic development.         www.knime.org

http://www.nyas.org/image.axd?id=0b4496f6-28fb-435c-bd11-06b4d31fc0ad&t=635863102714400000

TMR-dextran is able to work into cells undergoing macropinocytosis and thus these cells can be separated by phenotype as seen in the controls above. (Image courtesy of Myles Fennell)

Giulio Superti-Furga of the Austrian Academy of Sciences is a proponent of understanding the mechanisms of action (MOA) of candidate drugs. He began by explaining that the genome is an incomplete indicator of disease; epigenetics, altered protein function, metabolism, and other factors are also important. He then introduced pharmacoscopy and the “thermal shiftome” as methods to phenotypically screen compounds. Pharmacoscopy uses high-power automated microscopy to describe how compounds affect cell populations by using specific stains for different cell types; a computer then counts the cells expressing each stain, yielding results similar to those obtained via fluorescence-activated cell sorting but generated through an automated process. The thermal shiftome catalogs changes in thermal stability after protein binding in known reactions and is used to characterize the stability of new reactions. Superti-Furga offered a perspective that tempered the enthusiasm for pure PDD and advocated a mechanistic approach to drug discovery.

Michael R. Jackson, at one of the largest academic screening facilities, the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, led a reexamination of drug screens performed by pharmaceutical companies. His team conducted millions of assays and accumulated a large data library with few new hits. However, the researchers were able to closely characterize the chemistry of one hit, an undisclosed interaction, and Jackson’s group is proceeding to develop a drug to modulate nuclear receptor signaling. The researchers also have a procedure that can screen for the differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) into neurons for potential neuro-regenerative therapies. They developed high-throughput morphology, endpoint-measurement, and proliferation assays that generate tightly clustered, repeatable data. The team has produced consistent results screening 10 immune modulators and various cytokines to assess the reactivity and stability of the cells, providing reliable compound characterization. This success in human cells shows that a disease-relevant patient-derived screening platform to characterize differentiation and immune response is possible with robust assays.

In the next set of talks, Friedrich Metzger and Susanne Swalley described the parallel work of Hoffmann-La Roche and Novartis, respectively, toward treating spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). A devastating disease that leads to loss of motor function and affects motor nerve cells in the spinal cord, SMA presents a unique drug development opportunity. The condition is caused by the loss of function of a single gene product called survival of motor neuron (SMN1). Humans encode an unstable gene product, called SMN2, which is nearly homologous to SMN1.

Metzger explained that the inactive SMN2 variant is largely the same as active SMN1 but, missing exon 7, cannot compensate in its absence. The group from Hoffmann-La Roche aimed to stabilize SMN2 by promoting the inclusion of exon 7. The researchers conducted a phenotypic screen seeking a compound that could change the splicing in patient fibroblasts in vitro and produce a stable, functional SMN2 protein including exon 7. In studies with an SMN2Δ7 mouse model (lacking exon 7), mice drugged with the compound experienced full phenotypic rescue. The compound has been shown to induce alternative splicing of SMN2 to include exon 7 in healthy human volunteers; it was well tolerated and is moving to human patient trials.

Swalley discussed the target identification and MOA of the Novartis compound. After a screening process similar to Roche’s, Novartis moved its compound into animal models while also beginning parallel experimentation to find out why it worked. The group found that U1-snRNP, a spliceosome component required for the splicing process, is bound at two essential nucleotides by the compound. In the SMN2Δ7 mice, the compound improved survival and rescued full SMN2 protein expression. The Novartis compound stabilizes the appropriate spliceosome components to produce SMN2 with exon 7 intact. This novel mechanism demonstrates that a sequence-selective small molecule therapy can alter splicing activity to treat SMA. Together these talks demonstrated the power of PDD and the importance of validating drug mechanisms.

The final talk of the day was given by Hoffmann-La Roche’s Jitao David Zhang, who suggested that pathway reporter genes, which are only modulated when a specific signaling pathway is activated or inhibited, can be used as phenotypic readouts. It is known that gene expression data can predict cell phenotype. Using transcriptomics as a surrogate for downstream phenotypes, for example by using expression data from a gene subset to predict outcomes, would save time and effort. In an iPSC cardiomyocyte model of diabetic stress, machine learning (guided by pathway information) characterizes the response of the iPSCs to a library of compounds, highlighting compounds and pathways worthy of further investigation. This new platform for molecular phenotyping using pathway reporter genes, sequencing, and early analysis speeds compound characterization.

 

The New York Academy of Sciences. Phenotypic and Biomarker-based Drug Discovery. Academy eBriefings.2016. Available at: www.nyas.org/PhenotypicDrug-eB

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »