Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery’ Category


Charles River Laboratories – World Congress, Delivering Therapies to the Clinic Faster, September 23 – 24, 2019, 25 Edwin H. Land Boulevard, Cambridge, MA

 

https://events.criver.com/event/9eab0ee1-982e-42c6-a4cd-fb43f9f2f1d0/confirmation:7c68cf9b-c599-469e-b602-42178c77e4f9

 

ANNOUNCEMENT

 

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group will cover this event in Real Time for pharmaceuticalintelligence.com 

Confirmation Number: 8ZNCBYNGHCK

In attendance generating in realtime event’s eProceeding and social media coverage by

 

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Director & Founder

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston

Editor-in-Chief

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com 

e-Mail: avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

(M) 617-775-0451

https://cal.berkeley.edu/AvivaLev-Ari,PhD,RN

SkypeID: HarpPlayer83          LinkedIn Profile        Twitter Profile

 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

 

Join us this year as we explore novel approaches to drug development that effectively reduce program timelines and accelerate delivery to the clinic. Using a variety of case studies, our speakers will illustrate methods that successfully cut time to market and highlight how artificial intelligence and genomics are expediting target discovery and drug development. In an agenda that includes presentations, panel discussions, and short technology demonstrations, you will learn how the latest science and regulatory strategies are helping us get drugs to patients faster than ever.

AGENDA

September 23, 2019

jim.jpg
Matt_Wilsey.jpg
Photo-Mathew-Pletcher.png
peter smith.jpg
richard snyder.jpg
Anne_Carpenter photo (003).jpg
venky.png
KJ.jpg
DT.jpg
Carey Goldberg.PNG
burke family.jpg

September 24, 2019

jim.jpg
david hysong.png
bill siders.png
eric green.jpg
MacArthurD.jpg
mackay_1644931c.jpg
timothy yu.jpg
fernando-vieira.jpg
crop-VOISCHTS-Presenter-ZimmermannM.png
Allyson-Berent.jpg
Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Pfizer buys out Array BioPharma for $11.4 Billion to beef up its oncology offerings

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

As reported in FiercePharma.com:

by Angus Liu |

Three years after purchasing Medivation for $14.3 billion, Pfizer is back with another hefty M&A deal. And once again, it’s betting on oncology.

In the first big M&A deal under new CEO Albert Bourla, Pfizer has agreed to buy oncology specialist Array BioPharma for a total value of about $11.4 billion, the two companies unveiled Monday. The $48-per-share offer represents a premium of about 62% to Array stock’s closing price on Friday.

With the acquisition, Pfizer will beef up its oncology offerings with two marketed drugs, MEK inhibitor Mektovi and BRAF inhibitor Braftovi, which are approved as a combo treatment for melanoma and recently turned up positive results in colon cancer.

The buy will enhance the Pfizer innovative drug business’ “long-term growth trajectory,” Bourla said in a Monday statement, dubbing Mektovi-Braftovi “a potentially industry-leading franchise for colorectal cancer.”

RELATED: Array’s ‘extremely compelling’ new colon cancer data spark blockbuster talk

In a recent interim analysis of a trial in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer, the pair, used in tandem with Eli Lilly and Merck KGaA’s Erbitux, produced a benefit in 26% of patients, versus the 2% that chemotherapy helped. The combo also showed it could reduce the risk of death by 48%. SVB Leerink analysts at that time called the data “extremely compelling.”

Right now, one in every three new patients with mutated metastatic melanoma is getting the combo, despite its third-to-market behind combos from Roche and Novartis, Andy Schmeltz, Pfizer’s oncology global president, said during an investor briefing on Monday.

It is being studied in more than 30 clinical studies across several solid tumor indications. Moving forward, Pfizer believes the combo could potentially be used in the adjuvant setting to prevent tumor recurrence after surgery, Pfizer’s chief scientific officer, Mikael Dolsten, said on the call. The company is also keen to know how it could be paired up with Pfizer’s own investigational PD-1, he said, as the combo is already in studies with other PD-1/L1s.

But as Pfizer execs have previously said, the company’s current business development strategy no longer centers on adding revenues “now or soon,” but rather on strengthening Pfizer’s pipeline with earlier-stage assets. And Array can help there, too.

“We are very excited by Array’s impressive track record of successfully discovering and developing innovative small-molecules and targeted cancer therapies,” Dolsten said in a statement.

On top of Mektovi and Braftovi, Array has a long list of out-licensed drugs that could generate big royalties over time. For example, Vitrakvi, the first drug to get an initial FDA approval in tumors with a particular molecular feature regardless of their location, was initially licensed to Loxo Oncology—which was itself snapped up by Eli Lilly for $8 billion—but was taken over by pipeline-hungry Bayer. There are other drugs licensed to the likes of AstraZeneca, Roche, Celgene, Ono Pharmaceutical and Seattle Genetics, among others.

Those drugs are also a manifestation of Array’s strong research capabilities. To keep those Array scientists doing what they do best, Pfizer is keeping a 100-person team in Colorado as a standalone research unit alongside Pfizer’s existing hubs, Schmeltz said.

Pfizer is counting on Array to augment its leadership in breast cancer, an area championed by Ibrance, and prostate cancer, the pharma giant markets Astellas-partnered Xtandi. For 2018, revenues from the Pfizer oncology portfolio jumped to $7.20 billion—up from $6.06 billion in 2017—mainly thanks to those two drugs.

Source: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-never-say-never-m-a-buys-oncology-innovator-array-for-11-4b

 

About Array BioPharma

Array markets BRAFTOVI® (encorafenib) capsules in combination with MEKTOVI® (binimetinib)  tablets for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K  mutation in the United States and with partners in other major worldwide markets.* Array’s lead clinical programs, encorafenib and binimetinib, are being investigated in over 30 clinical trials across a number of solid tumor indications, including a Phase 3 trial in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. Array’s pipeline includes several additional programs being advanced by Array or current license-holders, including the following programs currently in registration trials: selumetinib (partnered with AstraZeneca), LOXO-292 (partnered with Eli Lilly), ipatasertib (partnered with Genentech), tucatinib (partnered with Seattle Genetics) and ARRY-797. Vitrakvi® (larotrectinib, partnered with Bayer AG) is approved in the United States and Ganovo® (danoprevir, partnered with Roche) is approved in China.

 

Other Articles of Note of Pfizer Merger and Acquisition deals on this Open Access Journal Include:

From Thalidomide to Revlimid: Celgene to Bristol Myers to possibly Pfizer; A Curation of Deals, Discovery and the State of Pharma

Pfizer Near Allergan Buyout Deal But Will Fed Allow It?

Pfizer offers legal guarantees over AstraZeneca bid

Re-Creation of the Big Pharma Model via Transformational Deals for Accelerating Innovations: Licensing vs In-house inventions

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: June 4 Morning Sessions; Global Biotech Investment & Public-Private Partnerships

Reporter: Stephen J Williams PhD @StephenJWillia2

Each country have their own needs and most important drug cost structure. Must involve patients and providers.
BCI survey: countries output different, who improved who didnt
Is industry having collaboration with government? hardly ten percent by survey and worse vice versa
Transparancy and holistic view important for collaboration
Korea: lack of communication need input from government on pricing; wants global open innovation and enhance RD investments
Tawain: price, price but based on efficacy; pharma needs to talk with doctors hospital patients, find balance
Pitts: we need trust; staff that country offices with people who know that country. Price not defining value
Columbia:  need to attract investors

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

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019:  Issues of Risk and Reproduceability in Translational and Academic Collaboration; 2:30-4:00 June 3 Philadelphia PA

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

Derisking Academic Science: The Unmet Need  

Translating academic research into products and new therapies is a very risky venture as only 1% of academic research has been successfully translated into successful products.

Speakers
Collaboration from Chicago area universities like U of Chicago, Northwestern, etc.  First phase was enhance collaboration between universities by funding faculty recruitment and basic research.  Access to core facilities across universities.  Have expanded to give alternatives to company formation.
Half of the partnerships from Harvard and companies have been able to spin out viable startups.
Most academic PI are not as savvy to start a biotech so they bring in biotechs and build project teams as well as developing a team of ex pharma and biotech experts.  Derisk as running as one asset project.  Partner as early as possible.  A third of their pipeline have been successfully partnered.  Work with investors and patent attorneys.
Focused on getting PIs to get to startup.  Focused on oncology and vaccines and I/O.  The result can be liscensing or partnership. Running around 50 to 60 projects. Creating a new company from these US PI partnerships.
Most projects from Harvard have been therapeutics-based.  At Harvard they have a network of investors ($50 million).   They screen PI proposals based on translateability and what investors are interested in.
In Chicago they solicit multiple projects but are agnostic on area but as they are limited they are focused on projects that will assist in developing a stronger proposal to investor/funding mechanism.
NYU goes around university doing due diligence reaching out to investigators. They shop around their projects to wet their investors, pharma appetite future funding.  At Takeda they have five centers around US.  They want to have more input so go into the university with their scientists and discuss ideas.
Challenges:

Takeda: Data Validation very important. Second there may be disconnect with the amount of equity the PI wants in the new company as well as management.  Third PIs not aware of all steps in drug development.

Harvard:  Pharma and biotech have robust research and academic does not have the size or scope of pharma.  PIs must be more diligent on e.g. the compounds they get from a screen… they only focus narrowly

NYU:  bring in consultants as PIs don’t understand all the management issues.  Need to understand development so they bring in the experts to help them.  Pharma he feels have to much risk aversion and none of their PIs want 100% equity.

Chicago:  they like to publish at early stage so publication freedom is a challenge

Dr. Freedman: Most scientists responding to Nature survey said yes a reproduceability crisis.  The reasons: experimental bias, lack of validation techniques, reagents, and protocols etc.
And as he says there is a great ECONOMIC IMPACT of preclinical reproducability issues: to the tune of $56 billion of irreproducable results (paper published in PLOS Biology).  If can find the core drivers of this issue they can solve the problem.  STANDARDS are constantly used in various industries however academic research are lagging in developing such standards.  Just the problem of cell line authentication is costing $4 billion.
Dr. Cousins:  There are multiple high throughput screening (HTS) academic centers around the world (150 in US).  So where does the industry go for best practices in assays?  Eli Lilly had developed a manual for HTS best practices and in 1984 made publicly available (Assay Guidance Manual).  To date there have been constant updates to this manual to incorporate new assays.  Workshops have been developed to train scientists in these best practices.
NIH has been developing new programs to address these reproducability issues.  Developed a method called
Ring Testing Initiative” where multiple centers involved in sharing reagents as well as assays and allowing scientists to test at multiple facilities.
Dr.Tong: Reproduceability of Microarrays:  As microarrays were the only methodology to do high through put genomics in the early 2000s, and although much research had been performed to standardize and achieve best reproduceability of the microarray technology (determining best practices in spotting RNA on glass slides, hybridization protocols, image analysis) little had been done on evaluating the reproducibility of results obtained from microarray experiments involving biological samples.  The advent of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning though can be used to help validate microarray results.  This was done in a Nature Biotechnology paper (Nature Biotechnology volume28pages827–838 (2010)) by an international consortium, the International MAQC (Microarray Quality Control) Society and can be found here
However Dr. Tong feels there is much confusion in how we define reproduceability.  Dr. Tong identified a few key points of data reproduceability:
  1. Traceability: what are the practices and procedures from going from point A to point B (steps in a protocol or experimental design)
  2. Repeatability:  ability to repeat results within the same laboratory
  3. Replicatablilty:  ability to repeat results cross laboratory
  4. Transferability:  are the results validated across multiple platforms?

The panel then discussed the role of journals and funders to drive reproduceability in research.  They felt that editors have been doing as much as they can do as they receive an end product (the paper) but all agreed funders need to do more to promote data validity, especially in requiring that systematic evaluation and validation of each step in protocols are performed..  There could be more training of PIs with respect to protocol and data validation.

Other Articles on Industry/Academic Research Partnerships and Translational Research on this Open Access Online Journal Include

Envisage-Wistar Partnership and Immunacel LLC Presents at PCCI

BIO Partnering: Intersection of Academic and Industry: BIO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION June 23-26, 2014 | San Diego, CA

R&D Alliances between Big Pharma and Academic Research Centers: Pharma’s Realization that Internal R&D Groups alone aren’t enough

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: What’s Next: The Landscape of Innovation in 2019 and Beyond. 3-4 PM June 3 Philadelphia PA

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

Results from Clarivate
In 2018 most of deals were in CART area but now we are seeing more series A rounds that are on novel mechanisms as well as rare diseases.  US is still highest in venture capital series A but next is China. 10 of top ex US VC are from China, a whole lot of money.
Preclinical is very strong for US VC but China VC is focused on clinical.  First time this year we see US series A break above 100.  But ex US the series A is going down.  Although preclinical deals in US is coming back not like as good as in 2006.  But alot of > 1 billion $ deals.  Most of money into mAbs and protein therapy;  antisense is big and cell therapy is big too; small molecule not as much
ClearView Healthcare
Which innovation classes attracted VC in 2018?
  • Oncology drives a disproportionate focus could be driven by pharma focus on oncology; however there is some focus on neuro and infectious disease
  • therapeutic classes: shift to differentiated technology…. companies want technologic platforms not just drugs.  Nucleic Acid tech and antibody tech is high need platforms.  Startups can win by developing a strong platform not just a drug
There are pros and cons of developing a platform company versus a focused company.  Many VCs have a portfolio and want something to fit in so look for a focused company and may not want a platform company.  Pfizer feels that when alot of money is available (like now) platform investing is fine but when money becomes limited they will focus on those are what will be needed to fill therapy gaps.  They believe buy the therapy and only rent the platform.
Merck does feel the way Pfizer does but they have separate ventures so they can look and license platforms.  they are active in looking at companies with new modalities but they are focused on the money so they feel best kept in hands of biotech not pharma.
At Celgene they were solely focused on approvals not platforms.  Alot of money is required to get these platforms to market.  Concentration for platform companies should be the VCs not partnering or getting bought out by pharma.  it seems from panel speakers from pharma that they are waiting for science to prove itself and waiting for favorable monetary environments (easy money).  However it seems they (big pharma) are indicating that money is drying up or at least expect it too.
At Axial and with VCs they feel it is important to paint a picture or a vision at the early stage.
At Ontogeny, they focus on evaluating assets especially and most important, ThE MANAGEMENT TEAM.  There are not that many great talented drug development management teams he feels out there even though great science out there.

Read Full Post »


LIVE 13th Annual BioPharma and Healthcare Summit, Thursday, May 9, 2019, Marriott Hotel, Cambridge, MA

 

http://www.usaindiachamber.org

8:40 AM – 9:10 AM Registration and Networking
9:10 AM – 9:20 AM Welcome addressKarun Rishi, President, USAIC

Opening comments: Dr Andrew Plump, President R&D and Director, Takeda Pharmaceuticals

9:20 AM – 9:40 AM Fireside Chat

  • Mark Abdoo, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • Dr Eswara Reddy, Drug Controller General of India, Central Drug Control Organization

Moderator: Sanat Chattopadhyay, President, Merck Manufacturing Division; Merck & Co.

9:40 AM – 10:00 AM Presentation on CAR (chimeric antigen receptor) T-cell Therapies
Dr. Carl June, Director of Translational Research, Abramson Cancer Center University of Pennsylvania Moderator: Dr. Raju Kucherlapati, Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School
10:00 AM – 10:50 AM Panel Discussion: Oncology – The Emperor of BioPharma Development

Panelists:

Moderator: Dr. Christiana Bardon, Managing Director, MPM Capital

10:50 AM – 11:20 AM Networking Break
11:20 AM – 12:10 PM Panel Discussion: Future of Clinical Trials and Drug Development

Panelists:

Moderator: Dr. William Chin, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Harvard Medical School

12:10 PM – 1:00 PM Panel Discussion: Manufacturing in the Future

Panelists:

  • Hari Bhartia, Founder and Co-Chairman, Jubilant Bhartia Group
  • Mark Abdoo, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • Dr. Paul McKenzie, Executive Vice President, Pharma Operations & Technology, Biogen
  • Sanat Chattopadhyay, President, Merck Manufacturing Division; Merck & Co.
  • Vinay Ranade, Chief Executive Officer, Reliance Life Sciences

Moderator: Professor N. Venkat Venkatraman, Boston University Questrom School of Business

1:00 PM – 1:50 PM Lunch
1:50 PM – 1:55 PM Video message from Suresh Prabhu, Hon’ble Minister of Commerce & Industry, Gov. of India
1:55 PM – 2:45 PM Panel Discussion: One in a million – Emerging trends in Rare Diseases

Panelists:

Moderator: Dr. Samarth Kulkarni, Chief Executive Officer, CRISPR Therapeutics

2:45 PM – 3:20 PM Networking & Tea Break
3:20 PM – 3:50 PM Fireside Chat: Value and Access – The ongoing debate

Moderator: Dr Andrew Plump, President R&D, Takeda Pharmaceuticals

3:50 PM – 4:10 PM India update on Clinical Trial Regulations

  • Arun Singhal, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, India
  • Dr Eswara Reddy, Drug Controller General of India, Central Drug Control Organization
4:10 PM – 5:00 PM Panel Discussion: Research and Development Strategies and Trends

Panelists:

Moderator: Dr. Martin Mackay, Co-Founde, Rallybio

5:00 PM – 5:05 PM Closing Remarks
5:05 PM – 6:15 PM Cocktails & Networking Reception

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN & Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group

will cover the event in Real Time

REAL TIME COVERAGE USING SOCIAL MEDIA

 

LIVE Images taken by @AVIVA1950

 

 

 

9:10 AM – 9:20 AM

Welcome addressKarun Rishi, President, USAIC

Opening comments: Dr Andrew Plump, President R&D and Director, Takeda Pharmaceuticals

  • tomorrow announcement @Shire
  • India 1.3Billion in India, each person is a potential patient in the largest democracy in the World
  • China – transformation takes place every day
  • The Patient and the Pricing of Drugs the biggest issue missing the ball dialoguing on Panel today

9:20 AM – 9:40 AM

Fireside Chat

  • Mark Abdoo, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  • Dr Eswara Reddy, Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), Central Drug Control Organization

Moderator: Sanat Chattopadhyay, President, Merck Manufacturing Division; Merck & Co.

9:40 AM – 10:00 AM Presentation on CAR (chimeric antigen receptor) T-cell Therapies
Dr. Carl June, Director of Translational Research, Abramson Cancer Center University of Pennsylvania Moderator: Dr. Raju Kucherlapati, Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School

  • Video on child with recurrent twice of leukhimia
  • T-cell HIV Virus infect

 

10:00 AM – 10:50 AM

Panel Discussion: Oncology – The Emperor of BioPharma Development

Panelists:

  1. solid vs blood tumors
  2. T-Cells amplification microenvironment and biology
  3. PD-1 in combination therapies thousand Trials
  4. Biomarker allows to check response in conjunction with genomics data brings insights
  5. Tumors World, Biomarkers in Immuno oncology respond to PD-1 no response to other drug
  6. stratify patients
  1. Protein experimental data compound design from simulations of VIRTUAL compounds,
  2. how to incentivise to take on new innovations
  1. more that one single administration by injection
  2. response rates different even in one patient let alone among patients
  3. detection gene
  4. CAR-T glioblastoma
  5. pancreatic cancer good responses in combination therapies
  6. immunr repertoire biology so complex that biomarkers are limited

Moderator: Dr. Christiana Bardon, Managing Director, MPM Capital

  • 30% patinets with complete cure

10:50 AM – 11:20 AM Networking Break11:20 AM – 12:10 PM

Panel Discussion: Future of Clinical Trials and Drug Development

Panelists:

  1. endpoints need to be redefined it effect price of drug development
  2. in Oncology – Basket and Umbrellas Trial – two stufies approval for melanoma, biomarker
  3. Is response rate is 30% va 50% and Phase 3 is negative Kertuda when worked at Merck dose ranging last phase when response dropped from 60% to 30% in the case of Study C3
  4. 30% of the cost of the study – 30% was translational
  5. CRO model appropriate oversite vs douplication of tasks
  • Dr. Bruce Chabner, Director of Clinical Research, Mass General Hospital Cancer Center
  1. Old paradigm Phase 1,2,3 – off the board now, New drugs do not need the old paradigm
  2. Phase i1 changed if genomics is involved multiple cohorts at same time
  3. FDA play amazing role
  4. patient selection is key
  5. mutations in rare disease vs mutations in cancer
  6. immunotherapy and endogenic drugs with chemo in RENAL cancer
  7. check-points – lung cancer understood money spent to find responders
  8. HOW to select which cheno therapy — no improvement today vs past
  9. 40 drugs approved by accelerated approval one came back on the market
  10. Financial burden of being in a clinical trial
  11. Foundation gives money to Institutions to reimburse patients for flights, meals, acommodation, Pharma are reluctant to participants due to potential accusation of bias id Pharma pays Patients that participate in Clinical Trials
  1. FDA recognizes approval process – systems involved AFTER approval for reimbursement and monitoring after market
  2. regulatory by countires are different
  3. which factors are sacrifiable in the long tern in clinical trial design
  1. Safety – benefit risk is what physicians work with every day
  2. Drugs paradign of small molecules does not hold is you have a drug that deliver entire organelle – how you dose for half life how you prive the rate of replication in the body
  3. Surrogate markers
  4. Taking a drug off the market ->>  conditional approvals [approval can be taken back or require additional studies] not a favorable view of Pharma in the present to support Conditional approval vs accelerated approval

 

  1. speed
  2. differentiation from competition
  3. drug development in crisis is CVD not cancer, US and the rest of the world – lowest investment in drugs is CVD
  4. Studies designed by Physicians using SAME design
  5. need to create experts to use ML in the course of clinical trial design
  6. regulators as Partners not as Barriers
  7. Proof of efficacy is a burden on the developers of the drug not on the Regulatory
  8. Increase use of advertising to recruit
  9. 70% OF PATIENTS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE  lives to far from site of trials
  10. Telecommunication between administrators of study ans clinical Trials participants
  11. Back when I was at Pfizer, designing study – patients burden relieved more willingness to participate
  12. Preferrs to run studies in house vs use CRO they are not effective in monitoring like study run in house

Moderator: Dr. William Chin, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Harvard Medical School

  • Probability of success to clinic has not changed
  • challenge is design and execution in clinical trials
  • changes in drug modalities: RNA, DNA,
  • which combination to use
  • how to find the many patients needed
  • Basket and Umbrellas Trial

12:10 PM – 1:00 PM

Panel Discussion: Manufacturing in the Future

Panelists:

  • Hari Bhartia, Founder and Co-Chairman, Jubilant Bhartia Group
  1. supply change
  2. blockchain
  3. quality by design
  4. CPK
  5. productivity will go up variability will decrease
  6. manufacturng must happen in India
  7. Genetics price selection
  8. Secure system, data quality the data logic and the analytics
  9. infrastructure in manufacturing is not completed yet
  10. Training by augmented reality Turnover high in India
  11. cyber security – digitization and central control
  12. demonstration data offense
  • Mark Abdoo, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  1. next 10 years India and China will improve regulatory activities and match better the US requirements
  2. review foreign hosts
  3. skills and location of hosts:
  4. India: Standards and unannounced inspections and
  5. China: same
  6. Blockchain is experienced as experimentation at FDA across each all parts of the Agency
  • Dr. Paul McKenzie, Executive Vice President, Pharma Operations & Technology, Biogen
  1. raw material to patients: Pharma very slow than other industries Reliable needs be very high, relationships
  2. Hurrican in PortoRIco affected supply chain
  3. Reality, every one HAVE to be in China
  4. Platforming for each modality for Scaling out vs Scaling up
  5. diversify vs modality x
  6. build capacity and capabilities customization of ultra filtration different in two plants lowers standardizations
  7. Training on Demand, Virtually, documnetation needs to change to electronic
  8. Continueous manufacturing Academic contribution
  • Vinay Ranade, Chief Executive Officer, Reliance Life Sciences
  1. Pharma was slow in India the manufacturing
  2. infantile diarreha vaccine 70,000 in 4 years needs that drug,
  3. massive intellectual capital in India
  4. How to implement and make best use of data to improve processes
  5. cyber security was not experiences
  1. Phase 1 scaling out vs up – it is different in vaccine field
  2. ML, Block chain, supply chain and manufacturing will be adapted in supply chain
  3. Apply analytics and relationships in manufacturing
  4. obsolescence and upgrades
  5. capture data electronically
  6. cyber security can be a hazard hard to mitigate when all systems are down
  7. significant challenges in manufacturing and data security

Moderator: Professor N. Venkat Venkatraman, Boston University Questrom School of Business

  • How can Pharma become leaner
  • heterogenuious environment for production
  • cyber security

1:00 PM – 1:50 PMLunch1:50 PM – 1:55 PM Video message from Suresh Prabhu, Hon’ble Minister of Commerce & Industry, Gov. of India1:55 PM – 2:45 PM

Panel Discussion: One in a million – Emerging trends in Rare Diseases

Panelists:

  1. worked with Academic community on how to treat rare disease in the future
  1. Show clinical benefit and impact multiplemyeloma
  2. patients becoming activists
  3. access
  4. foundation by patients
  5. Patient to get cloud
  • Dr. Dhaval Patel, Executive Vice President  and Chief Scientific Officer, UCB
  1. if a modality will cure a disease justify innovation Model for payment: Mortgage Model
  2. Access INDEX pricing – US will benchmark the price in other parts of the world
  3. Gene therapy is not only got monognenic diseases but for
  4. decrease work involved in development of drugs
  • Dr. James Wilson, Director – Gene Therapy Program, University of Pennsylvania
  1. tension between physicians and development of the perfect drug.
  2. AV
  3. Protein replacement therapy repeated infusion gene therapy infrastructure develop in China for China, Develop in India for India vs develop in US for India or China
  4. Cost of manufacturing to decrease
  • Dr. Timothy Yu, Assistant Professor in Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School
  1. Scalability beyond the one case: the mechanism for the drug has generability for other aptients iwth same mutation the method has no limit
  2. Molecular type of mutation Spice Switching strategy, just-in-time manufacturing

Moderator: Dr. Samarth Kulkarni, Chief Executive Officer, CRISPR Therapeutics

  1. Rare diseases, potential for cure
  2. Academia, Hospitals, biotech
  3. commercial model of the disease

2:45 PM – 3:20 PMNetworking & Tea Break3:20 PM – 3:50 PM

Fireside Chat: Value and Access – The ongoing debate

  1. since 2003 testify in the House, against Canadian  David Brenner was asked about importation from Canada of breast cancer tamoxiphen at a lower price than in the US.
  2. From importation crisis to Obama Care – stable system Medicare Part D – drug coverage for Olderly
  3. After Obama – Price is part of doing business REBATES $100Billion the valur of REBATES
  4. Co-Insurance
  1. right for innovation will be preserved
  2. price increase
  3. give and take
  4. Co-pay – We need lower co-pay
  5. with current administration, sink finding the Well instead of Well funding the sick
  6. CHange is coming, co-pay will change
  1. Genzyme days vs 2019
  2. changes how drugs are priced?
  3. Flaws of the system:Gevernment induce prices that will change
  4. $800,000 drug is now $80 [ala Regeneron] – R&D was $2Billion
  5. CO-pay for hospital stay is lower than co-pay on drugs – 10% twice a year

Moderator: Dr Andrew Plump, President R&D, Takeda Pharmaceuticals

3:50 PM – 4:10 PM

India update on Clinical Trial Regulations

  • Arun Singhal, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, India
  1. Each patient deserve access to healthcare in India
  2. experimenting
  • Dr Eswara Reddy, Drug Controller General of India, Central Drug Control Organization
  1. Time line for Application approval for drugs, if approved in another country 60 days
  2. Gov’t hospitals can import New drugs which have not been permitted in India

4:10 PM – 5:00 PM

Panel Discussion: Research and Development Strategies and Trends

Panelists:

  1. Neuroscience – Pharma understand biomarkers and now genetics
  2. Vaccines – across species in the animal WORLD
  1. Attempt not to tweak the PIPELINE: CVD, NEUROSCIENCE AND CANCER
  2. 485 Teams doing R&D convluence of interests to develop cure
  3. Modularity – BioMolecule — multimodality biophysical biochemical protein degradation – rewire disease cells with biomolecules combing propertitie of permiability of small molecules
  4. PHARMACOLOGICAL PREVENTION – biotech is inspiring only Pharma can solve
  1. immunooncology – mutation signature – marker protein signature — that group of diseases respond to
  2. colon cancer and multiple myeloma — understanding of the biology was deep

Moderator: Dr. Martin Mackay, Co-Founder, Rallybio

5:00 PM – 5:05 PM Closing Remarks

5:05 PM – 6:15 PM Cocktails & Networking Reception

Read Full Post »


Use of 3D Bioprinting for Development of Toxicity Prediction Models

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

SOT FDA Colloquium on 3D Bioprinted Tissue Models: Tuesday, April 9, 2019

The Society of Toxicology (SOT) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a workshop on “Alternative Methods for Predictive Safety Testing: 3D Bioprinted Tissue Models” on Tuesday, April 9, at the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in College Park, Maryland. This workshop is the latest in the series, “SOT FDA Colloquia on Emerging Toxicological Science: Challenges in Food and Ingredient Safety.”

Human 3D bioprinted tissues represent a valuable in vitro approach for chemical, personal care product, cosmetic, and preclinical toxicity/safety testing. Bioprinting of skin, liver, and kidney is already appearing in toxicity testing applications for chemical exposures and disease modeling. The use of 3D bioprinted tissues and organs may provide future alternative approaches for testing that may more closely resemble and simulate intact human tissues to more accurately predict human responses to chemical and drug exposures.

A synopsis of the schedule and related works from the speakers is given below:

 

8:40 AM–9:20 AM Overview and Challenges of Bioprinting
Sharon Presnell, Amnion Foundation, Winston-Salem, NC
9:20 AM–10:00 AM Putting 3D Bioprinting to the Use of Tissue Model Fabrication
Y. Shrike Zhang, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA
10:00 AM–10:20 AM Break
10:20 AM–11:00 AM Uses of Bioprinted Liver Tissue in Drug Development
Jean-Louis Klein, GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA
11:00 AM–11:40 AM Biofabrication of 3D Tissue Models for Disease Modeling and Chemical Screening
Marc Ferrer, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, Rockville, MD

Sharon Presnell, Ph.D. President, Amnion Foundation

Dr. Sharon Presnell was most recently the Chief Scientific Officer at Organovo, Inc., and the President of their wholly-owned subsidiary, Samsara Sciences. She received a Ph.D. in Cell & Molecular Pathology from the Medical College of Virginia and completed her undergraduate degree in biology at NC State. In addition to her most recent roles, Presnell has served as the director of cell biology R&D at Becton Dickinson’s corporate research center in RTP, and as the SVP of R&D at Tengion. Her roles have always involved the commercial and clinical translation of basic research and early development in the cell biology space. She serves on the board of the Coulter Foundation at the University of Virginia and is a member of the College of Life Sciences Foundation Board at NC State. In January 2019, Dr. Presnell will begin a new role as President of the Amnion Foundation, a non-profit organization in Winston-Salem.

A few of her relevant publications:

Bioprinted liver provides early insight into the role of Kupffer cells in TGF-β1 and methotrexate-induced fibrogenesis

Integrating Kupffer cells into a 3D bioprinted model of human liver recapitulates fibrotic responses of certain toxicants in a time and context dependent manner.  This work establishes that the presence of Kupffer cells or macrophages are important mediators in fibrotic responses to certain hepatotoxins and both should be incorporated into bioprinted human liver models for toxicology testing.

Bioprinted 3D Primary Liver Tissues Allow Assessment of Organ-Level Response to Clinical Drug Induced Toxicity In Vitro

Abstract: Modeling clinically relevant tissue responses using cell models poses a significant challenge for drug development, in particular for drug induced liver injury (DILI). This is mainly because existing liver models lack longevity and tissue-level complexity which limits their utility in predictive toxicology. In this study, we established and characterized novel bioprinted human liver tissue mimetics comprised of patient-derived hepatocytes and non-parenchymal cells in a defined architecture. Scaffold-free assembly of different cell types in an in vivo-relevant architecture allowed for histologic analysis that revealed distinct intercellular hepatocyte junctions, CD31+ endothelial networks, and desmin positive, smooth muscle actin negative quiescent stellates. Unlike what was seen in 2D hepatocyte cultures, the tissues maintained levels of ATP, Albumin as well as expression and drug-induced enzyme activity of Cytochrome P450s over 4 weeks in culture. To assess the ability of the 3D liver cultures to model tissue-level DILI, dose responses of Trovafloxacin, a drug whose hepatotoxic potential could not be assessed by standard pre-clinical models, were compared to the structurally related non-toxic drug Levofloxacin. Trovafloxacin induced significant, dose-dependent toxicity at clinically relevant doses (≤ 4uM). Interestingly, Trovafloxacin toxicity was observed without lipopolysaccharide stimulation and in the absence of resident macrophages in contrast to earlier reports. Together, these results demonstrate that 3D bioprinted liver tissues can both effectively model DILI and distinguish between highly related compounds with differential profile. Thus, the combination of patient-derived primary cells with bioprinting technology here for the first time demonstrates superior performance in terms of mimicking human drug response in a known target organ at the tissue level.

A great interview with Dr. Presnell and the 3D Models 2017 Symposium is located here:

Please click here for Web based and PDF version of interview

Some highlights of the interview include

  • Exciting advances in field showing we can model complex tissue-level disease-state phenotypes that develop in response to chronic long term injury or exposure
  • Sees the field developing a means to converge both the biology and physiology of tissues, namely modeling the connectivity between tissues such as fluid flow
  • Future work will need to be dedicated to develop comprehensive analytics for 3D tissue analysis. As she states “we are very conditioned to get information in a simple way from biochemical readouts in two dimension, monocellular systems”  however how we address the complexity of various cellular responses in a 3D multicellular environment will be pertinent.
  • Additional challenges include the scalability of such systems and making such system accessible in a larger way
  1. Shrike Zhang, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology

Dr. Zhang currently holds an Assistant Professor position at Harvard Medical School and is an Associate Bioengineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. His research interests include organ-on-a-chip, 3D bioprinting, biomaterials, regenerative engineering, biomedical imaging, biosensing, nanomedicine, and developmental biology. His scientific contributions have been recognized by >40 international, national, and regional awards. He has been invited to deliver >70 lectures worldwide, and has served as reviewer for >400 manuscripts for >30 journals. He is serving as Editor-in-Chief for Microphysiological Systems, and Associate Editor for Bio-Design and Manufacturing. He is also on Editorial Board of BioprintingHeliyonBMC Materials, and Essays in Biochemistry, and on Advisory Panel of Nanotechnology.

Some relevant references from Dr. Zhang

Multi-tissue interactions in an integrated three-tissue organ-on-a-chip platform.

Skardal A, Murphy SV, Devarasetty M, Mead I, Kang HW, Seol YJ, Shrike Zhang Y, Shin SR, Zhao L, Aleman J, Hall AR, Shupe TD, Kleensang A, Dokmeci MR, Jin Lee S, Jackson JD, Yoo JJ, Hartung T, Khademhosseini A, Soker S, Bishop CE, Atala A.

Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 18;7(1):8837. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08879-x.

 

Reconstruction of Large-scale Defects with a Novel Hybrid Scaffold Made from Poly(L-lactic acid)/Nanohydroxyapatite/Alendronate-loaded Chitosan Microsphere: in vitro and in vivo Studies.

Wu H, Lei P, Liu G, Shrike Zhang Y, Yang J, Zhang L, Xie J, Niu W, Liu H, Ruan J, Hu Y, Zhang C.

Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 23;7(1):359. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00506-z.

 

 

A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids.

Bhise NS, Manoharan V, Massa S, Tamayol A, Ghaderi M, Miscuglio M, Lang Q, Shrike Zhang Y, Shin SR, Calzone G, Annabi N, Shupe TD, Bishop CE, Atala A, Dokmeci MR, Khademhosseini A.

Biofabrication. 2016 Jan 12;8(1):014101. doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/014101.

 

Marc Ferrer, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH

Marc Ferrer is a team leader in the NCATS Chemical Genomics Center, which was part of the National Human Genome Research Institute when Ferrer began working there in 2010. He has extensive experience in drug discovery, both in the pharmaceutical industry and academic research. Before joining NIH, he was director of assay development and screening at Merck Research Laboratories. For 10 years at Merck, Ferrer led the development of assays for high-throughput screening of small molecules and small interfering RNA (siRNA) to support programs for lead and target identification across all disease areas.

At NCATS, Ferrer leads the implementation of probe development programs, discovery of drug combinations and development of innovative assay paradigms for more effective drug discovery. He advises collaborators on strategies for discovering small molecule therapeutics, including assays for screening and lead identification and optimization. Ferrer has experience implementing high-throughput screens for a broad range of disease areas with a wide array of assay technologies. He has led and managed highly productive teams by setting clear research strategies and goals and by establishing effective collaborations between scientists from diverse disciplines within industry, academia and technology providers.

Ferrer has a Ph.D. in biological chemistry from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and completed postdoctoral training at Harvard University’s Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology. He received a B.Sc. degree in organic chemistry from the University of Barcelona in Spain.

 

Some relevant references for Dr. Ferrer

Fully 3D Bioprinted Skin Equivalent Constructs with Validated Morphology and Barrier Function.

Derr K, Zou J, Luo K, Song MJ, Sittampalam GS, Zhou C, Michael S, Ferrer M, Derr P.

Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEC.2018.0318. [Epub ahead of print]

 

Determination of the Elasticity Modulus of 3D-Printed Octet-Truss Structures for Use in Porous Prosthesis Implants.

Bagheri A, Buj-Corral I, Ferrer M, Pastor MM, Roure F.

Materials (Basel). 2018 Nov 29;11(12). pii: E2420. doi: 10.3390/ma11122420.

 

Mutation Profiles in Glioblastoma 3D Oncospheres Modulate Drug Efficacy.

Wilson KM, Mathews-Griner LA, Williamson T, Guha R, Chen L, Shinn P, McKnight C, Michael S, Klumpp-Thomas C, Binder ZA, Ferrer M, Gallia GL, Thomas CJ, Riggins GJ.

SLAS Technol. 2019 Feb;24(1):28-40. doi: 10.1177/2472630318803749. Epub 2018 Oct 5.

 

A high-throughput imaging and nuclear segmentation analysis protocol for cleared 3D culture models.

Boutin ME, Voss TC, Titus SA, Cruz-Gutierrez K, Michael S, Ferrer M.

Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 24;8(1):11135. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29169-0.

A High-Throughput Screening Model of the Tumor Microenvironment for Ovarian Cancer Cell Growth.

Lal-Nag M, McGee L, Guha R, Lengyel E, Kenny HA, Ferrer M.

SLAS Discov. 2017 Jun;22(5):494-506. doi: 10.1177/2472555216687082. Epub 2017 Jan 31.

 

Exploring Drug Dosing Regimens In Vitro Using Real-Time 3D Spheroid Tumor Growth Assays.

Lal-Nag M, McGee L, Titus SA, Brimacombe K, Michael S, Sittampalam G, Ferrer M.

SLAS Discov. 2017 Jun;22(5):537-546. doi: 10.1177/2472555217698818. Epub 2017 Mar 15.

 

RNAi High-Throughput Screening of Single- and Multi-Cell-Type Tumor Spheroids: A Comprehensive Analysis in Two and Three Dimensions.

Fu J, Fernandez D, Ferrer M, Titus SA, Buehler E, Lal-Nag MA.

SLAS Discov. 2017 Jun;22(5):525-536. doi: 10.1177/2472555217696796. Epub 2017 Mar 9.

 

Other Articles on 3D Bioprinting on this Open Access Journal include:

Global Technology Conferences on 3D BioPrinting 2015 – 2016

3D Medical BioPrinting Technology Reporting by Irina Robu, PhD – a forthcoming Article in “Medical 3D BioPrinting – The Revolution in Medicine, Technologies for Patient-centered Medicine: From R&D in Biologics to New Medical Devices”

Bio-Inks and 3D BioPrinting

New Scaffold-Free 3D Bioprinting Method Available to Researchers

Gene Editing for Gene Therapies with 3D BioPrinting

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »