Funding, Deals & Partnerships: BIOLOGICS & MEDICAL DEVICES; BioMed e-Series; Medicine and Life Sciences Scientific Journal – http://PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com
Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem
Curator:Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
A recent email, asking me to submit a survey, got me thinking about the malaise that scientists and industry professionals frequently bemoan: that innovation has been stymied for some reason and all sorts of convuluted processes must be altered to spur this mythical void of great new discoveries….. and it got me thinking about our current state of science, and what is the perceived issue… and if this desert of innovation actually exists or is more a fundamental problem which we have created.
The email was from an NIH committee asking for opinions on recreating the grant review process …. now this on the same day someone complained to me about a shoddy and perplexing grant review they received.
The following email, which was sent out to multiple researchers, involved in either NIH grant review on both sides, as well as those who had been involved in previous questionnaires and studies on grant review and bias. The email asked for researchers to fill out a survey on the grant review process, and how to best change it to increase innovation of ideas as well as inclusivity. In recent years, there have been multiple survey requests on these matters, with multiple confusing procedural changes to grant format and content requirements, adding more administrative burden to scientists.
The email from Center for Scientific Review (one of the divisions a grant will go to before review {they set up review study sections and decide what section a grant should be assigned to} was as follows:
Update on Simplifying Review Criteria: A Request for Information
NIH has issued a request for information (RFI) seeking feedback on revising and simplifying the peer review framework for research project grant applications. The goal of this effort is to facilitate the mission of scientific peer review – identification of the strongest, highest-impact research. The proposed changes will allow peer reviewers to focus on scientific merit by evaluating 1) the scientific impact, research rigor, and feasibility of the proposed research without the distraction of administrative questions and 2) whether or not appropriate expertise and resources are available to conduct the research, thus mitigating the undue influence of the reputation of the institution or investigator.
Currently, applications for research project grants (RPGs, such as R01s, R03s, R15s, R21s, R34s) are evaluated based on five scored criteria: Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment (derived from NIH peer review regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 52h.8; see Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for Research Project Grant Critiques for more detail) and a number of additional review criteria such as Human Subject Protections.
NIH gathered input from the community to identify potential revisions to the review framework. Given longstanding and often-heard concerns from diverse groups, CSR decided to form two working groups to the CSR Advisory Council—one on non-clinical trials and one on clinical trials. To inform these groups, CSR published a Review Matters blog, which was cross-posted on the Office of Extramural Research blog, Open Mike. The blog received more than 9,000 views by unique individuals and over 400 comments. Interim recommendations were presented to the CSR Advisory Council in a public forum (March 2020 video, slides; March 2021 video, slides). Final recommendations from the CSRAC (report) were considered by the major extramural committees of the NIH that included leadership from across NIH institutes and centers. Additional background information can be found here. This process produced many modifications and the final proposal presented below. Discussions are underway to incorporate consideration of a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) and rigorous review of clinical trials RPGs (~10% of RPGs are clinical trials) within the proposed framework.
Simplified Review Criteria
NIH proposes to reorganize the five review criteria into three factors, with Factors 1 and 2 receiving a numerical score. Reviewers will be instructed to consider all three factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) in arriving at their Overall Impact Score (scored 1-9), reflecting the overall scientific and technical merit of the application.
Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance, Innovation), numerical score (1-9)
Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), numerical score (1-9)
Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator, Environment), assessed and considered in the Overall Impact Score, but not individually scored
Within Factor 3 (Expertise and Resources), Investigator and Environment will be assessed in the context of the research proposed. Investigator(s) will be rated as “fully capable” or “additional expertise/capability needed”. Environment will be rated as “appropriate” or “additional resources needed.” If a need for additional expertise or resources is identified, written justification must be provided. Detailed descriptions of the three factors can be found here.
Now looking at some of the Comments were very illuminating:
I strongly support streamlining the five current main review criteria into three, and the present five additional criteria into two. This will bring clarity to applicants and reduce the workload on both applicants and reviewers. Blinding reviewers to the applicants’ identities and institutions would be a helpful next step, and would do much to reduce the “rich-getting-richer” / “good ole girls and good ole boys” / “big science” elitism that plagues the present review system, wherein pedigree and connections often outweigh substance and creativity.
I support the proposed changes. The shift away from “innovation” will help reduce the tendency to create hype around a proposed research direction. The shift away from Investigator and Environment assessments will help reduce bias toward already funded investigators in large well-known institutions.
As a reviewer for 5 years, I believe that the proposed changes are a step in the right direction, refocusing the review on whether the science SHOULD be done and whether it CAN BE DONE WELL, while eliminating burdensome and unhelpful sections of review that are better handled administratively. I particularly believe that the de-emphasis of innovation (which typically focuses on technical innovation) will improve evaluation of the overall science, and de-emphasis of review of minor technical details will, if implemented correctly, reduce the “downward pull” on scores for approach. The above comments reference blinded reviews, but I did not see this in the proposed recommendations. I do not believe this is a good idea for several reasons: 1) Blinding of the applicant and institution is not likely feasible for many of the reasons others have described (e.g., self-referencing of prior work), 2) Blinding would eliminate the potential to review investigators’ biosketches and budget justifications, which are critically important in review, 3) Making review blinded would make determination of conflicts of interest harder to identify and avoid, 4) Evaluation of “Investigator and Environment” would be nearly impossible.
Most of the Comments were in favor of the proposed changes, however many admitted that it adds additional confusion on top of many administrative changes to formats and content of grant sections.
Being a Stephen Covey devotee, and just have listened to The Four Principles of Execution, it became more apparent that issues that hinder many great ideas coming into fruition, especially in science, is a result of these systemic or problems in the process, not at the level of individual researchers or small companies trying to get their innovations funded or noticed. In summary, Dr. Covey states most issues related to the success of any initiative is NOT in the strategic planning, but in the failure to adhere to a few EXECUTION principles. Primary to these failures of strategic plans is lack of accounting of what Dr. Covey calls the ‘whirlwind’, or those important but recurring tasks that take us away from achieving the wildly important goals. In addition, lack of determining lead and lag measures of success hinder such plans.
In this case a lag measure in INNOVATION. It appears we have created such a whirlwind and focus on lag measures that we are incapable of translating great discoveries into INNOVATION.
In the following post, I will focus on issues relating to Open Access, publishing and dissemination of scientific discovery may be costing us TIME to INNOVATION. And it appears that there are systemic reasons why we appear stuck in a rut, so to speak.
The first indication is from a paper published by Johan Chu and James Evans in 2021 in PNAS:
Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science
Chu JSG, Evans JA. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 12;118(41):e2021636118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118. PMID: 34607941; PMCID: PMC8522281
Abstract
In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.
So the Summary of this paper is
The authors examined 1.8 billion citations among 90 million papers over 241 subjects
found the corpus of papers do not lead to turnover of new ideas in a field, but rather the ossification or entrenchment of canonical (or older ideas)
this is mainly due to older paper cited more frequently than new papers with new ideas, potentially because authors are trying to get their own papers cited more frequently for funding and exposure purposes
The authors suggest that “fundamental progress may be stymied if quantitative growth of scientific endeavors is not balanced by structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention of novel ideas”
The authors note that, in most cases, science policy reinforces this “more is better” philosophy”, where metrics of publication productivity are either number of publications or impact measured by citation rankings. However, using an analysis of citation changes occurring in large versus smaller fields, it becomes apparent that this process is favoring the older, more established papers and a recirculating of older canonical ideas.
“Rather than resulting in faster turnover of field paradigms, the massive amounts of new publications entrenches the ideas of top-cited papers.” New ideas are pushed down to the bottom of the citation list and potentially lost in the literature. The authors suggest that this problem will intensify as the “annual mass” of new publications in each field grows, especially in large fields. This issue is exacerbated by the deluge on new online ‘open access’ journals, in which authors would focus on citing the more highly cited literature.
We maybe at a critical junction, where if many papers are published in a short time, new ideas will not be considered as carefully as the older ideas. In addition,
with proliferation of journals and the blurring of journal hierarchies due to online articles-level access can exacerbate this problem
As a counterpoint, the authors do note that even though many molecular biology highly cited articles were done in 1976, there has been extremely much innovation since then however it may take a lot more in experiments and money to gain the level of citations that those papers produced, and hence a lower scientific productivity.
This issue is seen in the field of economics as well
Ellison, Glenn. “Is peer review in decline?” Economic Inquiry, vol. 49, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 635+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A261386330/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=f5891002. Accessed 12 Dec. 2022.
Abstract:
Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest-ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high-profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer-review process. (JEL A14, 030)
The facts part of this paper documents two main facts:
1. Economists in top-ranked departments now publish very few papers in top field journals. There is a marked decline in such publications between the early 1990s and early 2000s.
2. Comparing the early 2000s with the early 1990s, there is a decline in both the absolute number of papers and the share of papers in the top general interest journals written by Harvard economics department faculty.
Although the second fact just concerns one department, I see it as potentially important to understanding what is happening because it comes at a time when Harvard is widely regarded (I believe correctly) as having ascended to the top position in the profession.
The “decline-of-peer-review” theory I allude to in the title is that the necessity of going through the peer-review process has lessened for high-status authors: in the old days peer-reviewed journals were by far the most effective means of reaching readers, whereas with the growth of the Internet high-status authors can now post papers online and exploit their reputation to attract readers.
Many alternate explanations are possible. I focus on four theories: the decline-in-peer-review theory and three alternatives.
1. The trends could be a consequence of top-school authors’ being crowded out of the top journals by other researchers. Several such stories have an optimistic message, for example, there is more talent entering the profession, old pro-elite biases are being broken down, more schools are encouraging faculty to do cutting-edge research, and the Internet is enabling more cutting-edge research by breaking down informational barriers that had hampered researchers outside the top schools. (2)
2. The trends could be a consequence of the growth of revisions at economics journals discussed in Ellison (2002a, 2002b). In this more pessimistic theory, highly productive researchers must abandon some projects and/or seek out faster outlets to conserve the time now required to publish their most important works.
3. The trends could simply reflect that field journals have declined in quality in some relative sense and become a less attractive place to publish. This theory is meant to encompass also the rise of new journals, which is not obviously desirable or undesirable.
The majority of this paper is devoted to examining various data sources that provide additional details about how economics publishing has changed over the past decade. These are intended both to sharpen understanding of the facts to be explained and to provide tests of auxiliary predictions of the theories. Two main sources of information are used: data on publications and data on citations. The publication data include department-level counts of publications in various additional journals, an individual-level dataset containing records of publications in a subset of journals for thousands of economists, and a very small dataset containing complete data on a few authors’ publication records. The citation data include citations at the paper level for 9,000 published papers and less well-matched data that is used to construct measures of citations to authors’ unpublished works, to departments as a whole, and to various journals.
Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship
Josh Angrist, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, Susan Feng Lu. Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE
Abstract
Does academic economic research produce material of general scientific value, or do academic economists write only for peers? Is economics scholarship uniquely insular? We address these questions by quantifying interactions between economics and other disciplines. Changes in the influence of economic scholarship are measured here by the frequency with which other disciplines cite papers in economics journals. We document a clear rise in the extramural influence of economic research, while also showing that economics is increasingly likely to reference other social sciences. A breakdown of extramural citations by economics fields shows broad field influence. Differentiating between theoretical and empirical papers classified using machine learning, we see that much of the rise in economics’ extramural influence reflects growth in citations to empirical work. This growth parallels an increase in the share of empirical cites within economics. At the same time, some disciplines that primarily cite economic theory have also recently increased citations of economics scholarship.
Citation
Angrist, Josh, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, and Susan Feng Lu. 2020.“Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.”Journal of Economic Literature, 58 (1): 3-52.DOI: 10.1257/jel.20181508
VOL. 58, NO. 1, MARCH 2020
(pp. 3-52)
So if innovation is there but it may be buried under the massive amount of heavily cited older literature, do we see evidence of this in other fields like medicine?
Why Isn’t Innovation Helping Reduce Health Care Costs?
National health care expenditures (NHEs) in the United States continue to grow at rates outpacing the broader economy: Inflation- and population-adjusted NHEs have increased 1.6 percent faster than the gross domestic product (GDP) between 1990 and 2018. US national health expenditure growth as a share of GDP far outpaces comparable nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (17.2 versus 8.9 percent).
Multiple recent analyses have proposed that growth in the prices and intensity of US health care services—rather than in utilization rates or demographic characteristics—is responsible for the disproportionate increases in NHEs relative to global counterparts. The consequences of ever-rising costs amid ubiquitous underinsurance in the US include price-induced deferral of care leading to excess morbidity relative to comparable nations.
These patterns exist despite a robust innovation ecosystem in US health care—implying that novel technologies, in isolation, are insufficient to bend the health care cost curve. Indeed, studies have documented that novel technologies directly increase expenditure growth.
Why is our prolific innovation ecosystem not helping reduce costs? The core issue relates to its apparent failure to enhance net productivity—the relative output generated per unit resource required. In this post, we decompose the concept of innovation to highlight situations in which inventions may not increase net productivity. We begin by describing how this issue has taken on increased urgency amid resource constraints magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. In turn, we describe incentives for the pervasiveness of productivity-diminishing innovations. Finally, we provide recommendations to promote opportunities for low-cost innovation.
Net Productivity During The COVID-19 Pandemic
The issue of productivity-enhancing innovation is timely, as health care systems have been overwhelmed by COVID-19. Hospitals in Italy, New York City, and elsewhere have lacked adequate capital resources to care for patients with the disease, sufficient liquidity to invest in sorely needed resources, and enough staff to perform all of the necessary tasks.
The critical constraint in these settings is not technology: In fact, the most advanced technology required to routinely treat COVID-19—the mechanical ventilator—was invented nearly 100 years ago in response to polio (the so-called iron lung). Rather, the bottleneck relates to the total financial and human resources required to use the technology—the denominator of net productivity. The clinical implementation of ventilators has been illustrative: Health care workers are still required to operate ventilators on a nearly one-to-one basis, just like in the mid-twentieth century.
High levels of resources required for implementation of health care technologies constrain the scalability of patient care—such as during respiratory disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. Thus, research to reduce health care costs is the same kind of research we urgently require to promote health care access for patients with COVID-19.
Types Of Innovation And Their Relationship To Expenditure Growth
The widespread use of novel medical technologies has been highlighted as a central driver of NHE growth in the US. We believe that the continued expansion of health care costs is largely the result of innovation that tends to have low productivity (exhibit 1). We argue that these archetypes—novel widgets tacked on to existing workflows to reinforce traditional care models—are exactly the wrong properties to reduce NHEs at the systemic level.
Exhibit 1: Relative productivity of innovation subtypes
These may be contrasted with process innovations, which address the organized sequences of activities that implement content. Classically, these include clinical pathways and protocols. They can address the delivery of care for acute conditions, such as central line infections, sepsis, or natural disasters. Alternatively, they can target chronic conditions through initiatives such as team-based management of hypertension and hospital-at-home models for geriatric care. Other processes include hiring staff, delegating labor, and supply chain management.
Performance-Enhancing Versus Cost-Reducing Innovation
Performance-enhancing innovations frequently create incremental outcome gains in diagnostic characteristics, such as sensitivity or specificity, or in therapeutic characteristics, such as biomarkers for disease status. Their performance gains often lead to higher prices compared to existing alternatives.
Performance-enhancing innovations can be compared to “non-inferior” innovations capable of achieving outcomes approximating those of existing alternatives, but at reduced cost. Industries outside of medicine, such as the computing industry, have relied heavily on the ability to reduce costs while retaining performance.
In health care though, this pattern of innovation is rare. Since passage of the 2010 “Biosimilars” Act aimed at stimulating non-inferior innovation and competition in therapeutics markets, only 17 agents have been approved, and only seven have made it to market. More than three-quarters of all drugs receiving new patents between 2005 and 2015 were “reissues,” meaning they had already been approved, and the new patent reflected changes to the previously approved formula. Meanwhile, the costs of approved drugs have increased over time, at rates between 4 percent and 7 percent annually.
Moreover, the preponderance of performance-enhancing diagnostic and therapeutic innovations tend to address narrow patient cohorts (such as rare diseases or cancer subtypes), with limited clear clinical utility in broader populations. For example, the recently approved eculizimab is a monoclonal antibody approved for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria—which effects 1 in 10 million individuals. At the time of its launch, eculizimab was priced at more than $400,000 per year, making it the most expensive drug in modern history. For clinical populations with no available alternatives, drugs such as eculizimab may be cost-effective, pending society’s willingness to pay, and morally desirable, given a society’s values. But such drugs are certainly not cost-reducing.
Additive Versus Substitutive Innovation
Additive innovations are those that append to preexisting workflows, while substitutive innovations reconfigure preexisting workflows. In this way, additive innovations increase the use of precedent services, whereas substitutive innovations decrease precedent service use.
For example, previous analyses have found that novel imaging modalities are additive innovations, as they tend not to diminish use of preexisting modalities. Similarly, novel procedures tend to incompletely replace traditional procedures. In the case of therapeutics and devices, off-label uses in disease groups outside of the approved indication(s) can prompt innovation that is additive. This is especially true, given that off-label prescriptions classically occur after approved methods are exhausted.
Eculizimab once again provides an illustrative example. As of February 2019, the drug had been used for 39 indications (it had been approved for three of those, by that time), 69 percent of which lacked any form of evidence of real-world effectiveness. Meanwhile, the drug generated nearly $4 billion in sales in 2019. Again, these expenditures may be something for which society chooses to pay—but they are nonetheless additive, rather than substitutive.
Sustaining Versus Disruptive Innovation
Competitive market theory suggests that incumbents and disruptors innovate differently. Incumbents seek sustaining innovations capable of perpetuating their dominance, whereas disruptors pursue innovations capable of redefining traditional business models.
In health care, while disruptive innovations hold the potential to reduce overall health expenditures, often they run counter to the capabilities of market incumbents. For example, telemedicine can deliver care asynchronously, remotely, and virtually, but large-scale brick-and-mortar medical facilities invest enormous capital in the delivery of synchronous, in-house, in-person care (incentivized by facility fees).
The connection between incumbent business models and the innovation pipeline is particularly relevant given that 58 percent of total funding for biomedical research in the US is now derived from private entities, compared with 46 percent a decade prior. It follows that the growing influence of eminent private organizations may favor innovations supporting their market dominance—rather than innovations that are societally optimal.
Incentives And Repercussions Of High-Cost Innovation
Taken together, these observations suggest that innovation in health care is preferentially designed for revenue expansion rather than for cost reduction. While offering incremental improvements in patient outcomes, therefore creating theoretical value for society, these innovations rarely deliver incremental reductions in short- or long-term costs at the health system level.
For example, content-based, performance-enhancing, additive, sustaining innovations tend to add layers of complexity to the health care system—which in turn require additional administration to manage. The net result is employment growth in excess of outcome improvement, leading to productivity losses. This gap leads to continuously increasing overall expenditures in turn passed along to payers and consumers.
Nonetheless, high-cost innovations are incentivized across health care stakeholders (exhibit 2). From the supply side of innovation, for academic researchers, “breakthrough” and “groundbreaking” innovations constitute the basis for career advancement via funding and tenure. This is despite stakeholders’ frequent inability to generalize early successes to become cost-effective in the clinical setting. As previously discussed, the increasing influence of private entities in setting the medical research agenda is also likely to stimulate innovation benefitting single stakeholders rather than the system.
Source: Authors’ analysis adapted from Hofmann BM. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015 Feb 16.
From the demand side of innovation (providers and health systems), a combined allure (to provide “cutting-edge” patient care), imperative (to leave “no stone unturned” in patient care), and profit-motive (to amplify fee-for-service reimbursements) spur participation in a “technological arms-race.” The status quo thus remains as Clay Christensen has written: “Our major health care institutions…together overshoot the level of care actually needed or used by the vast majority of patients.”
Christensen’s observations have been validated during the COVID-19 epidemic, as treatment of the disease requires predominantly century-old technology. By continually adopting innovation that routinely overshoots the needs of most patients, layer by layer, health care institutions are accruing costs that quickly become the burden of society writ large.
Recommendations To Reduce The Costs Of Health Care Innovation
Henry Aaron wrote in 2002 that “…the forces that have driven up costs are, if anything, intensifying. The staggering fecundity of biomedical research is increasing…[and] always raises expenditures.” With NHEs spiraling ever-higher, urgency to “bend the cost curve” is mounting. Yet, since much biomedical innovation targets the “flat of the [productivity] curve,” alternative forms of innovation are necessary.
The shortcomings in net productivity revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the urgent need for redesign of health care delivery in this country, and reevaluation of the innovation needed to support it. Specifically, efforts supporting process redesign are critical to promote cost-reducing, substitutive innovations that can inaugurate new and disruptive business models.
Process redesign rarely involves novel gizmos, so much as rejiggering the wiring of, and connections between, existing gadgets. It targets operational changes capable of streamlining workflows, rather than technical advancements that complicate them. As described above, precisely these sorts of “frugal innovations” have led to productivity improvements yielding lower costs in other high-technology industries, such as the computing industry.
Shrank and colleagues recently estimated that nearly one-third of NHEs—almost $1 trillion—were due to preventable waste. Four of the six categories of waste enumerated by the authors—failure in care delivery, failure in care coordination, low-value care, and administrative complexity—represent ripe targets for process innovation, accounting for $610 billion in waste annually, according to Shrank.
Health systems adopting process redesign methods such as continuous improvement and value-based management have exhibited outcome enhancement and expense reduction simultaneously. Internal processes addressed have included supply chain reconfiguration, operational redesign, outlier reconciliation, and resource standardization.
Despite the potential of process innovation, focus on this area (often bundled into “health services” or “quality improvement” research) occupies only a minute fraction of wallet- or mind-share in the biomedical research landscape, accounting for 0.3 percent of research dollars in medicine. This may be due to a variety of barriers beyond minimal funding. One set of barriers is academic, relating to negative perceptions around rigor and a lack of outlets in which to publish quality improvement research. To achieve health care cost containment over the long term, this dimension of innovation must be destigmatized relative to more traditional manners of innovation by the funders and institutions determining the conditions of the research ecosystem.
Another set of barriers is financial: Innovations yielding cost reduction are less “reimbursable” than are innovations fashioned for revenue expansion. This is especially the case in a fee-for-service system where reimbursement is tethered to cost, which creates perverse incentives for health care institutions to overlook cost increases. However, institutions investing in low-cost innovation will be well-positioned in a rapidly approaching future of value-based care—in which the solvency of health care institutions will rely upon their ability to provide economically efficient care.
Innovating For Cost Control Necessitates Frugality Over Novelty
Restraining US NHEs represents a critical step toward health promotion. Innovation for innovation’s sake—that is content-based, incrementally effective, additive, and sustaining—is unlikely to constrain continually expanding NHEs.
In contrast, process innovation offers opportunities to reduce costs while maintaining high standards of patient care. As COVID-19 stress-tests health care systems across the world, the importance of cost control and productivity amplification for patient care has become apparent.
As such, frugality, rather than novelty, may hold the key to health care cost containment. Redesigning the innovation agenda to stem the tide of ever-rising NHEs is an essential strategy to promote widespread access to care—as well as high-value preventive care—in this country. In the words of investors across Silicon Valley: Cost-reducing innovation is no longer a “nice-to-have,” but a “need-to-have” for the future of health and overall well-being this country.
So Do We Need A New Way of Disseminating Scientific Information? Can Curation Help?
We had high hopes for Science 2.0, in particular the smashing of data and knowledge silos. However the digital age along with 2.0 platforms seemed to excaccerbate this somehow. We still are critically short on analysis!
Old Science 1.0 is still the backbone of all scientific discourse, built on the massive amount of experimental and review literature. However this literature was in analog format, and we moved to a more accesible digital open access format for both publications as well as raw data. However as there was a structure for 1.0, like the Dewey decimal system and indexing, 2.0 made science more accesible and easier to search due to the newer digital formats. Yet both needed an organizing structure; for 1.0 that was the scientific method of data and literature organization with libraries as the indexers. In 2.0 this relied on an army mostly of volunteers who did not have much in the way of incentivization to co-curate and organize the findings and massive literature.
The Intenet and the Web is rapidly adopting a new “Web 3.0” format, with decentralized networks, enhanced virtual experiences, and greater interconnection between people. Here we start the discussion what will the move from Science 2.0, where dissemination of scientific findings was revolutionized and piggybacking on Web 2.0 or social media, to a Science 3.0 format. And what will it involve or what paradigms will be turned upside down?
Biden will appoint Dr. Elizabeth Jaffee, Dr. Mitchel Berger and Dr. Carol Brown to the panel, which will advise him and the White House on how to use resources of the federal government to advance cancer research and reduce the burden of cancer in the United States.
Jaffee, who will serve as chair of the panel, is an expert in cancer immunology and pancreatic cancer, according to the White House. She is currently the deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University and previously led the American Association for Cancer Research.
In this Sept. 8, 2016, file photo, Dr. Elizabeth M. Jaffee of the Pancreatic Dream Team attends Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C), a program of the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF), in Hollywood, Calif.ABC Handout via Getty Images, FILE
Berger, a neurological surgeon, directs the University of California, San Francisco Brain Tumor Center and previously spent 23 years at the school as a professor of neurological surgery.
Brown, a gynecologic oncologist, is the senior vice president and chief health equity officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. According to the White House, much of her career has been focused on eliminating cancer care disparities due to racial, ethnic, cultural or socioeconomic factors.
Additionally, First Lady Jill Biden, members of the Cabinet and other administration officials are holding a meeting Wednesday of the Cancer Cabinet, made up of officials across several governmental departments and agencies, the White House said.
The Cabinet will introduce new members and discuss priorities in the battle against cancer including closing the screening gap, addressing potential environmental exposures, reducing the number of preventable cancer and expanding access to cancer research.MORE: Long Island school district found to have higher rates of cancer cases: Study
It is the second meeting of the cabinet since Biden relaunched the initiative in February, which he originally began in 2016 when he was vice president.
Both Jaffee and Berger were members of the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Cancer Moonshot Initiative led by Biden.
The initiative has personal meaning for Biden, whose son, Beau, died of glioblastoma — one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer — in 2015.
“I committed to this fight when I was vice president,” Biden said at the time, during an event at the White House announcing the relaunch. “It’s one of the reasons why, quite frankly, I ran for president. Let there be no doubt, now that I am president, this is a presidential, White House priority. Period.”
The initiative has several priority actions including diagnosing cancer sooner; preventing cancer; addressing inequities; and supporting patients, caregivers and survivors.
In this June 14, 2016, file photo, Dr. Carol Brown, physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, gives a presentation, at The White House Summit on The United State of Women, in Washington, D.C.NurPhoto via Getty Images, FILE
The White House has also issued a call to action to get cancer screenings back to pre-pandemic levels.
“We have to get cancer screenings back on track and make sure they’re accessible to all Americans,” Biden said at the time.
Since the first meeting of the Cancer Cabinet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued more than $200 million in grants to cancer prevention programs, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services implemented a new model to reduce the cost of cancer care, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said it will fast-track applications for cancer immunotherapies.
ABC News’ Sasha Pezenik contributed to this report.
President Joe Biden is expected to pick cancer surgeon Monica Bertagnolli as the next director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Bertagnolli, a physician-scientist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, and Harvard Medical School, specializes in gastrointestinal cancers and is well known for her expertise in clinical trials. She will replace Ned Sharpless, who stepped down as NCI director in April after nearly 5 years.
The White House has not yet announced the selection, first reported by STAT, but several cancer research organizations closely watching for the nomination have issued statements supporting Bertagnolli’s expected selection. She is “a national leader” in clinical cancer research and “a great person to take the job,” Sharpless told ScienceInsider.
With a budget of $7 billion, NCI is the largest component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the world’s largest funder of cancer research. Its director is the only NIH institute director selected by the president. Bertagnolli’s expected appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation, drew applause from the cancer research community
Margaret Foti, CEO of the American Association for Cancer Research, praised Bertagnolli’s “appreciation for … basic research” and “commitment to ensuring that such treatment innovations reach patients … across the United States.” Ellen Sigal, chair and founder of Friends of Cancer Research, says Bertagnolli “brings expertise the agency needs at a true inflection point for cancer research.”
Bertagnolli, 63, will be the first woman to lead NCI. Her lab research on tumor immunology and the role of a gene called APC in colorectal cancer led to a landmark trial she headed showing that an anti-inflammatory drug can help prevent this cancer. In 2007, she became the chief of surgery at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center.
She served as president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2018 and currently chairs the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, which is funded by NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network. The network is a “complicated” program, and “Monica will have a lot of good ideas on how to make it work better,” Sharpless says.
ADVERTISEMENT
One of Bertagnolli’s first tasks will be to shape NCI’s role in Biden’s reignited Cancer Moonshot, which aims to slash the U.S. cancer death rate in half within 25 years. NCI’s new leader also needs to sort out how the agency will mesh with a new NIH component that will fund high-risk, goal-driven research, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H).
Bertagnolli will also head NCI efforts already underway to boost grant funding rates, diversify the cancer research workplace, and reduce higher death rates for Black people with cancer.
The White House recently nominated applied physicist Arati Prabhakar to fill another high-level science position, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). But still vacant is the NIH director slot, which Francis Collins, acting science adviser to the president, left in December 2021. And the administration hasn’t yet selected the inaugural director of ARPA-H.
Correction, 22 July, 9 a.m.: This story has been updated to reflect that Francis Collins is acting science adviser to the president, not acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Infertility is a major reproductive health issue that affects about 12% of women of reproductive age in the United States. Aneuploidy in eggs accounts for a significant proportion of early miscarriage and in vitro fertilization failure. Recent studies have shown that genetic variants in several genes affect chromosome segregation fidelity and predispose women to a higher incidence of egg aneuploidy. However, the exact genetic causes of aneuploid egg production remain unclear, making it difficult to diagnose infertility based on individual genetic variants in mother’s genome. Although, age is a predictive factor for aneuploidy, it is not a highly accurate gauge because aneuploidy rates within individuals of the same age can vary dramatically.
Researchers described a technique combining genomic sequencing with machine-learning methods to predict the possibility a woman will undergo a miscarriage because of egg aneuploidy—a term describing a human egg with an abnormal number of chromosomes. The scientists were able to examine genetic samples of patients using a technique called “whole exome sequencing,” which allowed researchers to home in on the protein coding sections of the vast human genome. Then they created software using machine learning, an aspect of artificial intelligence in which programs can learn and make predictions without following specific instructions. To do so, the researchers developed algorithms and statistical models that analyzed and drew inferences from patterns in the genetic data.
As a result, the scientists were able to create a specific risk score based on a woman’s genome. The scientists also identified three genes—MCM5, FGGY and DDX60L—that when mutated and are highly associated with a risk of producing eggs with aneuploidy. So, the report demonstrated that sequencing data can be mined to predict patients’ aneuploidy risk thus improving clinical diagnosis. The candidate genes and pathways that were identified in the present study are promising targets for future aneuploidy studies. Identifying genetic variations with more predictive power will serve women and their treating clinicians with better information.
Recent genetic studies have identified variants associated with bipolar disorder (BD), but it remains unclear how brain gene expression is altered in BD and how genetic risk for BD may contribute to these alterations. Here, we obtained transcriptomes from subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala samples from post-mortem brains of individuals with BD and neurotypical controls, including 511 total samples from 295 unique donors. We examined differential gene expression between cases and controls and the transcriptional effects of BD-associated genetic variants. We found two coexpressed modules that were associated with transcriptional changes in BD: one enriched for immune and inflammatory genes and the other with genes related to the postsynaptic membrane. Over 50% of BD genome-wide significant loci contained significant expression quantitative trait loci (QTL) (eQTL), and these data converged on several individual genes, including SCN2A and GRIN2A. Thus, these data implicate specific genes and pathways that may contribute to the pathology of BP.
Gene Expression Markers for Bipolar Disorder Pinpointed
The work was led by researchers at Johns Hopkins’ Lieber Institute for Brain Development. The findings, published this week in Nature Neuroscience, represent the first time that researchers have been able to apply large-scale genetic research to brain samples from hundreds of patients with bipolar disorder (BD). They used 511 total samples from 295 unique donors.
“This is the first deep dive into the molecular biology of the brain in people who died with bipolar disorder—studying actual genes, not urine, blood or skin samples,” said Thomas Hyde of the Lieber Institute and a lead author of the paper. “If we can figure out the mechanisms behind BD, if we can figure out what’s wrong in the brain, then we can begin to develop new targeted treatments of what has long been a mysterious condition.”
Bipolar disorder is characterized by extreme mood swings, with episodes of mania alternating with episodes of depression. It usually emerges in people in their 20s and 30s and remains with them for life. This condition affects approximately 2.8% of the adult American population, or about 7 million people. Patients face higher rates of suicide, poorer quality of life, and lower productivity than the general population. Some estimates put the annual cost of the condition in the U.S. alone at $219.1 billion.
While drugs can be useful in treating BD, many patients find they have bothersome side effects, and for some patients, current medications don’t work at all.
In this study, researchers measured levels of messenger RNA in the brain samples. They observed almost eight times more differentially expressed gene features in the sACC versus the amygdala, suggesting that the sACC may play an especially prominent role—both in mood regulation in general and BD specifically.
In patients who died with BD, the researchers found abnormalities in two families of genes: one containing genes related to the synapse and the second related to immune and inflammatory function.
“There finally is a study using modern technology and our current understanding of genetics to uncover how the brain is doing,” Hyde said. “We know that BD tends to run in families, and there is strong evidence that there are inherited genetic abnormalities that put an individual at risk for bipolar disorder. Unlike diseases such as sickle-cell anemia, bipolar disorder does not result from a single genetic abnormality. Rather, most patients have inherited a group of variants spread across a number of genes.”
“Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive disorder, is a highly damaging and paradoxical condition,” said Daniel R. Weinberger, chief executive and director of the Lieber Institute and a co-author of the study. “It can make people very productive so they can lead countries and companies, but it can also hurl them into the meat grinder of dysfunction and depression. Patients with BD may live on two hours of sleep a night, saving the world with their abundance of energy, and then become so self-destructive that they spend their family’s fortune in a week and lose all friends as they spiral downward. Bipolar disorder also has some shared genetic links to other psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, and is implicated in overuse of drugs and alcohol.”
2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum, Mass General Brigham, Gene and Cell Therapy, VIRTUAL May 19–21, 2021
The 2021 Virtual World Medical Innovation Forum will focus on the growing impact of gene and cell therapy. Senior healthcare leaders from all over look to shape and debate the area of gene and cell therapy. Our shared belief: no matter the magnitude of change, responsible healthcare is centered on a shared commitment to collaborative innovation–industry, academia, and practitioners working together to improve patients’ lives.
About the World Medical Innovation Forum
Mass General Brigham is pleased to present the World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) virtual event Wednesday, May 19 – Friday, May 21. This interactive web event features expert discussions of gene and cell therapy (GCT) and its potential to change the future of medicine through its disease-treating and potentially curative properties. The agenda features 150+ executive speakers from the healthcare industry, venture, startups, life sciences manufacturing, consumer health and the front lines of care, including many Harvard Medical School-affiliated researchers and clinicians. The annual in-person Forum will resume live in Boston in 2022. The World Medical Innovation Forum is presented by Mass General Brigham Innovation, the global business development unit supporting the research requirements of 7,200 Harvard Medical School faculty and research hospitals including Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women’s, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Spaulding Rehab and McLean Hospital. Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/@MGBInnovation
Accelerating the Future of Medicine with Gene and Cell Therapy What Comes Next
Co-Chairs identify the key themes of the Forum – set the stage for top GCT opportunities, challenges, and where the field might take medicine in the future. Moderator: Susan Hockfield, PhD
President Emerita and Professor of Neuroscience, MIT
Hope that CGT emerging, how the therapies work, neuro, muscular, ocular, genetic diseases of liver and of heart revolution for the industry 900 IND application 25 approvals Economic driver Skilled works, VC disease. Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem to be built around CGT
FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards and expectations for streamlining manufacturing, understanding of process and products
payments over time payers and Innovators relations Moderator: Julian Harris, MD
Partner, Deerfield
Promise of CGT realized, what part?
FDA role and interaction in CGT
Manufacturing aspects which is critical Speaker: Dave Lennon, PhD
President, Novartis Gene Therapies
Hope that CGT emerging, how the therapies work, neuro, muscular, ocular, genetic diseases of liver and of heart revolution for the industry 900 IND application 25 approvals Economic driver Skilled works, VC disease. Modality one time intervention, long duration of impart, reimbursement, ecosystem to be built around CGT
FDA works by indications and risks involved, Standards and expectations for streamlining manufacturing, understanding of process and products
payments over time payers and Innovators relations
GCT development for rare diseases is driven by patient and patient-advocate communities. Understanding their needs and perspectives enables biomarker research, the development of value-driving clinical trial endpoints and successful clinical trials. Industry works with patient communities that help identify unmet needs and collaborate with researchers to conduct disease natural history studies that inform the development of biomarkers and trial endpoints. This panel includes patients who have received cutting-edge GCT therapy as well as caregivers and patient advocates. Moderator: Patricia Musolino, MD, PhD
Co-Director Pediatric Stroke and Cerebrovascular Program, MGH
Assistant Professor of Neurology, HMS
What is the Power of One – the impact that a patient can have on their own destiny by participating in Clinical Trials Contacting other participants in same trial can be beneficial Speakers: Jack Hogan
Parkinson patient Constraints by regulatory on participation in clinical trial advance stage is approved participation Patients to determine the level of risk they wish to take Information dissemination is critical Barbara Lavery
Chief Program Officer, ACGT Foundation
Advocacy agency beginning of work Global Genes educational content and out reach to access the information
Patient has the knowledge of the symptoms and recording all input needed for diagnosis by multiple clinicians Early application for CGTDan Tesler
Clinical Trial Patient, BWH/DFCC
Experimental Drug clinical trial patient participation in clinical trial is very important to advance the state of scienceSarah Beth Thomas, RN
Professional Development Manager, BWH
Outcome is unknown, hope for good, support with resources all advocacy groups,
Process at FDA generalize from 1st entry to rules more generalizable Speaker: Peter Marks, MD, PhD
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA
Last Spring it became clear that something will work a vaccine by June 2020 belief that enough candidates the challenge manufacture enough and scaling up FDA did not predicted the efficacy of mRNA vaccine vs other approaches expected to work
Recover Work load for the pandemic will wean & clear, Gene Therapies IND application remained flat in the face of the pandemic Rare diseases urgency remains Consensus with industry advisory to get input gene therapy Guidance T-Cell therapy vs Regulation best thinking CGT evolve speedily flexible gained by Guidance
Immune modulators, Immunotherapy Genome editing can make use of viral vectors future technologies nanoparticles and liposome encapsulation
big pharma has portfolios of therapeutics not one drug across Tx areas: cell, gene iodine therapy
collective learning infrastructure features manufacturing at scale early in development Acquisitions strategy for growth # applications for scaling Rick Modi
CEO, Affinia Therapeutics
Copy, paste EDIT from product A to B novel vectors leverage knowledge varient of vector, coder optimization choice of indication is critical exploration on larger populations Speed to R&D and Speed to better gene construct get to clinic with better design vs ASAP
Data sharing clinical experience with vectors strategies patients selection, vector selection, mitigation, patient type specific Louise Rodino-Klapac, PhD
AAV based platform 15 years in development same disease indication vs more than one indication stereotype, analytics as hurdle 1st was 10 years 2nd was 3 years
Safety to clinic vs speed to clinic, difference of vectors to trust
Recent AAV gene therapy product approvals have catalyzed the field. This new class of therapies has shown the potential to bring transformative benefit to patients. With dozens of AAV treatments in clinical studies, all eyes are on the field to gauge its disruptive impact.
The panel assesses the largest challenges of the first two products, the lessons learned for the broader CGT field, and the extent to which they serve as a precedent to broaden the AAV modality.
Is AAV gene therapy restricted to genetically defined disorders, or will it be able to address common diseases in the near term?
Lessons learned from these first-in-class approvals.
Challenges to broaden this modality to similar indications.
Reflections on safety signals in the clinical studies?
Tissue types additional administrations, tech and science, address additional diseases, more science for photoreceptors a different tissue type underlying pathology novelties in last 10 years
Laxterna success to be replicated platform, paradigms measurement visual improved
More science is needed to continue develop vectors reduce toxicity,
AAV can deliver different cargos reduce adverse events improve vectorsRon Philip
Chief Operating Officer, Spark Therapeutics
The first retinal gene therapy, voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (Luxturna, Spark Therapeutics), was approved by the FDA in 2017.Meredith Schultz, MD
Executive Medical Director, Lead TME, Novartis Gene Therapies
Impact of cell therapy beyond muscular dystrophy, translational medicine, each indication, each disease, each group of patients build platform unlock the promise
Monitoring for Safety signals real world evidence remote markers, home visits, clinical trial made safer, better communication of information
AAV a complex driver in Pharmacology durable, vector of choice, administer in vitro, gene editing tissue specificity, pharmacokinetics side effects and adverse events manufacturability site variation diversify portfolios,
This panel will address the advances in the area of AAV gene therapy delivery looking out the next five years. Questions that loom large are: How can biodistribution of AAV be improved? What solutions are in the wings to address immunogenicity of AAV? Will patients be able to receive systemic redosing of AAV-based gene therapies in the future? What technical advances are there for payload size? Will the cost of manufacturing ever become affordable for ultra-rare conditions? Will non-viral delivery completely supplant viral delivery within the next five years?What are the safety concerns and how will they be addressed? Moderators: Xandra Breakefield, PhD
Ataxia requires therapy targeting multiple organ with one therapy, brain, spinal cord, heart several IND, clinical trials in 2022Mathew Pletcher, PhD
SVP, Head of Gene Therapy Research and Technical Operations, Astellas
Work with diseases poorly understood, collaborations needs example of existing: DMD is a great example explain dystrophin share placedo data
Continue to explore large animal guinea pig not the mice, not primates (ethical issues) for understanding immunogenicity and immune response Manny Simons, PhD
CEO, Akouos
AAV Therapy for the fluid of the inner ear, CGT for the ear vector accessible to surgeons translational work on the inner ear for gene therapy right animal model
Biology across species nerve ending in the cochlea
engineer out of the caspid, lowest dose possible, get desired effect by vector use, 2022 new milestones
The GCT M&A market is booming – many large pharmas have made at least one significant acquisition. How should we view the current GCT M&A market? What is its impact of the current M&A market on technology development? Are these M&A trends new are just another cycle? Has pharma strategy shifted and, if so, what does it mean for GCT companies? What does it mean for patients? What are the long-term prospects – can valuations hold up? Moderator: Adam Koppel, MD, PhD
Managing Director, Bain Capital Life Sciences
What acquirers are looking for??
What is the next generation vs what is real where is the industry going? Speakers:
Debby Baron,
Worldwide Business Development, Pfizer
CGT is an important area Pfizer is active looking for innovators, advancing forward programs of innovation with the experience Pfizer has internally
Scalability and manufacturing regulatory conversations, clinical programs safety in parallel to planning getting drug to patients
ALS – Man 1in 300, Women 1 in 400, next decade increase 7%
10% ALS is heredity 160 pharma in ALS space, diagnosis is late 1/3 of people are not diagnosed, active community for clinical trials Challenges: disease heterogeneity cases of 10 years late in diagnosis. Clinical Trials for ALS in Gene Therapy targeting ASO1 protein therapies FUS gene struck youngsters
Cell therapy for ACTA2 Vasculopathy in the brain and control the BP and stroke – smooth muscle intima proliferation. Viral vector deliver aiming to change platform to non-viral delivery rare disease , gene editing, other mutations of ACTA2 gene target other pathway for atherosclerosis
Oncolytic viruses represent a powerful new technology, but so far an FDA-approved oncolytic (Imlygic) has only occurred in one area – melanoma and that what is in 2015. This panel involves some of the protagonists of this early success story. They will explore why and how Imlygic became approved and its path to commercialization. Yet, no other cancer indications exist for Imlygic, unlike the expansion of FDA-approved indication for immune checkpoint inhibitors to multiple cancers. Why? Is there a limitation to what and which cancers can target? Is the mode of administration a problem?
No other oncolytic virus therapy has been approved since 2015. Where will the next success story come from and why? Will these therapies only be beneficial for skin cancers or other easily accessible cancers based on intratumoral delivery?
The panel will examine whether the preclinical models that have been developed for other cancer treatment modalities will be useful for oncolytic viruses. It will also assess the extent pre-clinical development challenges have slowed the development of OVs. Moderator: Nino Chiocca, MD, PhD
Neurosurgeon-in-Chief and Chairman, Neurosurgery, BWH
Harvey W. Cushing Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS
Challenges of manufacturing at Amgen what are they? Speakers: Robert Coffin, PhD
Chief Research & Development Officer, Replimune
2002 in UK promise in oncolytic therapy GNCSF
Phase III melanoma 2015 M&A with Amgen
oncolytic therapy remains non effecting on immune response
data is key for commercialization
do not belief in systemic therapy achieve maximum immune response possible from a tumor by localized injection Roger Perlmutter, MD, PhD
Chairman, Merck & Co.
response rates systemic therapy like PD1, Keytruda, OPTIVA well tolerated combination of Oncolytic with systemic
Physician, Dana Farber-Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center
Assistant Professor of Medicine, HMS
Which person gets oncolytics virus if patient has immune suppression due to other indications
Safety of oncolytic virus greater than Systemic treatment
series biopsies for injected and non injected tissue and compare Suspect of hot tumor and cold tumors likely to have sme response to agent unknown all potential
There are currently two oncolytic virus products on the market, one in the USA and one in China. As of late 2020, there were 86 clinical trials 60 of which were in phase I with just 2 in Phase III the rest in Phase I/II or Phase II. Although global sales of OVs are still in the ramp-up phase, some projections forecast OVs will be a $700 million market by 2026. This panel will address some of the major questions in this area:
What regulatory challenges will keep OVs from realizing their potential? Despite the promise of OVs for treating cancer only one has been approved in the US. Why has this been the case? Reasons such have viral tropism, viral species selection and delivery challenges have all been cited. However, these are also true of other modalities. Why then have oncolytic virus approaches not advanced faster and what are the primary challenges to be overcome?
Will these need to be combined with other agents to realize their full efficacy and how will that impact the market?
Why are these companies pursuing OVs while several others are taking a pass?
In 2020 there were a total of 60 phase I trials for Oncolytic Viruses. There are now dozens of companies pursuing some aspect of OV technology. This panel will address:
How are small companies equipped to address the challenges of developing OV therapies better than large pharma or biotech?
Will the success of COVID vaccines based on Adenovirus help the regulatory environment for small companies developing OV products in Europe and the USA?
Is there a place for non-viral delivery and other immunotherapy companies to engage in the OV space? Would they bring any real advantages?
Systemic delivery Oncolytic Virus IV delivery woman in remission
Collaboration with Regeneron
Data collection: Imageable reporter secretable reporter, gene expression
Field is intense systemic oncolytic delivery is exciting in mice and in human, response rates are encouraging combination immune stimulant, check inhibitors
Few areas of potential cancer therapy have had the attention and excitement of CAR-T. This panel of leading executives, developers, and clinician-scientists will explore the current state of CAR-T and its future prospects. Among the questions to be addressed are:
Is CAR-T still an industry priority – i.e. are new investments being made by large companies? Are new companies being financed? What are the trends?
What have we learned from first-generation products, what can we expect from CAR-T going forward in novel targets, combinations, armored CAR’s and allogeneic treatment adoption?
Early trials showed remarkable overall survival and progression-free survival. What has been observed regarding how enduring these responses are?
Most of the approvals to date have targeted CD19, and most recently BCMA. What are the most common forms of relapses that have been observed?
Is there a consensus about what comes after these CD19 and BCMA trials as to additional targets in liquid tumors? How have dual-targeted approaches fared?
The potential application of CAR-T in solid tumors will be a game-changer if it occurs. The panel explores the prospects of solid tumor success and what the barriers have been. Questions include:
How would industry and investor strategy for CAR-T and solid tumors be characterized? Has it changed in the last couple of years?
Does the lack of tumor antigen specificity in solid tumors mean that lessons from liquid tumor CAR-T constructs will not translate well and we have to start over?
Whether due to antigen heterogeneity, a hostile tumor micro-environment, or other factors are some specific solid tumors more attractive opportunities than others for CAR-T therapy development?
Given the many challenges that CAR-T faces in solid tumors, does the use of combination therapies from the start, for example, to mitigate TME effects, offer a more compelling opportunity.
Executive Director, Head of Cell Therapy Research, Exploratory Immuno-Oncology, NIBR
2017 CAR-T first approval
M&A and research collaborations
TCR tumor specific antigens avoid tissue toxicity Knut Niss, PhD
CTO, Mustang Bio
tumor hot start in 12 month clinical trial solid tumors , theraties not ready yet. Combination therapy will be an experimental treatment long journey checkpoint inhibitors to be used in combination maintenance Lipid tumor Barbra Sasu, PhD
CSO, Allogene
T cell response at prostate cancer
tumor specific
cytokine tumor specific signals move from solid to metastatic cell type for easier infiltration
Where we might go: safety autologous and allogeneic Jay Short, PhD
Chairman, CEO, Cofounder, BioAlta, Inc.
Tumor type is not enough for development of therapeutics other organs are involved in the periphery
difficult to penetrate solid tumors biologics activated in the tumor only, positive changes surrounding all charges, water molecules inside the tissue acidic environment target the cells inside the tumor and not outside
The modes of GCT manufacturing have the potential of fundamentally reordering long-established roles and pathways. While complexity goes up the distance from discovery to deployment shrinks. With the likelihood of a total market for cell therapies to be over $48 billion by 2027, groups of products are emerging. Stem cell therapies are projected to be $28 billion by 2027 and non-stem cell therapies such as CAR-T are projected be $20 billion by 2027. The manufacturing challenges for these two large buckets are very different. Within the CAR-T realm there are diverging trends of autologous and allogeneic therapies and the demands on manufacturing infrastructure are very different. Questions for the panelists are:
Help us all understand the different manufacturing challenges for cell therapies. What are the trade-offs among storage cost, batch size, line changes in terms of production cost and what is the current state of scaling naïve and stem cell therapy treatment vs engineered cell therapies?
For cell and gene therapy what is the cost of Quality Assurance/Quality Control vs. production and how do you think this will trend over time based on your perspective on learning curves today?
Will point of care production become a reality? How will that change product development strategy for pharma and venture investors? What would be the regulatory implications for such products?
How close are allogeneic CAR-T cell therapies? If successful what are the market implications of allogenic CAR-T? What are the cost implications and rewards for developing allogeneic cell therapy treatments?
Global Head of Product Development, Gene & Cell Therapy, Catalent
2/3 autologous 1/3 allogeneic CAR-T high doses and high populations scale up is not done today quality maintain required the timing logistics issues centralized vs decentralized allogeneic are health donors innovations in cell types in use improvements in manufacturing
China embraced gene and cell therapies early. The first China gene therapy clinical trial was in 1991. China approved the world’s first gene therapy product in 2003—Gendicine—an oncolytic adenovirus for the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer. Driven by broad national strategy, China has become a hotbed of GCT development, ranking second in the world with more than 1,000 clinical trials either conducted or underway and thousands of related patents. It has a booming GCT biotech sector, led by more than 45 local companies with growing IND pipelines.
In late 1990, a T cell-based immunotherapy, cytokine-induced killer (CIK) therapy became a popular modality in the clinic in China for tumor treatment. In early 2010, Chinese researchers started to carry out domestic CAR T trials inspired by several important reports suggested the great antitumor function of CAR T cells. Now, China became the country with the most registered CAR T trials, CAR T therapy is flourishing in China.
The Chinese GCT ecosystem has increasingly rich local innovation and growing complement of development and investment partnerships – and also many subtleties.
This panel, consisting of leaders from the China GCT corporate, investor, research and entrepreneurial communities, will consider strategic questions on the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry in China, areas of greatest strength, evolving regulatory framework, early successes and products expected to reach the US and world market. Moderator: Min Wu, PhD
Managing Director, Fosun Health Fund
What are the area of CGT in China, regulatory similar to the US Speakers: Alvin Luk, PhD
CEO, Neuropath Therapeutics
Monogenic rare disease with clear genomic target
Increase of 30% in patient enrollment
Regulatory reform approval is 60 days no delayPin Wang, PhD
CSO, Jiangsu Simcere Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Similar starting point in CGT as the rest of the World unlike a later starting point in other biologicalRichard Wang, PhD
CEO, Fosun Kite Biotechnology Co., Ltd
Possibilities to be creative and capitalize the new technologies for innovating drug
Support of the ecosystem by funding new companie allowing the industry to be developed in China
Autologous in patients differences cost challengeTian Xu, PhD
Vice President, Westlake University
ICH committee and Chinese FDA -r regulation similar to the US
Difference is the population recruitment, in China patients are active participants in skin disease
Active in development of transposome
Development of non-viral methods, CRISPR still in D and transposome
In China price of drugs regulatory are sensitive Shunfei Yan, PhD
The COVID vaccine race has propelled mRNA to the forefront of biomedicine. Long considered as a compelling modality for therapeutic gene transfer, the technology may have found its most impactful application as a vaccine platform. Given the transformative industrialization, the massive human experience, and the fast development that has taken place in this industry, where is the horizon? Does the success of the vaccine application, benefit or limit its use as a therapeutic for CGT?
How will the COVID success impact the rest of the industry both in therapeutic and prophylactic vaccines and broader mRNA lessons?
How will the COVID success impact the rest of the industry both on therapeutic and prophylactic vaccines and broader mRNA lessons?
Beyond from speed of development, what aspects make mRNA so well suited as a vaccine platform?
Will cost-of-goods be reduced as the industry matures?
How does mRNA technology seek to compete with AAV and other gene therapy approaches?
Many years of mRNA pivoting for new diseases, DARPA, nucleic Acids global deployment of a manufacturing unit on site where the need arise Elan Musk funds new directions at Moderna
How many mRNA can be put in one vaccine: Dose and tolerance to achieve efficacy
45 days for Personalized cancer vaccine one per patient
Hemophilia has been and remains a hallmark indication for the CGT. Given its well-defined biology, larger market, and limited need for gene transfer to provide therapeutic benefit, it has been at the forefront of clinical development for years, however, product approval remains elusive. What are the main hurdles to this success? Contrary to many indications that CGT pursues no therapeutic options are available to patients, hemophiliacs have an increasing number of highly efficacious treatment options. How does the competitive landscape impact this field differently than other CGT fields? With many different players pursuing a gene therapy option for hemophilia, what are the main differentiators? Gene therapy for hemophilia seems compelling for low and middle-income countries, given the cost of currently available treatments; does your company see opportunities in this market? Moderator: Nancy Berliner, MD
Safety concerns, high burden of treatment CGT has record of safety and risk/benefit adoption of Tx functional cure CGT is potent Tx relative small quantity of protein needs be delivered
Potency and quality less quantity drug and greater potency
risk of delivery unwanted DNA, capsules are critical
analytics is critical regulator involvement in potency definition
Director, Center for Rare Neurological Diseases, MGH
Associate Professor, Neurology, HMS
Single gene disorder NGS enable diagnosis, DIagnosis to Treatment How to know whar cell to target, make it available and scale up Address gap: missing components Biomarkers to cell types lipid chemistry cell animal biology
crosswalk from bone marrow matter
New gene discovered that causes neurodevelopment of stagnant genes Examining new Biology cell type specific biomarkers
The American Diabetes Association estimates 30 million Americans have diabetes and 1.5 million are diagnosed annually. GCT offers the prospect of long-sought treatment for this enormous cohort and their chronic requirements. The complexity of the disease and its management constitute a grand challenge and highlight both the potential of GCT and its current limitations.
Islet transplantation for type 1 diabetes has been attempted for decades. Problems like loss of transplanted islet cells due to autoimmunity and graft site factors have been difficult to address. Is there anything different on the horizon for gene and cell therapies to help this be successful?
How is the durability of response for gene or cell therapies for diabetes being addressed? For example, what would the profile of an acceptable (vs. optimal) cell therapy look like?
Advanced made, Patient of Type 1 Outer and Inner compartments of spheres (not capsule) no immune suppression continuous secretion of enzyme Insulin independence without immune suppression
Volume to have of-the-shelf inventory oxegenation in location lymphatic and vascularization conrol the whole process modular platform learning from others
Keep eyes open, waiting the Pandemic to end and enable working back on all the indications
Portfolio of MET, Mimi Emerging Therapies
Learning from the Pandemic – operationalize the practice science, R&D leaders, new collaboratives at NIH, FDA, Novartis
Pursue programs that will yield growth, tropic diseases with Gates Foundation, Rising Tide pods for access CGT within Novartis Partnership with UPenn in Cell Therapy
Cost to access to IP from Academia to a Biotech CRISPR accessing few translations to Clinic
Protein degradation organization constraint valuation by parties in a partnership
Novartis: nuclear protein lipid nuclear particles, tamplate for Biotech to collaborate
Game changing: 10% of the Portfolio, New frontiers human genetics in Ophthalmology, CAR-T, CRISPR, Gene Therapy Neurological and payloads of different matter
The Voice of Dr. Seidman – Her abstract is cited below
The ultimate opportunity presented by discovering the genetic basis of human disease is accurate prediction and disease prevention. To enable this achievement, genetic insights must enable the identification of at-risk
individuals prior to end-stage disease manifestations and strategies that delay or prevent clinical expression. Genetic cardiomyopathies provide a paradigm for fulfilling these opportunities. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction with normal or enhanced systolic performance and a unique histopathology: myocyte hypertrophy, disarray and fibrosis. Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) exhibits enlarged ventricular volumes with depressed systolic performance and nonspecific histopathology. Both HCM and DCM are prevalent clinical conditions that increase risk for arrhythmias, sudden death, and heart failure. Today treatments for HCM and DCM focus on symptoms, but none prevent disease progression. Human molecular genetic studies demonstrated that these pathologies often result from dominant mutations in genes that encode protein components of the sarcomere, the contractile unit in striated muscles. These data combined with the emergence of molecular strategies to specifically modulate gene expression provide unparalleled opportunities to silence or correct mutant genes and to boost healthy gene expression in patients with genetic HCM and DCM. Many challenges remain, but the active and vital efforts of physicians, researchers, and patients are poised to ensure success.
Cyprus Island, kidney disease by mutation causing MUC1 accumulation and death BRD4780 molecule that will clear the misfolding proteins from the kidney organoids: pleuripotent stem cells small molecule developed for applications in the other cell types in brain, eye, gene mutation build mechnism for therapy clinical models transition from Academia to biotech
One of the most innovative segments in all of healthcare is the development of GCT driven therapies for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Driven by a series of insights and tools and funded in part by disease focused foundations, philanthropists and abundant venture funding disease after disease is yielding to new GCT technology. These often become platforms to address more prevalent diseases. The goal of making these breakthroughs routine and affordable is challenged by a range of issues including clinical trial design and pricing.
What is driving the interest in rare diseases?
What are the biggest barriers to making breakthroughs ‘routine and affordable?’
What is the role of retrospective and prospective natural history studies in rare disease? When does the expected value of retrospective disease history studies justify the cost?
Related to the first question, what is the FDA expecting as far as controls in clinical trials for rare diseases? How does this impact the collection of natural history data?
The power of GCT to cure disease has the prospect of profoundly improving the lives of patients who respond. Planning for a disruption of this magnitude is complex and challenging as it will change care across the spectrum. Leading chief executives shares perspectives on how the industry will change and how this change should be anticipated. Moderator: Meg Tirrell
Senior Health and Science Reporter, CNBC
CGT becoming staple therapy what are the disruptors emerging Speakers: Lisa Dechamps
SVP & Chief Business Officer, Novartis Gene Therapies
Reimagine medicine with collaboration at MGH, MDM condition in children
The Science is there, sustainable processes and systems impact is transformational
Value based pricing, risk sharing Payers and Pharma for one time therapy with life span effect
Head, Pharmaceuticals Research & Development, Bayer AG
CGT – 2016 and in 2020 new leadership and capability
Disease Biology and therapeutics
Regenerative Medicine: CGT vs repair building pipeline in ophthalmology and cardiovascular
During Pandemic: Deliver Medicines like Moderna, Pfizer – collaborations between competitors with Government Bayer entered into Vaccines in 5 days, all processes had to change access innovations developed over decades for medical solutions
GCT represents a large and growing market for novel therapeutics that has several segments. These include Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Neurological Diseases, Infectious Disease, Ophthalmology, Benign Blood Disorders, and many others; Manufacturing and Supply Chain including CDMO’s and CMO’s; Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Tools and Platforms (viral vectors, nano delivery, gene editing, etc.). Bayer’s pharma business participates in virtually all of these segments. How does a Company like Bayer approach the development of a portfolio in a space as large and as diverse as this one? How does Bayer approach the support of the production infrastructure with unique demands and significant differences from its historical requirements? Moderator:
EVP, Pharmaceuticals, Head of Cell & Gene Therapy, Bayer AG
CGT will bring treatment to cure, delivery of therapies
Be a Leader repair, regenerate, cure
Technology and Science for CGT – building a portfolio vs single asset decision criteria development of IP market access patients access acceleration of new products
Bayer strategy: build platform for use by four domains
Gener augmentation
Autologeneic therapy, analytics
Gene editing
Oncology Cell therapy tumor treatment: What kind of cells – the jury is out
Of 23 product launch at Bayer no prediction is possible some high some lows
Gene delivery uses physical, chemical, or viral means to introduce genetic material into cells. As more genetically modified therapies move closer to the market, challenges involving safety, efficacy, and manufacturing have emerged. Optimizing lipidic and polymer nanoparticles and exosomal delivery is a short-term priority. This panel will examine how the short-term and long-term challenges are being tackled particularly for non-viral delivery modalities. Moderator: Natalie Artzi, PhD
Gene editing was recognized by the Nobel Committee as “one of gene technology’s sharpest tools, having a revolutionary impact on life sciences.” Introduced in 2011, gene editing is used to modify DNA. It has applications across almost all categories of disease and is also being used in agriculture and public health.
Today’s panel is made up of pioneers who represent foundational aspects of gene editing. They will discuss the movement of the technology into the therapeutic mainstream.
Successes in gene editing – lessons learned from late-stage assets (sickle cell, ophthalmology)
When to use what editing tool – pros and cons of traditional gene-editing v. base editing. Is prime editing the future? Specific use cases for epigenetic editing.
When we reach widespread clinical use – role of off-target editing – is the risk real? How will we mitigate? How practical is patient-specific off-target evaluation?
There are several dozen companies working to develop gene or cell therapies for Sickle Cell Disease, Beta Thalassemia, and Fanconi Anemia. In some cases, there are enzyme replacement therapies that are deemed effective and safe. In other cases, the disease is only managed at best. This panel will address a number of questions that are particular to this class of genetic diseases:
What are the pros and cons of various strategies for treatment? There are AAV-based editing, non-viral delivery even oligonucleotide recruitment of endogenous editing/repair mechanisms. Which approaches are most appropriate for which disease?
How can companies increase the speed of recruitment for clinical trials when other treatments are available? What is the best approach to educate patients on a novel therapeutic?
How do we best address ethnic and socio-economic diversity to be more representative of the target patient population?
How long do we have to follow up with the patients from the scientific, patient’s community, and payer points of view? What are the current FDA and EMA guidelines for long-term follow-up?
Where are we with regards to surrogate endpoints and their application to clinically meaningful endpoints?
What are the emerging ethical dilemmas in pediatric gene therapy research? Are there challenges with informed consent and pediatric assent for trial participation?
Are there differences in reimbursement policies for these different blood disorders? Clearly durability of response is a big factor. Are there other considerations?
Oligonucleotide drugs have recently come into their own with approvals from companies such as Biogen, Alnylam, Novartis and others. This panel will address several questions:
How important is the delivery challenge for oligonucleotides? Are technological advancements emerging that will improve the delivery of oligonucleotides to the CNS or skeletal muscle after systemic administration?
Will oligonucleotides improve as a class that will make them even more effective? Are further advancements in backbone chemistry anticipated, for example.
Will oligonucleotide based therapies blaze trails for follow-on gene therapy products?
Are small molecules a threat to oligonucleotide-based therapies?
Beyond exon skipping and knock-down mechanisms, what other roles will oligonucleotide-based therapies take mechanistically — can genes be activating oligonucleotides? Is there a place for multiple mechanism oligonucleotide medicines?
Are there any advantages of RNAi-based oligonucleotides over ASOs, and if so for what use?
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
Computer connection to the iCloud of WordPress.com FROZE completely at 10:30AM EST and no file update was possible. COVERAGE OF MAY 21, 2021 IS RECORDED BELOW FOLLOWING THE AGENDA BY COPY AN DPASTE OF ALL THE TWEETS I PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021 8:30 AM – 8:55 AM
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.Christine Seidman, MD
Cyprus Island, kidney disease by mutation causing MUC1 accumulation and death BRD4780 molecule that will clear the misfolding proteins from the kidney organoids: pleuripotent stem cells small molecule developed for applications in the other cell types in brain, eye, gene mutation build mechnism for therapy clinical models transition from Academia to biotech
One of the most innovative segments in all of healthcare is the development of GCT driven therapies for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Driven by a series of insights and tools and funded in part by disease focused foundations, philanthropists and abundant venture funding disease after disease is yielding to new GCT technology. These often become platforms to address more prevalent diseases. The goal of making these breakthroughs routine and affordable is challenged by a range of issues including clinical trial design and pricing.
What is driving the interest in rare diseases?
What are the biggest barriers to making breakthroughs ‘routine and affordable?’
What is the role of retrospective and prospective natural history studies in rare disease? When does the expected value of retrospective disease history studies justify the cost?
Related to the first question, what is the FDA expecting as far as controls in clinical trials for rare diseases? How does this impact the collection of natural history data?
The power of GCT to cure disease has the prospect of profoundly improving the lives of patients who respond. Planning for a disruption of this magnitude is complex and challenging as it will change care across the spectrum. Leading chief executives shares perspectives on how the industry will change and how this change should be anticipated. Moderator: Meg Tirrell
Senior Health and Science Reporter, CNBC
CGT becoming staple therapy what are the disruptors emerging Speakers: Lisa Dechamps
SVP & Chief Business Officer, Novartis Gene Therapies
Reimagine medicine with collaboration at MGH, MDM condition in children
The Science is there, sustainable processes and systems impact is transformational
Value based pricing, risk sharing Payers and Pharma for one time therapy with life span effect
Head, Pharmaceuticals Research & Development, Bayer AG
CGT – 2016 and in 2020 new leadership and capability
Disease Biology and therapeutics
Regenerative Medicine: CGT vs repair building pipeline in ophthalmology and cardiovascular
During Pandemic: Deliver Medicines like Moderna, Pfizer – collaborations between competitors with Government Bayer entered into Vaccines in 5 days, all processes had to change access innovations developed over decades for medical solutions
GCT represents a large and growing market for novel therapeutics that has several segments. These include Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Neurological Diseases, Infectious Disease, Ophthalmology, Benign Blood Disorders, and many others; Manufacturing and Supply Chain including CDMO’s and CMO’s; Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Tools and Platforms (viral vectors, nano delivery, gene editing, etc.). Bayer’s pharma business participates in virtually all of these segments. How does a Company like Bayer approach the development of a portfolio in a space as large and as diverse as this one? How does Bayer approach the support of the production infrastructure with unique demands and significant differences from its historical requirements? Moderator:
EVP, Pharmaceuticals, Head of Cell & Gene Therapy, Bayer AG
CGT will bring treatment to cure, delivery of therapies
Be a Leader repair, regenerate, cure
Technology and Science for CGT – building a portfolio vs single asset decision criteria development of IP market access patients access acceleration of new products
Bayer strategy: build platform for use by four domains
Gener augmentation
Autologeneic therapy, analytics
Gene editing
Oncology Cell therapy tumor treatment: What kind of cells – the jury is out
Of 23 product launch at Bayer no prediction is possible some high some lows
Gene delivery uses physical, chemical, or viral means to introduce genetic material into cells. As more genetically modified therapies move closer to the market, challenges involving safety, efficacy, and manufacturing have emerged. Optimizing lipidic and polymer nanoparticles and exosomal delivery is a short-term priority. This panel will examine how the short-term and long-term challenges are being tackled particularly for non-viral delivery modalities. Moderator: Natalie Artzi, PhD
Gene editing was recognized by the Nobel Committee as “one of gene technology’s sharpest tools, having a revolutionary impact on life sciences.” Introduced in 2011, gene editing is used to modify DNA. It has applications across almost all categories of disease and is also being used in agriculture and public health.
Today’s panel is made up of pioneers who represent foundational aspects of gene editing. They will discuss the movement of the technology into the therapeutic mainstream.
Successes in gene editing – lessons learned from late-stage assets (sickle cell, ophthalmology)
When to use what editing tool – pros and cons of traditional gene-editing v. base editing. Is prime editing the future? Specific use cases for epigenetic editing.
When we reach widespread clinical use – role of off-target editing – is the risk real? How will we mitigate? How practical is patient-specific off-target evaluation?
There are several dozen companies working to develop gene or cell therapies for Sickle Cell Disease, Beta Thalassemia, and Fanconi Anemia. In some cases, there are enzyme replacement therapies that are deemed effective and safe. In other cases, the disease is only managed at best. This panel will address a number of questions that are particular to this class of genetic diseases:
What are the pros and cons of various strategies for treatment? There are AAV-based editing, non-viral delivery even oligonucleotide recruitment of endogenous editing/repair mechanisms. Which approaches are most appropriate for which disease?
How can companies increase the speed of recruitment for clinical trials when other treatments are available? What is the best approach to educate patients on a novel therapeutic?
How do we best address ethnic and socio-economic diversity to be more representative of the target patient population?
How long do we have to follow up with the patients from the scientific, patient’s community, and payer points of view? What are the current FDA and EMA guidelines for long-term follow-up?
Where are we with regards to surrogate endpoints and their application to clinically meaningful endpoints?
What are the emerging ethical dilemmas in pediatric gene therapy research? Are there challenges with informed consent and pediatric assent for trial participation?
Are there differences in reimbursement policies for these different blood disorders? Clearly durability of response is a big factor. Are there other considerations?
Oligonucleotide drugs have recently come into their own with approvals from companies such as Biogen, Alnylam, Novartis and others. This panel will address several questions:
How important is the delivery challenge for oligonucleotides? Are technological advancements emerging that will improve the delivery of oligonucleotides to the CNS or skeletal muscle after systemic administration?
Will oligonucleotides improve as a class that will make them even more effective? Are further advancements in backbone chemistry anticipated, for example.
Will oligonucleotide based therapies blaze trails for follow-on gene therapy products?
Are small molecules a threat to oligonucleotide-based therapies?
Beyond exon skipping and knock-down mechanisms, what other roles will oligonucleotide-based therapies take mechanistically — can genes be activating oligonucleotides? Is there a place for multiple mechanism oligonucleotide medicines?
Are there any advantages of RNAi-based oligonucleotides over ASOs, and if so for what use?
Computer connection to the iCloud of WordPress.com FROZE completely at 10:30AM EST and no file update was possible. COVERAGE OF MAY 21, 2021 IS RECORDED BELOW FOLLOWING THE AGENDA BY COPY AN DPASTE OF ALL THE TWEETS I PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021
What is occurring in the GCT venture capital segment? Which elements are seeing the most activity? Which areas have cooled? How is the investment market segmented between gene therapy, cell therapy and gene editing? What makes a hot GCT company? How long will the market stay frothy? Some review of demographics — # of investments, sizes, etc. Why is the market hot and how long do we expect it to stay that way? Rank the top 5 geographic markets for GCT company creation and investing? Are there academic centers that have been especially adept at accelerating GCT outcomes? Do the business models for the rapid development of coronavirus vaccine have any lessons for how GCT technology can be brought to market more quickly? Moderator: Meredith Fisher, PhD
Partner, Mass General Brigham Innovation Fund
Strategies, success what changes are needed in the drug discovery process Speakers:
Bring disruptive frontier as a platform with reliable delivery CGT double knock out disease cure all change efficiency and scope human centric vs mice centered right scale of data converted into therapeutics acceleratetion
Innovation in drugs 60% fails in trial because of Toxicology system of the future deal with big diseases
Moderna is an example in unlocking what is inside us Microbiome and beyond discover new drugs epigenetics
Manufacturing change is not a new clinical trial FDA need to be presented with new rethinking for big innovations Drug pricing cheaper requires systematization How to systematically scaling up systematize the discovery and the production regulatory innovations
The promise of stem cells has been a highlight in the realm of regenerative medicine. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely in the future. Recent breakthroughs have accelerated these potential interventions in particular for treating neurological disease. Among the topics the panel will consider are:
Stem cell sourcing
Therapeutic indication growth
Genetic and other modification in cell production
Cell production to final product optimization and challenges
Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean
Professor, Neurology and Neuroscience, MGH, HMS
Opportunities in the next generation of the tactical level Welcome the oprimism and energy level of all Translational medicine funding stem cells enormous opportunities
Ear inside the scall compartments and receptors responsible for hearing highly differentiated tall ask to identify cell for anticipated differentiation
The dynamics of venture/PE investing and IPOs are fast evolving. What are the drivers – will the number of investors grow will the size of early rounds continue to grow? How is this reflected in GCT target areas, company design, and biotech overall? Do patients benefit from these trends? Is crossover investing a distinct class or a little of both? Why did it emerge and what are the characteristics of the players? Will SPACs play a role in the growth of the gene and cell therapy industry. What is the role of corporate investment arms eg NVS, Bayer, GV, etc. – has a category killer emerged? Are we nearing the limit of what the GCT market can absorb or will investment capital continue to grow unabated? Moderator: Roger Kitterman
VP, Venture, Mass General Brigham
Saturation reached or more investment is coming in CGT
Pharmacologic agent in existing cause another disorders locomo-movement related
efficacy Autologous cell therapy transplantation approach program T cells into dopamine generating neurons greater than Allogeneic cell transplantation
Current market does not have delivery mechanism that a drug-delivery is the solution Trials would fail on DELIVERY
Immune suppressed patients during one year to avoid graft rejection Autologous approach of Parkinson patient genetically mutated reprogramed as dopamine generating neuron – unknowns are present
Circuitry restoration
Microenvironment disease ameliorate symptoms – education of patients on the treatment
Nearly one hundred senior Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty contributed to the creation of this group of twelve GCT technologies that they believe will breakthrough in the next two years. The Disruptive Dozen identifies and ranks the GCT technologies that will be available on at least an experimental basis to have the chance of significantly improving health care. 11:35 AM – 11:45 AM
The co-chairs convene to reflect on the insights shared over the three days. They will discuss what to expect at the in-person GCT focused May 2-4, 2022 World Medical Innovation Forum.
ALL THE TWEETS PRODUCED ON MAY 21, 2021 INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
Bob Carter, MD, PhD Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, MGH William and Elizabeth Sweet, Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Neurogeneration REVERSAL or slowing down?
Penelope Hallett, PhD NRL, McLean Assistant Professor Psychiatry, HMS efficacy Autologous cell therapy transplantation approach program T cells into dopamine genetating cells greater than Allogeneic cell transplantation
Roger Kitterman VP, Venture, Mass General Brigham Saturation reached or more investment is coming in CGT Multi OMICS and academia originated innovations are the most attractive areas
Peter Kolchinsky, PhD Founder and Managing Partner, RA Capital Management Future proof for new comers disruptors Ex Vivo gene therapy to improve funding products what tool kit belongs to
Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, MGH, Professor of Neurosurgery, HMS Cell therapy for Parkinson to replace dopamine producing cells lost ability to produce dopamine skin cell to become autologous cells reprogramed
Kapil Bharti, PhD Senior Investigator, Ocular and Stem Cell Translational Research Section, NIH Off-th-shelf one time treatment becoming cure Intact tissue in a dish is fragile to maintain metabolism to become like semiconductors
Ole Isacson, MD, PhD Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean Professor, Neurology and Neuroscience, MGH, HMS Opportunities in the next generation of the tactical level Welcome the oprimism and energy level of all
Erin Kimbrel, PhD Executive Director, Regenerative Medicine, Astellas In the ocular space immunogenecity regulatory communication use gene editing for immunogenecity Cas1 and Cas2 autologous cells
Nabiha Saklayen, PhD CEO and Co-Founder, Cellino scale production of autologous cells foundry using semiconductor process in building cassettes by optic physicists
Joe Burns, PhD VP, Head of Biology, Decibel Therapeutics Ear inside the scall compartments and receptors responsible for hearing highly differentiated tall ask to identify cell for anticipated differentiation control by genomics
Kapil Bharti, PhD Senior Investigator, Ocular and Stem Cell Translational Research Section, NIH first drug required to establish the process for that innovations design of animal studies not done before
Robert Nelsen Managing Director, Co-founder, ARCH Venture Partners Manufacturing change is not a new clinical trial FDA need to be presented with new rethinking for big innovations Drug pricing cheaper requires systematization
David Berry, MD, PhD CEO, Valo Health GP, Flagship Pioneering Bring disruptive frontier platform reliable delivery CGT double knockout disease cure all change efficiency scope human centric vs mice centered right scale acceleration
Kush Parmar, MD, PhD Managing Partner, 5AM Ventures build it yourself, benefit for patients FIrst Look at MGB shows MEE innovation on inner ear worthy investment
Robert Nelsen Managing Director, Co-founder, ARCH Venture Partners Frustration with supply chain during the Pandemic, GMC anticipation in advance CGT rapidly prototype rethink and invest proactive investor .edu and Pharma
Thriving Vaccines and Research: Weizmann Institute Coronavirus Research Development
Reporter:Amandeep Kaur, B.Sc., M.Sc.
In early February, Prof. Eran Segal updated in one of his tweets and mentioned that “We say with caution, the magic has started.”
The article reported that this statement by Prof. Segal was due to decreasing cases of COVID-19, severe infection cases and hospitalization of patients by rapid vaccination process throughout Israel. Prof. Segal emphasizes in another tweet to remain cautious over the country and informed that there is a long way to cover and searching for scientific solutions.
A daylong webinar entitled “COVID-19: The epidemic that rattles the world” was a great initiative by Weizmann Institute to share their scientific knowledge about the infection among the Israeli institutions and scientists. Prof. Gideon Schreiber and Dr. Ron Diskin organized the event with the support of the Weizmann Coronavirus Response Fund and Israel Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The speakers were invited from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv University, the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR), and Kaplan Medical Center who addressed the molecular structure and infection biology of the virus, treatments and medications for COVID-19, and the positive and negative effect of the pandemic.
The article reported that with the emergence of pandemic, the scientists at Weizmann started more than 60 projects to explore the virus from different range of perspectives. With the help of funds raised by communities worldwide for the Weizmann Coronavirus Response Fund supported scientists and investigators to elucidate the chemistry, physics and biology behind SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Prof. Avi Levy, the coordinator of the Weizmann Institute’s coronavirus research efforts, mentioned “The vaccines are here, and they will drastically reduce infection rates. But the coronavirus can mutate, and there are many similar infectious diseases out there to be dealt with. All of this research is critical to understanding all sorts of viruses and to preempting any future pandemics.”
The following are few important projects with recent updates reported in the article.
Mapping a hijacker’s methods
Dr. Noam Stern-Ginossar studied the virus invading strategies into the healthy cells and hijack the cell’s systems to divide and reproduce. The article reported that viruses take over the genetic translation system and mainly the ribosomes to produce viral proteins. Dr. Noam used a novel approach known as ‘ribosome profiling’ as her research objective and create a map to locate the translational events taking place inside the viral genome, which further maps the full repertoire of viral proteins produced inside the host.
She and her team members grouped together with the Weizmann’s de Botton Institute and researchers at IIBR for Protein Profiling and understanding the hijacking instructions of coronavirus and developing tools for treatment and therapies. Scientists generated a high-resolution map of the coding regions in the SARS-CoV-2 genome using ribosome-profiling techniques, which allowed researchers to quantify the expression of vital zones along the virus genome that regulates the translation of viral proteins. The study published in Nature in January, explains the hijacking process and reported that virus produces more instruction in the form of viral mRNA than the host and thus dominates the translation process of the host cell. Researchers also clarified that it is the misconception that virus forced the host cell to translate its viral mRNA more efficiently than the host’s own translation, rather high level of viral translation instructions causes hijacking. This study provides valuable insights for the development of effective vaccines and drugs against the COVID-19 infection.
Like chutzpah, some things don’t translate
Prof. Igor Ulitsky and his team worked on untranslated region of viral genome. The article reported that “Not all the parts of viral transcript is translated into protein- rather play some important role in protein production and infection which is unknown.” This region may affect the molecular environment of the translated zones. The Ulitsky group researched to characterize that how the genetic sequence of regions that do not translate into proteins directly or indirectly affect the stability and efficiency of the translating sequences.
Initially, scientists created the library of about 6,000 regions of untranslated sequences to further study their functions. In collaboration with Dr. Noam Stern-Ginossar’s lab, the researchers of Ulitsky’s team worked on Nsp1 protein and focused on the mechanism that how such regions affect the Nsp1 protein production which in turn enhances the virulence. The researchers generated a new alternative and more authentic protocol after solving some technical difficulties which included infecting cells with variants from initial library. Within few months, the researchers are expecting to obtain a more detailed map of how the stability of Nsp1 protein production is getting affected by specific sequences of the untranslated regions.
The landscape of elimination
The article reported that the body’s immune system consists of two main factors- HLA (Human Leukocyte antigen) molecules and T cells for identifying and fighting infections. HLA molecules are protein molecules present on the cell surface and bring fragments of peptide to the surface from inside the infected cell. These peptide fragments are recognized and destroyed by the T cells of the immune system. Samuels’ group tried to find out the answer to the question that how does the body’s surveillance system recognizes the appropriate peptide derived from virus and destroy it. They isolated and analyzed the ‘HLA peptidome’- the complete set of peptides bound to the HLA proteins from inside the SARS-CoV-2 infected cells.
After the analysis of infected cells, they found 26 class-I and 36 class-II HLA peptides, which are present in 99% of the population around the world. Two peptides from HLA class-I were commonly present on the cell surface and two other peptides were derived from coronavirus rare proteins- which mean that these specific coronavirus peptides were marked for easy detection. Among the identified peptides, two peptides were novel discoveries and seven others were shown to induce an immune response earlier. These results from the study will help to develop new vaccines against new coronavirus mutation variants.
Gearing up ‘chain terminators’ to battle the coronavirus
Prof. Rotem Sorek and his lab discovered a family of enzymes within bacteria that produce novel antiviral molecules. These small molecules manufactured by bacteria act as ‘chain terminators’ to fight against the virus invading the bacteria. The study published in Nature in January which reported that these molecules cause a chemical reaction that halts the virus’s replication ability. These new molecules are modified derivates of nucleotide which integrates at the molecular level in the virus and obstruct the works.
Prof. Sorek and his group hypothesize that these new particles could serve as a potential antiviral drug based on the mechanism of chain termination utilized in antiviral drugs used recently in the clinical treatments. Yeda Research and Development has certified these small novel molecules to a company for testing its antiviral mechanism against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Such novel discoveries provide evidences that bacterial immune system is a potential repository of many natural antiviral particles.
Resolving borderline diagnoses
Currently, Real-time Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the only choice and extensively used for diagnosis of COVID-19 patients around the globe. Beside its benefits, there are problems associated with RT-PCR, false negative and false positive results and its limitation in detecting new mutations in the virus and emerging variants in the population worldwide. Prof. Eran Elinavs’ lab and Prof. Ido Amits’ lab are working collaboratively to develop a massively parallel, next-generation sequencing technique that tests more effectively and precisely as compared to RT-PCR. This technique can characterize the emerging mutations in SARS-CoV-2, co-occurring viral, bacterial and fungal infections and response patterns in human.
The scientists identified viral variants and distinctive host signatures that help to differentiate infected individuals from non-infected individuals and patients with mild symptoms and severe symptoms.
In Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Profs. Elinav and Amit are performing trails of the pipeline to test the accuracy in borderline cases, where RT-PCR shows ambiguous or incorrect results. For proper diagnosis and patient stratification, researchers calibrated their severity-prediction matrix. Collectively, scientists are putting efforts to develop a reliable system that resolves borderline cases of RT-PCR and identify new virus variants with known and new mutations, and uses data from human host to classify patients who are needed of close observation and extensive treatment from those who have mild complications and can be managed conservatively.
Moon shot consortium refining drug options
The ‘Moon shot’ consortium was launched almost a year ago with an initiative to develop a novel antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2 and was led by Dr. Nir London of the Department of Chemical and Structural Biology at Weizmann, Prof. Frank von Delft of Oxford University and the UK’s Diamond Light Source synchroton facility.
To advance the series of novel molecules from conception to evidence of antiviral activity, the scientists have gathered support, guidance, expertise and resources from researchers around the world within a year. The article reported that researchers have built an alternative template for drug-discovery, full transparency process, which avoids the hindrance of intellectual property and red tape.
The new molecules discovered by scientists inhibit a protease, a SARS-CoV-2 protein playing important role in virus replication. The team collaborated with the Israel Institute of Biological Research and other several labs across the globe to demonstrate the efficacy of molecules not only in-vitro as well as in analysis against live virus.
Further research is performed including assaying of safety and efficacy of these potential drugs in living models. The first trial on mice has been started in March. Beside this, additional drugs are optimized and nominated for preclinical testing as candidate drug.
In an announcement televised on C-Span, President Elect Joseph Biden announced his new Science Team to advise on science policy matters, as part of the White House Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. Below is a video clip and the transcript, also available at
Crowdsourcing Difficult-to-Collect Epidemiological Data in Pandemics: Lessons from Ebola to the current COVID-19 Pandemic
Curator:Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological data from the origin of the Sars-Cov2 outbreak, notably from the Wuhan region in China, was sparse. In fact, official individual patient data rarely become available early on in an outbreak, when that data is needed most. Epidemiological data was just emerging from China as countries like Italy, Spain, and the United States started to experience a rapid emergence of the outbreak in their respective countries. China, made of 31 geographical provinces, is a vast and complex country, with both large urban and rural areas.
As a result of this geographical diversity and differences in healthcare coverage across the country, epidemiological data can be challenging. For instance, cancer incidence data for regions and whole country is difficult to calculate as there are not many regional cancer data collection efforts, contrasted with the cancer statistics collected in the United States, which is meticulously collected by cancer registries in each region, state and municipality. Therefore, countries like China must depend on hospital record data and autopsy reports in order to back-extrapolate cancer incidence data. This is the case in some developed countries like Italy where cancer registry is administered by a local government and may not be as extensive (for example in the Napoli region of Italy).
Epidemiologists, in areas in which data collection may be challenging, are relying on alternate means of data collection such as using devices connected to the internet-of-things such as mobile devices, or in some cases, social media is becoming useful to obtain health related data. Such as effort to acquire pharmacovigilance data, patient engagement, and oral chemotherapeutic adherence using the social media site Twitter has been discussed in earlier posts: (see below)
Now epidemiologists are finding crowd-sourced data from social media and social networks becoming useful in collecting COVID-19 related data in those countries where health data collection efforts may be sub-optimal. In a recent paper in The Lancet Digital Health [1], authors Kaiyuan Sun, Jenny Chen, and Cecile Viboud present data from the COVID-19 outbreak in China using information collected over social network sites as well as public news outlets and find strong correlations with later-released government statistics, showing the usefulness in such social and crowd-sourcing strategies to collect pertinent time-sensitive data. In particular, the authors aim was to investigate this strategy of data collection to reduce the time delays between infection and detection, isolation and reporting of cases.
As the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progresses, epidemiological data are needed to guide situational awareness and intervention strategies. Here we describe efforts to compile and disseminate epidemiological information on COVID-19 from news media and social networks.
Methods
In this population-level observational study, we searched DXY.cn, a health-care-oriented social network that is currently streaming news reports on COVID-19 from local and national Chinese health agencies. We compiled a list of individual patients with COVID-19 and daily province-level case counts between Jan 13 and Jan 31, 2020, in China. We also compiled a list of internationally exported cases of COVID-19 from global news media sources (Kyodo News, The Straits Times, and CNN), national governments, and health authorities. We assessed trends in the epidemiology of COVID-19 and studied the outbreak progression across China, assessing delays between symptom onset, seeking care at a hospital or clinic, and reporting, before and after Jan 18, 2020, as awareness of the outbreak increased. All data were made publicly available in real time.
Findings
We collected data for 507 patients with COVID-19 reported between Jan 13 and Jan 31, 2020, including 364 from mainland China and 143 from outside of China. 281 (55%) patients were male and the median age was 46 years (IQR 35–60). Few patients (13 [3%]) were younger than 15 years and the age profile of Chinese patients adjusted for baseline demographics confirmed a deficit of infections among children. Across the analysed period, delays between symptom onset and seeking care at a hospital or clinic were longer in Hubei province than in other provinces in mainland China and internationally. In mainland China, these delays decreased from 5 days before Jan 18, 2020, to 2 days thereafter until Jan 31, 2020 (p=0·0009). Although our sample captures only 507 (5·2%) of 9826 patients with COVID-19 reported by official sources during the analysed period, our data align with an official report published by Chinese authorities on Jan 28, 2020.
Interpretation
News reports and social media can help reconstruct the progression of an outbreak and provide detailed patient-level data in the context of a health emergency. The availability of a central physician-oriented social network facilitated the compilation of publicly available COVID-19 data in China. As the outbreak progresses, social media and news reports will probably capture a diminishing fraction of COVID-19 cases globally due to reporting fatigue and overwhelmed health-care systems. In the early stages of an outbreak, availability of public datasets is important to encourage analytical efforts by independent teams and provide robust evidence to guide interventions.
A Few notes on Methodology:
The authors used crowd-sourced reports from DXY.cn, a social network for Chinese physicians, health-care professionals, pharmacies and health-care facilities. This online platform provides real time coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China
More data was curated from news media, television and includes time-stamped information on COVID-19 cases
These reports are publicly available, de-identified patient data
No patient consent was needed and no ethics approval was required
Data was collected between January 20, 2020 and January 31,2020
Sex, age, province of identification, travel history, dates of symptom development was collected
Additional data was collected for other international sites of the pandemic including Cambodia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Russia, Singapore, UK, and USA
All patients in database had laboratory confirmation of infection
Results
507 patient data was collected with 153 visited and 152 resident of Wuhan
Reported cases were skewed toward males however the overall population curve is skewed toward males in China
Most cases (26%) were from Beijing (urban area) while an equal amount were from rural areas combined (Shaanzi and Yunnan)
Age distribution of COVID cases were skewed toward older age groups with median age of 45 HOWEVER there were surprisingly a statistically high amount of cases less than 5 years of age
Outbreak progression based on the crowd-sourced patient line was consistent with the data published by the China Center for Disease Control
Median reporting delay in the authors crowd-sourcing data was 5 days
Crowd-sourced data was able to detect apparent rapid growth of newly reported cases during the collection period in several provinces outside of Hubei province, which is consistent with local government data
The following graphs show age distribution for China in 2017 and predicted for 2050.
The authors have previously used this curation of news methodology to analyze the Ebola outbreak[2].
A further use of the crowd-sourced database was availability of travel histories for patients returning from Wuhan and onset of symptoms, allowing for estimation of incubation periods.
The following published literature has also used these datasets:
Backer JA, Klinkenberg D, Wallinga J: Incubation period of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections among travellers from Wuhan, China, 20-28 January 2020. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 2020, 25(5).
Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, Jones FK, Zheng Q, Meredith HR, Azman AS, Reich NG, Lessler J: The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of internal medicine 2020, 172(9):577-582.
Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, Ren R, Leung KSM, Lau EHY, Wong JY et al: Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. The New England journal of medicine 2020, 382(13):1199-1207.
Dataset is available on the Laboratory for the Modeling of Biological and Socio-technical systems website of Northeastern University at https://www.mobs-lab.org/.
References
Sun K, Chen J, Viboud C: Early epidemiological analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak based on crowdsourced data: a population-level observational study. The Lancet Digital health 2020, 2(4):e201-e208.
Cleaton JM, Viboud C, Simonsen L, Hurtado AM, Chowell G: Characterizing Ebola Transmission Patterns Based on Internet News Reports. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016, 62(1):24-31.
Discover Brigham is hosted by the Brigham Research Institute (BRI), under the umbrella of Brigham Health. Launched in 2005, the BRI’s mission is to accelerate discoveries that improve human health by bridging the gaps between science, communication and funding. The BRI’s resources help to foster groundbreaking interdepartmental and interdisciplinary research. They provide a voice for the research community and raise the profile of Brigham Research.
2. ENTER THE EVENT CODE: DB19. THEN HIT JOIN!
3. PICK THE SESSION YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. THEN ASK YOUR QUESTION!
4. YOUR QUESTION WILL BE REVIEWED AND MAY BE FORWARDED TO THE CHAIR TO ASK THE SPEAKER(S).
IT WORKS ON ANY DEVICE, YOU DO NOT NEED TO INSTALL ANYTHING!
Registration will open at 9:00 AM and will be located throughout the hospital including
Schlager Atrium (formerly known as Cabot Atrium, 45 Francis Street Lobby),
Schuster Lobby (75 Francis Street Entrance),
Shapiro Cardiovascular Center (70 Francis Street Entrance), and the
Hale Building for Transformative Medicine (HBTM) 1st Floor (60 Fenwood Road).
Please visit one of the registration desks listed below to check-in, receive your badge, and collect any necessary materials. Registration will begin starting at 9:00 AM at each of the locations below.
Click on each location below for directions.
SCHLAGER ATRIUM, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CABOT ATRIUM (45 FRANCIS ST. LOBBY)
SCHUSTER LOBBY (75 FRANCIS ST. LOBBY)
CARL J. AND RUTH SHAPIRO
CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER
HALE BUILDING FOR
TRANSFORMATIVE MEDICINE
SESSION LOCATIONS
Below you will find directions to each of the session locations.
MARSHALL A. WOLF CONFERENCE ROOM
HALE BUILDING FOR TRANSFORMATIVE MEDICINE
SESSION ROOM
FROM 60 FENWOOD ROAD: Enter at 60 Fenwood Rd lobby entrance.
STAIRS:
Take the lobby staircase to the 2nd floor. Walk past the balcony overlooking the atrium and take the stairs on the left (Stair 2) to the 3rd floor. Once on the 3rd floor, exit the stairwell and take a right. The room is to your right through the double glass door, straight ahead.
ELEVATOR:
Take S Elevator to 3rd floor. Take a right out of the elevator. The room is past the stairwell, on your right through the double glass doors.
HALE VTC 02006B CONFERENCE ROOM
HALE BUILDING FOR TRANSFORMATIVE MEDICINE
OVERFLOW ROOM FOR MARSHALL A. WOLF CONFERENCE ROOM
FROM 60 FENWOOD ROAD: Enter at 60 Fenwood Rd lobby entrance.
STAIRS:
Take the lobby staircase to the 2nd floor. The conference room will be on your right near the display monitor.
ELEVATOR:
Enter at 60 Fenwood Rd main entrance and take the S Elevator to the 2nd floor. Once you exit the elevator, take a right and walk past the balcony overlooking the atrium and the conference room will be straight ahead near the display monitor.
ZINNER BREAKOUT ROOM
CARL J. AND RUTH SHAPIRO CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER
SESSION ROOM
FROM 70 FRANCIS STREET: The Zinner Breakout Room is located in the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at 70 Francis Street, Boston, MA. Upon entering the building at the street level, walk straight towards the escalators in the rear of the building. The Zinner Conference Center is located on your right; the Breakout room is through the large doors on the left.
ZINNER BOARDROOM
CARL J. AND RUTH SHAPIRO CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER
OVERFLOW ROOM FOR ZINNER BREAKOUT ROOM
FROM 70 FRANCIS STREET:
The Zinner Boardroom is located in the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at 70 Francis Street, Boston, MA. Upon entering the building at the street level, walk straight towards the escalator, keeping to the left side of the building. The Conference Center is located on your right; the Boardroom is through the large doors on the back wall.
BORNSTEIN FAMILY AMPHITHEATER
MAIN PIKE, 45 FRANCIS STREET LOBBY
SESSION ROOM
FROM 45 FRANCIS STREET: Coming from 45 Francis Street lobby, walk towards the Main Pike (2nd floor hallway). Then take left on the Main Pike, 2nd door on right.
AGENDA
10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Opening remarks
Elizabeth G. Nabel, MD, President Brigham Health, Prof. Medicine @HarvardMed
8th event since 2012
show casing amazing research
Open to the Public: Patients, Families to educate
90 Posters
Health equity perspective as DNA of the Brigham
Learn a new idea, meet someone new, create a new idea
FROM 70 FRANCIS STREET: The Zinner Breakout Room is located in the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at 70 Francis Street, Boston, MA. Upon entering the building at the street level, walk straight towards the escalators in the rear of the building. The Zinner Conference Center is located on your right; the Breakout room is through the large doors on the left.
Aaron Goldman
HaeLin Jang
Greog K. Gerber
Microbiome – Bacteria and Fungus therapies – computational tools for applications on microbiome
Diagnostics
Microbiome in early childhood
temporal variability during adulthood
host disease bacteriptherapeutics: C-Diff
Bugs as drugs
Gnotobiotic mice model for c-Diff in mice
MDSINE – Microbial dynamin model interaction model
cancer microbiome: Bacteria causing cancer, cancer changing the bacteria environment
Jeff Karp BENG PhD @MrJeffKarp
tissue based patch to seal open foramane ovale. Project remained in Academic settings however
GLUE component was commercialized
bioinspiration from living organs in Nature, slugs
Viscose secretions
Hydrophobic secretions and snails and sand castle worms
Anna Krichevsky, PhD HMS Initiative for RNA Medicine
paradox of organismal complexity and # protein encoding genes
Human genome, 70% Transcriptome Non-coding RNA only 2% encode proteins
Non-coding RNA small, long, multifunctional
biogenesis of offending RNAs can be drugged
RNA novel therapies: RNA as a Drug,
Indications: Brain Tumors and AD: MicroRNA (miRNA)the smallest Glioblastoma – only 4 drugs FDA approved in 25 years miRNA – 10b inhibition kills gliomacells miR-132 most neuroprotective RNA
Cardiovascular
Paul Anderson, MD, PhD
ALS and FTD – Fronto Temporal Dimensia
Riluzone 1970 – anti Anti-glutamateric
Edarabone 2017 drugs approved – anti-oxidative
Andogenesis role in Motor protection from Stress Cytoplasmatic tRNA – ANdiogenin (ANG) production
SPECIAL PHOTO-OP TO CELEBRATE YOU!
WE WILL TAKE A GROUP PHOTO DURING THE RECEPTION AND AWARDS CEREMONY TO CELEBRATE YOU, OUR INNOVATORS!
THE PHOTO WILL BE DISPLAYED AT THE BRIGHAM IN THE HALE BUILDING. WE HOPE YOU CAN JOIN US IN CELEBRATING YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS.
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
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.
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.
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 timedemonstrates 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 clickhere 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
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 Bioprinting, Heliyon, BMC Materials, and Essays in Biochemistry, and on Advisory Panel of Nanotechnology.
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.
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.
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.
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22