Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘FDA’


Multiple Barriers Identified Which May Hamper Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Clinical Setting

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

From the Journal Science:Science  21 Jun 2019: Vol. 364, Issue 6446, pp. 1119-1120

By Jennifer Couzin-Frankel

 

In a commentary article from Jennifer Couzin-Frankel entitled “Medicine contends with how to use artificial intelligence  the barriers to the efficient and reliable adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the hospital setting are discussed.   In summary these barriers result from lack of reproducibility across hospitals. For instance, a major concern among radiologists is the AI software being developed to read images in order to magnify small changes, such as with cardiac images, is developed within one hospital and may not reflect the equipment or standard practices used in other hospital systems.  To address this issue, lust recently, US scientists and government regulators issued guidance describing how to convert research-based AI into improved medical images and published these guidance in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.  The group suggested greater collaboration among relevant parties in developing of AI practices, including software engineers, scientists, clinicians, radiologists etc. 

As thousands of images are fed into AI algorithms, according to neurosurgeon Eric Oermann at Mount Sinai Hospital, the signals they recognize can have less to do with disease than with other patient characteristics, the brand of MRI machine, or even how a scanner is angled.  For example Oermann and Mount Sinai developed an AI algorithm to detect spots on a lung scan indicative of pneumonia and when tested in a group of new patients the algorithm could detect pneumonia with 93% accuracy.  

However when the group from Sinai tested their algorithm from tens of thousands of scans from other hospitals including NIH success rate fell to 73-80%, indicative of bias within the training set: in other words there was something unique about the way Mt. Sinai does their scans relative to other hospitals.  Indeed, many of the patients Mt. Sinai sees are too sick to get out of bed and radiologists would use portable scanners, which generate different images than stand alone scanners.  

The results were published in Plos Medicine as seen below:

PLoS Med. 2018 Nov 6;15(11):e1002683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002683. eCollection 2018 Nov.

Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: A cross-sectional study.

Zech JR1, Badgeley MA2, Liu M2, Costa AB3, Titano JJ4, Oermann EK3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is interest in using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to analyze medical imaging to provide computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). Recent work has suggested that image classification CNNs may not generalize to new data as well as previously believed. We assessed how well CNNs generalized across three hospital systems for a simulated pneumonia screening task.

METHODS AND FINDINGS:

A cross-sectional design with multiple model training cohorts was used to evaluate model generalizability to external sites using split-sample validation. A total of 158,323 chest radiographs were drawn from three institutions: National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (NIH; 112,120 from 30,805 patients), Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH; 42,396 from 12,904 patients), and Indiana University Network for Patient Care (IU; 3,807 from 3,683 patients). These patient populations had an age mean (SD) of 46.9 years (16.6), 63.2 years (16.5), and 49.6 years (17) with a female percentage of 43.5%, 44.8%, and 57.3%, respectively. We assessed individual models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for radiographic findings consistent with pneumonia and compared performance on different test sets with DeLong’s test. The prevalence of pneumonia was high enough at MSH (34.2%) relative to NIH and IU (1.2% and 1.0%) that merely sorting by hospital system achieved an AUC of 0.861 (95% CI 0.855-0.866) on the joint MSH-NIH dataset. Models trained on data from either NIH or MSH had equivalent performance on IU (P values 0.580 and 0.273, respectively) and inferior performance on data from each other relative to an internal test set (i.e., new data from within the hospital system used for training data; P values both <0.001). The highest internal performance was achieved by combining training and test data from MSH and NIH (AUC 0.931, 95% CI 0.927-0.936), but this model demonstrated significantly lower external performance at IU (AUC 0.815, 95% CI 0.745-0.885, P = 0.001). To test the effect of pooling data from sites with disparate pneumonia prevalence, we used stratified subsampling to generate MSH-NIH cohorts that only differed in disease prevalence between training data sites. When both training data sites had the same pneumonia prevalence, the model performed consistently on external IU data (P = 0.88). When a 10-fold difference in pneumonia rate was introduced between sites, internal test performance improved compared to the balanced model (10× MSH risk P < 0.001; 10× NIH P = 0.002), but this outperformance failed to generalize to IU (MSH 10× P < 0.001; NIH 10× P = 0.027). CNNs were able to directly detect hospital system of a radiograph for 99.95% NIH (22,050/22,062) and 99.98% MSH (8,386/8,388) radiographs. The primary limitation of our approach and the available public data is that we cannot fully assess what other factors might be contributing to hospital system-specific biases.

CONCLUSION:

Pneumonia-screening CNNs achieved better internal than external performance in 3 out of 5 natural comparisons. When models were trained on pooled data from sites with different pneumonia prevalence, they performed better on new pooled data from these sites but not on external data. CNNs robustly identified hospital system and department within a hospital, which can have large differences in disease burden and may confound predictions.

PMID: 30399157 PMCID: PMC6219764 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002683

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article

Images from this publication.See all images (3)Free text

 

 

Surprisingly, not many researchers have begun to use data obtained from different hospitals.  The FDA has issued some guidance in the matter but considers “locked” AI software or unchanging software as a medical device.  However they just announced development of a framework for regulating more cutting edge software that continues to learn over time.

Still the key point is that collaboration over multiple health systems in various countries may be necessary for development of AI software which is used in multiple clinical settings.  Otherwise each hospital will need to develop their own software only used on their own system and would provide a regulatory headache for the FDA.

 

Other articles on Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine on this Open Access Journal include:

Top 12 Artificial Intelligence Innovations Disrupting Healthcare by 2020

The launch of SCAI – Interview with Gérard Biau, director of the Sorbonne Center for Artificial Intelligence (SCAI).

Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence #AI: Realizing Precision Medicine One Patient at a Time

50 Contemporary Artificial Intelligence Leading Experts and Researchers

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


New Neuromodulation Device to Treat Migraines

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

Theranica, Israeli startup is developing a non-invasive medical device that treats migraine pain through smartphone-controlled electric pulses unlike existing pharmaceutical solutions like triptans and ergotamine. The company recently received FDA De-novo clearance on Nerivio Migra, a class II medical device to treat acute migraine pain.

The non-invasive medical device, Nerivio Migra contains a bioelectric patch which is placed on the upper arm and a linked smartphone app which controls the electrical impulses and records data. The device’s electric pulses excite C-fiber nerves, generating an analgesic mechanism in the brain that lightens migraine pain.

In order to diminish the overuse of painkillers, the company developed the non-invasive device and tested it among acute migraine patients both two and 48 hours after treatment. Side effects from the device were mild and resolved within 24 hours.

Theranica’s product is lower in price than the existing alternatives and it is using existing smartphone technology. Their initial focus is on marketing to headache clinics as a start. And hoping to expand the indications for its device to the pediatric migraine population and finally use its platform to treat other idiopathic pain conditions like cluster headaches.

SOURCE

Israeli startup gets FDA nod for neuromodulation device to treat migraines

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Genome Editing and Regulatory Harmonization: Progress and Challenges

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

Genome editing offers the potential of new and effective treatments for genetic diseases. As companies work to develop these treatments, regulators are focused on ensuring that any such products meet applicable safety and efficacy requirements. This panel will discuss how European Union and United States regulators are approaching therapeutic use of genome editing, issues in harmonization between these two – and other – jurisdictions, challenges faced by industry as regulatory positions evolve, and steps that organizations and companies can take to facilitate approval and continued efforts at harmonization.

 

CBER:  because of the nature of these gene therapies, which are mainly orphan, there is expedited review.  Since they started this division in 2015, they have received over 1500 applications.

Spark: Most of the issues were issues with the primary disease not the gene therapy so they had to make new endpoint tests so had talks with FDA before they entered phase III.   There has been great collaboration with FDA,  now they partnered with Novartis to get approval outside US.  You should be willing to partner with EU pharmas to expedite the regulatory process outside US.  In China the process is new and Brazil is behind on their gene therapy guidance.  However there is the new issue of repeat testing of your manufacturing process, as manufacturing of gene therapies had been small scale before. However he notes that problems with expedited review is tough because you don’t have alot of time to get data together.  They were lucky that they had already done a randomized trial.

Sidley Austin:  EU regulatory you make application with advance therapy you don’t have a national option, the regulation body assesses a committee to see if has applicability. Then it goes to a safety committee.  EU has been quicker to approve these advance therapies. Twenty five percent of their applications are gene therapies.  Companies having issues with manufacturing.  There can be issues when the final application is formalized after discussions as problems may arise between discussions, preliminary applications, and final applications.

Sarepta: They have a robust gene therapy program.  Their lead is a therapy for DMD (Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy) where affected males die by 25. Japan and EU have different regulatory applications and although they are similar and data can be transferred there is more paperwork required by EU.  The US uses an IND for application. Global feedback is very challenging, they have had multiple meetings around the world and takes a long time preparing a briefing package….. putting a strain on the small biotechs.  No company wants to be either just EU centric or US centric they just want to get out to market as fast as possible.

 

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

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Chat with @FDA Commissioner, & Challenges in Biotech & Gene Therapy June 4 Philadelphia

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

  • taking patient concerns and voices from anecdotal to data driven system
  • talked about patient accrual hearing patient voice not only in ease of access but reporting toxicities
  • at FDA he wants to remove barriers to trial access and accrual; also talk earlier to co’s on how they should conduct a trial

Digital tech

  • software as medical device
  • regulatory path is mixed like next gen sequencing
  • wearables are concern for FDA (they need to recruit scientists who know this tech

Opioids

  • must address the crisis but in a way that does not harm cancer pain patients
  • smaller pain packs “blister packs” would be good idea

Clinical trial modernization

  • for Alzheimers disease problem is science
  • for diabetes problem is regulatory
  • different diseases calls for different trial design
  • have regulatory problems with rare diseases as can’t form control or placebo group, inhumane. for example ras tumors trials for MEK inhibitors were narrowly focused on certain ras mutants
Realizing the Promise of Gene Therapies for Patients Around the World

103ABC, Level 100

Speakers
Lots of promise, timeline is progressing faster but we need more education on use of the gene therapy
Regulatory issues: Cell and directly delivered gene based therapies have been now approved. Some challenges will be the ultrarare disease trials and how we address manufacturing issues.  Manufacturing is a big issue at CBER and scalability.  If we want to have global impact of these products we need to address the manufacturing issues
 of scalability.
Pfizer – clinical grade and scale is important.
Aventis – he knew manufacturing of biologics however gene therapy manufacturing has its separate issues and is more complicated especially for regulatory purposes for clinical grade as well as scalability.  Strategic decision: focusing on the QC on manufacturing was so important.  Had a major issue in manufacturing had to shut down and redesign the system.
Albert:  Manufacturing is the most important topic even to the investors.  Investors were really conservative especially seeing early problems but when academic centers figured out good efficacy then they investors felt better and market has exploded.  Now you can see investment into preclinical and startups but still want mature companies to focus on manufacturing.  About $10 billion investment in last 4 years.

How Early is Too Early? Valuing and De-Risking Preclinical Opportunities

109AB, Level 100

Speakers
Valuing early-stage opportunities is challenging. Modeling will often provide a false sense of accuracy but relying on comparable transactions is more art than science. With a long lead time to launch, even the most robust estimates can ultimately prove inaccurate. This interactive panel will feature venture capital investors and senior pharma and biotech executives who lead early-stage transactions as they discuss their approaches to valuing opportunities, and offer key learnings from both successful and not-so-successful experiences.
Dr. Schoenbeck, Pfizer:
  • global network of liaisons who are a dedicated team to research potential global startup partners or investments.  Pfizer has a separate team to evaluate academic laboratories.  In Most cases Pfizer does not initiate contact.  It is important to initiate the first discussion with them in order to get noticed.  Could be just a short chat or discussion on what their needs are for their portfolio.

Question: How early is too early?

Luc Marengere, TVM:  His company has early stage focus, on 1st in class molecules.  The sweet spot for their investment is a candidate selected compound, which should be 12-18 months from IND.  They will want to bring to phase II in less than 4 years for $15-17 million.  Their development model is bad for academic labs.  During this process free to talk to other partners.

Dr. Chaudhary, Biogen:  Never too early to initiate a conversation and sometimes that conversation has lasted 3+ years before a decision.  They like build to buy models, will do convertible note deals, candidate compound selection should be entering in GLP/Tox phase (sweet spot)

Merck: have MRL Venture Fund for pre series A funding.  Also reiterated it is never too early to have that initial discussion.  It will not put you in a throw away bin.  They will have suggestions and never like to throw out good ideas.

Michael Hostetler: Set expectations carefully ; data should be validated by a CRO.  If have a platform, they will look at the team first to see if strong then will look at the platform to see how robust it is.

All noted that you should be completely honest at this phase.  Do not overstate your results or data or overhype your compound(s).  Show them everything and don’t have a bias toward compounds you think are the best in your portfolio.  Sometimes the least developed are the ones they are interested in.  Also one firm may reject you however you may fit in others portfolios better so have a broad range of conversations with multiple players.

 

 

Read Full Post »


A Timeline of Dr. Gottlieb’s Tenure at the FDA: 2017-2019

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

From FiercePharma.com

FDA chief Scott Gottlieb steps down, leaving pet projects behind

Scott Gottlieb FDA
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was appointed by President Trump in 2017. (FDA)

Also under his command, the FDA took quick and decisive action on drug costs. The commissioner worked to boost generic approvals and crack down on regulatory “gaming” that stifles competition. He additionally blamed branded drug companies for an “anemic” U.S. biosimilars market and recently blasted insulin pricing.

His sudden departure will likely leave many agency efforts to lower costs up in the air. After the news broke, many pharma watchers posted on Twitter that Gottlieb’s resignation is a loss for the industry.

During his tenure as FDA commissioner, Gottlieb’s name had been floated for HHS chief when former HHS secretary Tom Price resigned due to a travel scandal, but Gottlieb said he was best suited for the FDA commissioner job. Now, former Eli Lilly executive Alex Azar serves as HHS secretary, and on Tuesday afternoon, Azar praised Gottlieb for his work at the agency.

Also read from FiercePharma:

Gottlieb’s quick goodbye triggers investor panic, biopharma bewilderment and at least one good riddance

AUDIT Podcast

An emergency Scott Gottlieb podcast

 

Why is Scott Gottlieb quitting the FDA? Who will replace him?

 

A Timeline of Dr. Gottlieb’s Tenure at the FDA

From FiercePharma.com

New FDA commissioner Gottlieb unveils price-fighting strategies

Scott Gottlieb
New FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb laid out some approaches the agency will take to fight high prices.

UPDATED 3/19/2019

Dr. Norman E. Sharpless was named acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday. For the last 18 months, he had been director of the National Cancer Institute.CreditTom Williams/CQ Roll Call, via Getty Images
Image
Dr. Norman E. Sharpless was named acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday. For the last 18 months, he had been director of the National Cancer Institute.CreditCreditTom Williams/CQ Roll Call, via Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Dr. Norman E. (Ned) Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institute, will serve as acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Alex M. Azar III, secretary of health and human services, announced on Tuesday.

Dr. Sharpless temporarily will fill the post being vacated by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who stunned public health experts, lawmakers and consumer groups last week when he abruptly announced that he was resigningfor personal reasons.

Dr. Sharpless has been director of the cancer center, part of the National Institutes of Health, since October 2017. He is also chief of the aging biology and cancer section in the National Institute on Aging’s Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics. His research focuses on the relationship between aging and cancer, and development of new treatments for melanoma, lung cancer and breast cancer.

“Dr. Sharpless’s deep scientific background and expertise will make him a strong leader for F.D.A.,” said Mr. Azar, in a statement. “There will be no let up in the agency’s focus, from ongoing efforts on drug approvals and combating the opioid crisis to modernizing food safety and addressing the rapid rise in youth use of e-cigarettes.”

Dr. Douglas Lowy, known for seminal research on the link between human papillomavirus and multiple cancer types including cervical, and ultimately leading to development of a vaccine, will be named head of the NCI to replace Dr. Sharpless. Dr. Lowy currently is Deputy Director of the NCI.

Other posts on the Food and Drug Administration and FDA Approvals during Dr. Gotlieb’s Tenure on this Open Access Journal Include:

 

Regulatory Affairs: Publications on FDA-related Issues – Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

FDA Approves La Jolla’s Angiotensin 2

In 2018, FDA approved an all-time record of 62 new therapeutic drugs (NTDs) [Not including diagnostic imaging agents, included are combination products with at least one new molecular entity as an active ingredient] with average Peak Sales per NTD $1.2Billion.

Alnylam Announces First-Ever FDA Approval of an RNAi Therapeutic, ONPATTRO™ (patisiran) for the Treatment of the Polyneuropathy of Hereditary Transthyretin-Mediated Amyloidosis in Adults

FDA: Rejects NDA filing: “clinical and non-clinical pharmacology sections of the application were not sufficient to complete a review”: Celgene’s Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Drug – Ozanimod

Expanded Stroke Thrombectomy Guidelines: FDA expands treatment window for use (Up to 24 Hours Post-Stroke) of clot retrieval devices (Stryker’s Trevo Stent) in certain stroke patients

In 2017, FDA approved a record number of 19 personalized medicines — 16 new molecular entities and 3 gene therapies – PMC’s annual analysis, titled Personalized Medicine at FDA: 2017 Progress Report

FDA Approval marks first presentation of bivalirudin in frozen, premixed, ready-to-use formulation

Skin Regeneration Therapy One of First Tissue Engineering Products Evaluated by FDA

FDA approval on 12/1/2017 of Amgen’s evolocumb (Repatha) a PCSK9 inhibitor for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and coronary revascularizations in patients with established cardiovascular disease

FDA Approval of Anti-Depression Digital Pill Tracks Use When Swallowed and transmits to MDs Smartphone – A Breakthrough in Medication Remote Compliance Monitoring

Medical Devices Early Feasibility FDA’s Pathway – Accelerated Recruitment for Randomized Clinical Trials: Replacement and Repair of Mitral Valves

Novartis’ Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel), FDA approved genetically engineered immune cells, would charge $475,000 per patient, will use Programs that Payers will pay only for Responding Patients 

FDA has approved the world’s first CAR-T therapy, Novartis for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma, no approved drug and Canakinumab for Lung Cancer (may be?)

FDA: CAR-T therapy outweigh its risks tisagenlecleucel, manufactured by Novartis of Basel – 52 out of 63 participants — 82.5% — experienced overall remissions – young patients with Leukaemia [ALL]

‘Landmark FDA approval bolsters personalized medicine’ by Edward Abrahams, PhD, President, PMC

Read Full Post »


37th Annual J.P. Morgan HEALTHCARE CONFERENCE: News at #JPM2019 for Jan. 8, 2019: Deals and Announcements

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

From Biospace.com

JP Morgan Healthcare Conference Update: FDA, bluebird, Moderna and the Price of Coffee

Researcher holding test tube up behind circle of animated research icons

Tuesday, January 8, was another busy day in San Francisco for the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference. One interesting sideline was the idea that the current government shutdown could complicate some deals. Kent Thiry, chief executive officer of dialysis provider DaVita, who is working on the sale of its medical group to UnitedHealth Group this quarter, said, “We couldn’t guarantee that even if the government wasn’t shut down, but we and the buyer are both working toward that goal with the same intensity if not more.”

And in a slightly amusing bit of synchrony, U.S.Food and Drug Administration (FDA)Commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s keynote address that was delivered by way of video conference from Washington, D.C., had his audio cut out in the middle of the presentation. Gottlieb was talking about teen nicotine use and continued talking, unaware that his audio had shut off for 30 seconds. When it reconnected, the sound quality was reportedly poor.

Click to search for life sciences jobs

bluebird bio’s chief executive officer, Nick Leschlygave an update of his company’s pipeline, with a particular emphasis on a proposed payment model for its upcoming LentiGlobin, a gene therapy being evaluated for transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia (TDT). The gene therapy is expected to be approved in Europe this year and in the U.S. in 2020. Although the price hasn’t been set, figures up to $2.1 million per treatment have been floated. Bluebird is proposing a five-year payment program, a pledge to not raise prices above CPI, and no costs after the payment period.

Eli Lilly’s chief executive officer David Ricks, just days after acquiring Loxo Oncologyoffered up projections for this year, noting that 45 percent of its revenue will be created by drugs launched in 2015. Those include Trulicity, Taltz and Verzenio. The company also expects to launch two new molecular entities this year—nasal glucagons, a rescue medicine for high blood sugar (hyperglycemia), and Lasmiditan, a rescue drug for migraine headaches.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer interviewed Allergan chief executive officer Brent Saunders, in particular discussing the fact the company’s shares traded in 2015 for $331.15 but were now trading for $145.60. Cramer noted that the company’s internal fundamentals were strong, with multiple pipeline assets and a strong leadership team. Some of the stock problems are related to what Saunders said were “unforced errors,” including intellectual property rights to Restasis, its dry-eye drug, and Allergan’s dubious scheme to protect those patents by transferring the rights to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York. On the positive side, the company’s medical aesthetics portfolio, dominated by Botox, is very strong and the overall market is expected to double.

One of the big areas of conversation is so-called “flyover tech.” Biopharma startups are dominant in Boston and in San Francisco, but suddenly venture capital investors have realized there’s a lot going on in between. New York City-based Radian Capital, for example, invests exclusively in markets outside major U.S. cities.

“At Radian, we partner with entrepreneurs who have built their businesses with a focus on strong economics rather than growth at all costs,” Aly Lovett, partner at Radian, told The Observer. “Historically, given the amount of money required to stand up a product, the software knowledge base, and coastal access to capital, health start-ups were concentrated in a handful of cities. As those dynamics have inverted and as the quality of living becomes a more important factor in attracting talent, we’re not seeing a significant increase in the number of amazing companies being built outside of the Bay Area.”

“Flyover companies” mentioned include Bind in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Solera Health in Phoenix, Arizona; ClearDATA in Austin, Texas; Healthe, in Eden Prairie, Minnesota; HistoSonics in Ann Arbor, Michigan; and many others.

Only a month after its record-breaking IPO, Moderna Therapeutics’ chief executive officer Stephane Bancelspent time both updating the company’s clinical pipeline and justifying the company’s value despite the stock dropping off 26 percent since the IPO. Although one clinical program, a Zika vaccine, mRNA-1325, has been abandoned, the company has three new drugs coming into the clinic: mRNA-2752 for solid tumors or lymphoma; mRNA-4157, a Personalized Cancer Vaccine with Merck; and mRNA-5671, a KRAS cancer vaccine. The company also submitted an IND amendment to the FDA to add an ovarian cancer cohort to its mRNA-2416 program.

One interesting bit of trivia, supplied on Twitter by Rasu Shrestha, chief innovation officer for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, this year at the conference, 33 female chief executive officers were presenting corporate updates … compared to 19 men named Michael. Well, it’s a start.

And for another bit of trivia, Elisabeth Bik, of Microbiome Digest, tweeted, “San Francisco prices are so out of control that one hotel is charging the equivalent of $21.25 for a cup of coffee during a JPMorgan conference.”

Other posts on the JP Morgan 2019 Healthcare Conference on this Open Access Journal include:

#JPM19 Conference: Lilly Announces Agreement To Acquire Loxo Oncology

36th Annual J.P. Morgan HEALTHCARE CONFERENCE January 8 – 11, 2018

37th Annual J.P. Morgan HEALTHCARE CONFERENCE: #JPM2019 for Jan. 8, 2019; Opening Videos, Novartis expands Cell Therapies, January 7 – 10, 2019, Westin St. Francis Hotel | San Francisco, California

Read Full Post »


Update on FDA Policy Regarding 3D Bioprinted Material

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Last year (2015) in late October the FDA met to finalize a year long process of drafting guidances for bioprinting human tissue and/or medical devices such as orthopedic devices.  This importance of the development of these draft guidances was highlighted in a series of articles below, namely that

  • there were no standards as a manufacturing process
  • use of human tissues and materials could have certain unforseen adverse events associated with the bioprinting process

In the last section of this post a recent presentation by the FDA is given as well as an excellent  pdf here BioprintingGwinnfinal written by a student at University of Kentucky James Gwinn on regulatory concerns of bioprinting.

Bio-Printing Could Be Banned Or Regulated In Two Years

3D Printing News January 30, 2014 No Comments 3dprinterplans

organovaliver

 

 

 

 

 

Cross-section of multi-cellular bioprinted human liver tissue Credit: organovo.com

Bio-printing has been touted as the pinnacle of additive manufacturing and medical science, but what if it might be shut down before it splashes onto the medical scene. Research firm, Gartner Inc believes that the rapid development of bio-printing will spark calls to ban the technology for human and non-human tissue within two years.

A report released by Gartner predicts that the time is drawing near when 3D-bioprinted human organs will be readily available, causing widespread debate. They use an example of 3D printed liver tissue by a San Diego-based company named Organovo.

“At one university, they’re actually using cells from human and non-human organs,” said Pete Basiliere, a Gartner Research Director. “In this example, there was human amniotic fluid, canine smooth muscle cells, and bovine cells all being used. Some may feel those constructs are of concern.”

Bio-printing 

Bio-printing uses extruder needles or inkjet-like printers to lay down rows of living cells. Major challenges still face the technology, such as creating vascular structures to support tissue with oxygen and nutrients. Additionally, creating the connective tissue or scaffolding-like structures to support functional tissue is still a barrier that bio-printing will have to overcome.

Organovo has worked around a number of issues and they hope to print a fully functioning liver for pharmaceutical industry by the end of this year.  “We have achieved thicknesses of greater than 500 microns, and have maintained liver tissue in a fully functional state with native phenotypic behavior for at least 40 days,” said Mike Renard, Organovo’s executive vice president of commercial operations.

clinical trails and testing of organs could take over a decade in the U.S. This is because of the strict rules the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) places on any new technology. Bio-printing research could outplace regulatory agencies ability to keep up.

“What’s going to happen, in some respects, is the research going on worldwide is outpacing regulatory agencies ability to keep up,” Basiliere said. “3D bio-printing facilities with the ability to print human organs and tissue will advance far faster than general understanding and acceptance of the ramifications of this technology.”

Other companies have been successful with bio-printing as well. Munich-based EnvisionTEC is already selling a printer called a Bioplotter that sells for $188,000 and can print 3D pieces of human tissue. China’s Hangzhou Dianzi University has developed a printer called Regenovo, which printed a small working kidney that lasted four months.

“These initiatives are well-intentioned, but raise a number of questions that remain unanswered. What happens when complex enhanced organs involving nonhuman cells are made? Who will control the ability to produce them? Who will ensure the quality of the resulting organs?” Basiliere said.

Gartner believes demand for bio-printing will explode in 2015, due to a burgeoning population and insufficient levels of healthcare in emerging markets. “The overall success rates of 3D printing use cases in emerging regions will escalate for three main reasons: the increasing ease of access and commoditization of the technology; ROI; and because it simplifies supply chain issues with getting medical devices to these regions,” Basiliere said. “Other primary drivers are a large population base with inadequate access to healthcare in regions often marred by internal conflicts, wars or terrorism.”

It’s interesting to hear Gartner’s bold predictions for bio-printing. Some of the experts we have talked to seem to think bio-printing is further off than many expect, possibly even 20 or 30 years away for fully functioning organs used in transplants on humans. However, less complicated bio-printing procedures and tissue is only a few years away.

 

FDA examining regulations for 3‑D printed medical devices

Renee Eaton Monday, October 27, 2014

fdalogo

The official purpose of a recent FDA-sponsored workshop was “to provide a forum for FDA, medical device manufacturers, additive manufacturing companies and academia to discuss technical challenges and solutions of 3-D printing.” The FDA wants “input to help it determine technical assessments that should be considered for additively manufactured devices to provide a transparent evaluation process for future submissions.”

Simply put, the FDA is trying to stay current with advanced manufacturing technologies that are revolutionizing patient care and, in some cases, democratizing its availability. When a next-door neighbor can print a medical device in his or her basement, it clearly has many positive and negative implications that need to be considered.

Ignoring the regulatory implications for a moment, the presentations at the workshop were fascinating.

STERIS representative Dr. Bill Brodbeck cautioned that the complex designs and materials now being created with additive manufacturing make sterilization practices challenging. For example, how will the manufacturer know if the implant is sterile or if the agent has been adequately removed? Also, some materials and designs cannot tolerate acids, heat or pressure, making sterilization more difficult.

Dr. Thomas Boland from the University of Texas at El Paso shared his team’s work on 3-D-printed tissues. Using inkjet technology, the researchers are evaluating the variables involved in successfully printing skin. Another bio-printing project being undertaken at Wake Forest by Dr. James Yoo involves constructing bladder-shaped prints using bladder cell biopsies and scaffolding.

Dr. Peter Liacouras at Walter Reed discussed his institution’s practice of using 3-D printing to create surgical guides and custom implants. In another biomedical project, work done at Children’s National Hospital by Drs. Axel Krieger and Laura Olivieri involves the physicians using printed cardiac models to “inform clinical decisions,” i.e. evaluate conditions, plan surgeries and reduce operating time.

As interesting as the presentations were, the subsequent discussions were arguably more important. In an attempt to identify and address all significant impacts of additive manufacturing on medical device production, the subject was organized into preprinting (input), printing (process) and post-printing (output) considerations. Panelists and other stakeholders shared their concerns and viewpoints on each topic in an attempt to inform and persuade FDA decision-makers.

An interesting (but expected) outcome was the relative positions of the various stakeholders. Well-established and large manufacturers proposed validation procedures: material testing, process operating guidelines, quality control, traceability programs, etc. Independent makers argued that this approach would impede, if not eliminate, their ability to provide low-cost prosthetic devices.

Comparing practices to the highly regulated food industry, one can understand and accept the need to adopt similar measures for some additively manufactured medical devices. An implant is going into someone’s body, so the manufacturer needs to evaluate and assure the quality of raw materials, processing procedures and finished product.

But, as in the food industry, this means the producer needs to know the composition of materials. Suppliers cannot hide behind proprietary formulations. If manufacturers are expected to certify that a device is safe, they need to know what ingredients are in the materials they are using.

Many in the industry are also lobbying the FDA to agree that manufacturers should be expected to certify the components and not the additive manufacturing process itself. They argue that what matters is whether the device is safe, not what process was used to make it.

Another distinction should be the product’s risk level. Devices should continue to be classified as I, II or III and that classification, not the process used, should determine its level of regulation.

 

 

Will the FDA Regulate Bioprinting?

Published by Sandra Helsel, May 21, 2014 10:20 am

(3DPrintingChannel) The FDA currently assesses 3D printed medical devices and conventionally made products under the same guidelines, despite the different manufacturing methods involved. To receive device approval, manufacturers must prove that the device is equivalent to a product already on the market for the same use, or the device must undergo the process of attaining pre-market approval. However, the approval process for 3D printed devices could become complicated because the devices are manufactured differently and can be customizable. Two teams at the agency are now trying to determine how approval process should be tweaked to account for the changes.

3D Printing and 3D Bioprinting – Will the FDA Regulate Bioprinting?

This entry was posted by Bill Decker on May 20, 2014 at 8:52 am

3dprintedskin

 

 

 

 

 

VIEW VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KY-JZCXKXQ#action=share

 

The 3d printing revolution came to medicine and is making people happy while scaring them at the same time!

3-D printing—the process of making a solid object of any shape from a digital model—has grown increasingly common in recent years, allowing doctors to craft customized devices like hearing aids, dental implants, and surgical instruments. For example, University of Michigan researchers last year used a 3-D laser printer to create an airway splint out of plastic particles. In another case, a patient had 75% of his skull replaced with a 3-D printed implant customized to fit his head. The 3d printing revolution came to medicine and is making people happy while scaring them at the same time!

Printed hearts? Doctors are getting there
FDA currently treats assesses 3-D printed medical devices and conventionally made products under the same guidelines, despite the different manufacturing methods involved. To receive device approval, manufacturers must prove that the device is equivalent to a product already on the market for the same use, or the device must undergo the process of attaining pre-market approval.

“We evaluate all devices, including any that utilize 3-D printing technology, for safety and effectiveness, and appropriate benefit and risk determination, regardless of the manufacturing technologies used,” FDA spokesperson Susan Laine said.
However, the approval process for 3-D printed devices could become complicated because the devices are manufactured differently and can be customizable. Two teams at the agency now are trying to determine how approval process should be tweaked to account for the changes:

http://product-liability.weil.com/news/the-stuff-of-innovation-3d-bioprinting-and-fdas-possible-reorganization/

Print This Post

The Stuff of Innovation – 3D Bioprinting and FDA’s Possible Reorganization

Weil Product Liability Monitor on September 10, 2013 ·

Posted in News

Contributing Author: Meghan A. McCaffrey

With 3D printers, what used to exist only in the realm of science fiction — who doesn’t remember the Star Trek food replicator that could materialize a drink or meal with the mere press of a button — is now becoming more widely available with  food on demand, prosthetic devices, tracheal splintsskull implants, and even liver tissue all having recently been printed, used, implanted or consumed.  3D printing, while exciting, also presents a unique hybrid of technology and biology, making it a potentially unique and difficult area to regulate and oversee.  With all of the recent technological advances surround 3D printer technology, the FDA recently announced in a blog post that it too was going 3D, using it to “expand our research efforts and expand our capabilities to review innovative medical products.”  In addition, the agency will be investigating how 3D printing technology impacts medical devices and manufacturing processes.  This will, in turn, raise the additional question of how such technology — one of the goals of which, at least in the medical world,  is to create unique and custom printed devices, tissue and other living organs for use in medical procedures — can be properly evaluated, regulated and monitored.
In medicine, 3D printing is known as “bioprinting,” where so-called bioprinters print cells in liquid or gel format in an attempt to engineer cartilage, bone, skin, blood vessels, and even small pieces of liver and other human tissues [see a recent New York Times article here].  Not to overstate the obvious, but this is truly cutting edge science that could have significant health and safety ramifications for end users.  And more importantly for regulatory purposes, such bioprinting does not fit within the traditional category of a “device” or a “biologic.”  As was noted in Forbes, “more of the products that FDA is tasked with regulating don’t fit into the traditional categories in which FDA has historically divided its work.  Many new medical products transcend boundaries between drugs, devices, and biologics…In such a world, the boundaries between FDA’s different centers may no longer make as much sense.”  To that end, Forbes reported that FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg announced Friday the formation of a “Program Alignment Group” at the FDA whose goal is to identify and develop plans “to best adapt to the ongoing rapid changes in the regulatory environment, driven by scientific innovation, globalization, the increasing complexity of regulated products, new legal authorities and additional user fee programs.”

It will be interesting to see if the FDA can retool the agency to make it a more flexible, responsive, and function-specific organization.  In the short term, the FDA has tasked two laboratories in the Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories with investigating how the new 3D technology can impact the safety and efficacy of devices and materials manufactured using the technology.  The Functional Performance and Device Use Laboratory is evaluating “the effect of design changes on the safety and performance of devices when used in different patient populations” while the Laboratory for Solid Mechanics is assessing “how different printing techniques and processes affect the strength and durability of the materials used in medical devices.”  Presumably, all of this information will help the FDA evaluate at some point in the future whether a 3D printed heart is safe and effective for use in the patient population.

In any case, this type of hybrid technology can present a risk for companies and manufacturers creating and using such devices.  It remains to be seen what sort of regulations will be put in place to determine, for example, what types of clinical trials and information will have to be provided before a 3D printer capable of printing a human heart is approved for use by the FDA.  Or even on a different scale, what regulatory hurdles (and on-going monitoring, reporting, and studies) will be required before bioprinted cartilage can be implanted in a patient’s knee.  Are food replicators and holodecks far behind?

http://www.raps.org/regulatory-focus/news/2014/05/19000/FDA-3D-Printing-Guidance-and-Meeting/

Home / Regulatory Focus / News

FDA Plans Meeting to Explore Regulation, Medical Uses of 3D Printing Technology

Posted 16 May 2014 By Alexander Gaffney, RAC

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to soon hold a meeting to discuss the future of regulating medical products made using 3D printing techniques, it has announced.

fdaplanstomeetbioprinting

Background

3D printing is a manufacturing process which layers printed materials on top of one another, creating three-dimensional parts (as opposed to injection molding or routing materials).

The manufacturing method has recently come into vogue with hobbyists, who have been driven by several factors only likely to accelerate in the near future:

  • The cost of 3D printers has come down considerably.
  • Electronic files which automate the printing process are shareable over the Internet, allowing anyone with the sufficient raw materials to build a part.
  • The technology behind 3D printing is becoming more advanced, allowing for the manufacture of increasingly durable parts.

While the technology has some alarming components—the manufacture of untraceable weapons, for example—it’s increasingly being looked at as the future source of medical product innovation, and in particular for medical devices like prosthetics.

Promise and Problems

But while 3D printing holds promise for patients, it poses immense challenges for regulators, who must assess how to—or whether to—regulate the burgeoning sector.

In a recent FDA Voice blog posting, FDA regulators noted that 3D-printed medical devices have already been used in FDA-cleared clinical interventions, and that it expects more devices to emerge in the future.

Already, FDA’s Office of Science and Engineering laboratories are working to investigate how the technology will affect the future of device manufacturing, and CDRH’s Functional Performance and Device Use Laboratory is developing and adapting computer modeling methods to help determine how small design changes could affect the safety of a device. And at the Laboratory for Solid Mechanics, FDA said it is investigating the materials used in the printing process and how those might affect durability and strength of building materials.

And as Focus noted in August 2013, there are myriad regulatory challenges to confront as well. For example: If a 3D printer makes a medical device, will that device be considered adulterated since it was not manufactured under Quality System Regulation-compliant conditions? Would each device be required to be registered with FDA? And would FDA treat shared design files as unauthorized promotion if they failed to make proper note of the device’s benefits and risks? What happens if a device was never cleared or approved by FDA?

The difficulties for FDA are seemingly endless.

Plans for a Guidance Document

But there have been indications that FDA has been thinking about this issue extensively.

In September 2013, Focus first reported that CDRH Director Jeffery Shuren was planning to release a guidance on 3D printing in “less than two years.”

Responding to Focus, Shuren said the guidance would be primarily focused on the “manufacturing side,” and probably on how 3D printing occurs and the materials used rather than some of the loftier questions posed above.

“What you’re making, and how you’re making it, may have implications for how safe and effective that device is,” he said, explaining how various methods of building materials can lead to various weaknesses or problems.

“Those are the kinds of things we’re working through. ‘What are the considerations to take into account?'”

“We’re not looking to get in the way of 3D printing,” Shuren continued, noting the parallel between 3D printing and personalized medicine. “We’d love to see that.”

Guidance Coming ‘Soon’

In recent weeks there have been indications that the guidance could soon see a public release. Plastics News reported that CDRH’s Benita Dair, deputy director of the Division of Chemistry and Materials Science, said the 3D printing guidance would be announced “soon.”

“In terms of 3-D printing, I think we will soon put out a communication to the public about FDA’s thoughts,” Dair said, according to Plastics News. “We hope to help the market bring new devices to patients and bring them to the United States first. And we hope to play an integral part in that.”

Public Meeting

But FDA has now announced that it may be awaiting public input before it puts out that guidance document. In a 16 May 2014 Federal Register announcement, the agency said it will hold a meeting in October 2014 on the “technical considerations of 3D printing.”

“The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for FDA, medical device manufacturers, additive manufacturing companies, and academia to discuss technical challenges and solutions of 3-D printing. The Agency would like input regarding technical assessments that should be considered for additively manufactured devices to provide a transparent evaluation process for future submissions.”

That language—”transparent evaluation process for future submissions”—indicates that at least one level, FDA plans to treat 3D printing no differently than any other medical device, subjecting the products to the same rigorous premarket assessments that many devices now undergo.

FDA’s notice seems to focus on industrial applications for the technology—not individual ones. The agency notes that it has already “begun to receive submissions using additive manufacturing for both traditional and patient-matched devices,” and says it sees “many more on the horizon.”

Among FDA’s chief concerns, it said, are process verification and validation, which are both key parts of the medical device quality manufacturing regulations.

But the notice also indicates that existing guidance documents, such as those specific to medical device types, will still be in effect regardless of the 3D printing guidance.

Discussion Points

FDA’s proposed list of discussion topics include:

  • Preprinting considerations, including but not limited to:
    • material chemistry
    • physical properties
    • recyclability
    • part reproducibility
    • process validation
  • Printing considerations, including but not limited to:
    • printing process characterization
    • software used in the process
    • post-processing steps (hot isostatic pressing, curing)
    • additional machining
  • Post-printing considerations, including but not limited to:
    • cleaning/excess material removal
    • effect of complexity on sterilization and biocompatibility
    • final device mechanics
    • design envelope
    • verification

– See more at: http://www.raps.org/regulatory-focus/news/2014/05/19000/FDA-3D-Printing-Guidance-and-Meeting/#sthash.cDg4Utln.dpuf

 

FDA examining regulations for 3‑D printed medical devices

 

Renee Eaton Monday, October 27, 2014

Share this article

The official purpose of a recent FDA-sponsored workshop was “to provide a forum for FDA, medical device manufacturers, additive manufacturing companies and academia to discuss technical challenges and solutions of 3-D printing.” The FDA wants “input to help it determine technical assessments that should be considered for additively manufactured devices to provide a transparent evaluation process for future submissions.”

Simply put, the FDA is trying to stay current with advanced manufacturing technologies that are revolutionizing patient care and, in some cases, democratizing its availability. When a next-door neighbor can print a medical device in his or her basement, it clearly has many positive and negative implications that need to be considered.

Ignoring the regulatory implications for a moment, the presentations at the workshop were fascinating.

STERIS representative Dr. Bill Brodbeck cautioned that the complex designs and materials now being created with additive manufacturing make sterilization practices challenging. For example, how will the manufacturer know if the implant is sterile or if the agent has been adequately removed? Also, some materials and designs cannot tolerate acids, heat or pressure, making sterilization more difficult.

Dr. Thomas Boland from the University of Texas at El Paso shared his team’s work on 3-D-printed tissues. Using inkjet technology, the researchers are evaluating the variables involved in successfully printing skin. Another bio-printing project being undertaken at Wake Forest by Dr. James Yoo involves constructing bladder-shaped prints using bladder cell biopsies and scaffolding.

Dr. Peter Liacouras at Walter Reed discussed his institution’s practice of using 3-D printing to create surgical guides and custom implants. In another biomedical project, work done at Children’s National Hospital by Drs. Axel Krieger and Laura Olivieri involves the physicians using printed cardiac models to “inform clinical decisions,” i.e. evaluate conditions, plan surgeries and reduce operating time.

As interesting as the presentations were, the subsequent discussions were arguably more important. In an attempt to identify and address all significant impacts of additive manufacturing on medical device production, the subject was organized into preprinting (input), printing (process) and post-printing (output) considerations. Panelists and other stakeholders shared their concerns and viewpoints on each topic in an attempt to inform and persuade FDA decision-makers.

An interesting (but expected) outcome was the relative positions of the various stakeholders. Well-established and large manufacturers proposed validation procedures: material testing, process operating guidelines, quality control, traceability programs, etc. Independent makers argued that this approach would impede, if not eliminate, their ability to provide low-cost prosthetic devices.

Comparing practices to the highly regulated food industry, one can understand and accept the need to adopt similar measures for some additively manufactured medical devices. An implant is going into someone’s body, so the manufacturer needs to evaluate and assure the quality of raw materials, processing procedures and finished product.

But, as in the food industry, this means the producer needs to know the composition of materials. Suppliers cannot hide behind proprietary formulations. If manufacturers are expected to certify that a device is safe, they need to know what ingredients are in the materials they are using.

Many in the industry are also lobbying the FDA to agree that manufacturers should be expected to certify the components and not the additive manufacturing process itself. They argue that what matters is whether the device is safe, not what process was used to make it.

Another distinction should be the product’s risk level. Devices should continue to be classified as I, II or III and that classification, not the process used, should determine its level of regulation.

If you are interested in submitting comments to the FDA on this topic, post them by Nov. 10.

FDA Guidance Summary on 3D BioPrinting

fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_1 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_2 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_3 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_4 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_5 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_6 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_7 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_8 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_9 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_10 fdaregulationguidelinesfor3dbioprinting_11

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »