Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Rare diseases’

FDA Moves Forward With Its Guidance Framework for Rare Disease Trials: 2026

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph,D.

In 2025, the Trump Administration had determined it wants to streamline the FDA and clinical trials in order to expedite much needed drugs for various terminal diseases such as cancer and rare childhood diseases.  In 2026, under the guidance of the new FDA commissioner, Dr. Makary, the FDA initiated guidance for the proposed changes in February and available for comments at that time.  This has been a growing discussion aver the years and the FDA wanted, for many years, to figure out they could speed bringing new therapies to market, especially for terminally  ill patients. Given the progress of biomarkers development early in the drug discovery process and new computational technologies, the time seems to be ready for such changes in trial design and even for the long drug development process.  In addition the FDA up to this point was focused on other matters so it wasn’t really at the forefront of their to do list.

From: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-launches-framework-accelerating-development-individualized-therapies-ultra-rare-diseases

FDA Launches Framework for Accelerating Development of Individualized Therapies for Ultra-Rare Diseases

For Immediate Release:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued draft guidance for sponsors seeking approval for targeted individualized therapies by generating substantial evidence of effectiveness and safety when randomized controlled trials are not feasible due to small patient populations.

The draft guidance, issued by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, specifically discusses genome editing and RNA-based therapies such as antisense oligonucleotides but leaves open the potential that this framework may apply to additional tailored therapeutics provided they directly address the underlying specific cause of the disease.

“President Trump promised to accelerate cures for American families — and we are delivering, especially for children with ultra-rare diseases who cannot afford to wait,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “We are cutting unnecessary red tape, aligning regulation with modern biology, and clearing a path for breakthrough treatments to reach the patients who need them most.”

“This guidance is a critical step the FDA is taking to tailor our regulatory approach to patients with ultra-rare conditions,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, MPH. “It is our priority to remove barriers and exercise regulatory flexibility to encourage scientific advances and deliver more cures and meaningful treatments for patients suffering from rare diseases.”

The draft guidance focuses on therapies that target a specific genetic, cellular or molecular abnormality and are designed to correct or modify the underlying cause of disease. Key criteria include:

  • Identifying the disease-causing abnormality.
  • Demonstrating the therapy targets the root cause or proximate biological pathway.
  • Relying on well-characterized natural history data in untreated patients.
  • Confirming successful target drugging or editing.
  • For traditional approval, therapies should demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes, disease course, or biomarkers if they are established to predict clinical benefit.

“Designing treatments unique to individual patients has always been the promised goal of personalized medicine,” said Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH. “After 25 years the FDA has, for the first time, outlined a framework to facilitate these approvals. The Plausible Mechanism Framework is a revolutionary advance in regulatory science.”

“The Plausible Mechanism draft guidance creates a novel framework through which cutting-edge treatments tailor-made for patients with ultra-rare diseases can be used as a basis for FDA approval,” said Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Acting Director Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, Ph.D. “We anticipate our Plausible Mechanism draft guidance will inspire industry to place increased focus on individualized therapies, thereby driving innovation, improving safety, lowering costs and offering more patients with ultra-rare diseases a unique shot at a life-saving treatment.”

Because genome editing technologies are designed to be highly specific to unique DNA sequences, a product targeting different mutations in a single gene could be included in a single product application and potentially evaluated through the use of master protocols that evaluate these product variations in a single trial. A highly supported “plausible” mechanism of action may then be used to support the addition of other such genome editing product variants, intended to treat patients with mutations that were not included in the clinical trial used to support the original approval.

The FDA recognizes that an adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation in this context will include a small sample size, therefore, investigation results should be sufficiently robust to exclude chance findings. When determining effectiveness, the FDA considers the specific disease, the strength of the evidence and the challenges of conducting clinical investigations for individualized therapies.

 

In June of 2026, the FDA formalized their discussion into guidelines for discussion so it appears the following are not set into register of regulations as of yet.

From https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidances-drugs/guidance-documents-rare-disease-drug-development

Guidance Documents for Rare Disease Drug Development

In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe the agency’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.

Below are selected guidances that are relevant to rare disease drug development, organized by topic. This list does not include all FDA guidances on or relevant to rare disease drug development but represents our most commonly used guidances. This list may be updated periodically.

I have kept the original text in order for reference and to provide the background for these changes “in their words”.

However there are a few themes in these guideline changes and discussions including:

  • definitions of rare diseases
  • reduction of complexities and simplification of trial design and requirements (the FDA wants to go to a more ONE trial with very well designed controls than the two trial design for INDs (I will discuss this further in a near future post)
  • accelerated approval which will entail streamlining both the submission and approval process for rare conditions
  • heavy reliance on biomarkers during drug development and clinical trials (which is already in frequent use in pharma)
  • early communication with the FDA
  • more reliance on plausible mechanism of action to reduce number of studies needed

Rare Disease

Considerations for the use of the Plausible Mechanism Framework to Develop Individualized Therapies that Target Specific Genetic Conditions with Known Biological Cause
The purpose of this guidance is to describe considerations for generating substantial evidence of effectiveness and evidence of safety for individualized therapies based on a plausible mechanism framework.

Rare Diseases: Considerations for the Development of Drugs and Biological Products
This guidance clarifies FDA’s thinking on important considerations in rare disease drug development to ultimately assist rare disease drug and biologic product developers in conducting successful drug development programs.

Rare Diseases: Natural History Studies for Drug Development: Draft Guidance for Industry
FDA is publishing this draft guidance to help inform the design and implementation of natural history studies that can be used to support the development of safe and effective drugs and biological products for rare diseases. A natural history study collects information about the natural history of a disease in the absence of an intervention, from the disease’s onset until either its resolution or the individual’s death. Although knowledge of a disease’s natural history can benefit drug development for many disorders and conditions, natural history information is usually not available or is incomplete for most rare diseases; therefore, natural history information is particularly needed for these diseases.

Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Vouchers
This guidance provides information on the implementation of section 908 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), which added section 529 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). Under section 529, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of certain rare pediatric disease product applications that meet the criteria specified in that section.

Rare Diseases: Early Drug Development and the Role of Pre-IND Meetings : Draft Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors of drug and biological products for the treatment of rare diseases in planning and conducting more efficient and productive pre-investigational new drug application (pre-IND) meetings. Drug development for rare diseases has many challenges related to the nature of these diseases. This draft guidance is intended to advance and facilitate the development of drugs and biological products for the treatment of rare diseases.

Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases with Substrate Deposition That Results from Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies : Guidance for Industry
This document provides guidance to sponsors on the evidence necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of investigational new drugs or new drug uses intended for slowly progressive, low-prevalence rare diseases that are associated with substrate deposition and are caused by single enzyme defects. This guidance applies only to those low-prevalence rare diseases with well-characterized pathophysiology, and in which changes in substrate deposition can be readily measured in relevant tissue or tissues.

Pediatric Rare Diseases–A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model : Draft Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to facilitate drug development in pediatric rare diseases. In particular, it discusses a new possible approach to enhance the efficiency of drug development in pediatric rare diseases using Gaucher disease as an example.

Inborn Errors of Metabolism That Use Dietary Management: Considerations for Optimizing and Standardizing Diet in Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development: Guidance for Industry
This guidance describes the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) current recommendations regarding how to optimize and standardize dietary management in clinical trials for the development of drugs that treat inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) for which dietary management is a key component of patients’ metabolic control. Optimizing dietary management in these patients before entry into and during clinical trials is essential to providing an accurate evaluation of the efficacy of new drug products.

Accelerated Approval

Accelerated Approval and Considerations for Determining Whether a Confirmatory Trial is Underway
For drugs granted accelerated approval, sponsors have been required to conduct confirmatory studies postapproval to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA), Congress amended section 506(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356(c)), to provide additional authorities to help ensure timely completion of such trials, including that FDA “may require, as appropriate, a study or studies to be underway prior to approval, or within a specified time period after the date of approval, of the applicable product.” This draft guidance, when finalized, will describe FDA’s interpretation of the term “underway” and policies for implementing this requirement, including factors FDA intends to consider when determining whether a confirmatory trial is underway prior to an accelerated approval action.

Accelerated Approval – Expedited Program for Serious Conditions
Accelerated approval is one of FDA’s expedited programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition. The purpose of this guidance is to provide information on FDA’s policies and procedures for accelerated approval as well as threshold criteria generally applicable to concluding that a drug is a candidate for accelerated approval. This guidance also describes the procedures for expedited withdrawal of approval of a product approved under accelerated approval and the revisions Congress made through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Public Law 117-328). Additional programs to expedite product development and review are covered in other guidances.

Benefit-Risk

Benefit-Risk Assessment for New Drug and Biological Products
The intent of this guidance is to clarify for drug sponsors and other stakeholders how considerations about a drug’s benefits, risks, and risk management options factor into certain premarket and postmarket regulatory decisions that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) makes about new drug applications (NDAs) submitted under section 505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as well as biologics license applications (BLAs) submitted under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act).

Biomarkers

For general information on Biomarkers, please see About Biomarkers and Qualification

Biomarker Qualification: Evidentiary Framework
This draft guidance provides recommendations on general considerations to address when developing a biomarker for qualification under the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), enacted on December 13, 2016, that added a new section to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Qualification of a biomarker is a determination that within the stated context of use, the biomarker can be relied on to have a specific interpretation and application in drug development and regulatory review.

Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools
This guidance describes the qualification process for drug development tools (DDTs) intended for potential use, over time, in multiple drug development programs.

Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) and Endpoints

For information on the COA Qualification Program, please see Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) Qualification Program

Patient-Focused Drug Development: Selecting, Developing, or Modifying Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcome Assessments
This guidance (Guidance 3) is the third in a series of four methodological patient-focused drug development (PFDD) guidance documents that describe how stakeholders (patients, caregivers, researchers, medical product developers, and others) can collect and submit patient experience data and other relevant information from patients and caregivers to be used for medical product development and regulatory decision-making.

Patient-Focused Drug Development: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments Into Endpoints for Regulatory Decision-Making
This guidance (Guidance 4) is the fourth in a series of four methodological patient-focused drug development (PFDD) guidance documents that describe how stakeholders (patients, caregivers, researchers, medical product developers, and others) can collect and submit patient experience data and other relevant information from patients and caregivers to be used for medical product development and regulatory decision-making.

Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials Guidance for Industry
This guidance provides sponsors and review staff with the Agency’s thinking about the problems posed by multiple endpoints in the analysis and interpretation of study results and how these problems can be managed in clinical trials for human drugs, including drugs subject to licensing as biological products.

Clinical Pharmacology

Exposure-Response Relationships — Study Design, Data Analysis, and Regulatory Applications 
This document provides recommendations for sponsors of investigational new drugs (INDs) and applicants submitting new drug applications (NDAs) or biologics license applications (BLAs) on the use of exposure-response information in the development of drugs, including therapeutic biologics. It can be considered along with the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E4 guidance on Dose-Response Information to Support Drug Registration and other pertinent guidances (see Appendix A).

Bioavailability Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs – General Considerations
This guidance provides recommendations to sponsors and applicants submitting bioavailability (BA) information for drug products in investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), and NDA supplements. This guidance contains recommendations on how to meet the BA requirements set forth in 21 CFR part 320 as they apply to dosage forms intended for oral administration.

General Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Pediatric Studies of Drugs, Including Biological Products
This guidance assists sponsors of investigational new drug applications (INDs) and applicants of new drug applications (NDAs) under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), biologics license applications (BLAs) under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and supplements to such applications who are planning to conduct clinical studies in pediatric populations.

General Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Neonatal Studies for Drugs and Biological Products Guidance for Industry
This guidance is intended to assist sponsors of investigational new drug applications (INDs) and applicants of new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and supplements to such applications who are planning to conduct clinical studies in neonatal populations. This guidance provides recommendations for neonatal clinical pharmacology studies, whether the studies are conducted pursuant to section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), section 505B of the FD&C Act, or neither.

Assessing the Effects of Food on Drugs in INDs and NDAs – Clinical Pharmacology Considerations
This guidance provides recommendations to sponsors planning to conduct food-effect (FE) studies for orally administered drug products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) to support new drug applications (NDAs) and supplements to these applications for drugs being developed under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355).

Population Pharmacokinetics
This guidance is intended to assist sponsors and applicants of new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and investigational new drugs (IND) applications in the application of population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis.

Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Antibody-Drug Conjugates Guidance for Industry
This guidance provides recommendations to assist industry and other parties involved in the development of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) with a cytotoxic small molecule drug or payload. Specifically, this guidance addresses the FDA’s current thinking regarding clinical pharmacology considerations and recommendations for ADC development programs, including bioanalytical methods, dosing strategies, dose- and exposure-response analysis, intrinsic factors, QTc assessments, immunogenicity, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs).

Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment for Therapeutic Proteins Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to help sponsors of investigational new drug applications (INDs) and applicants of biologic license applications (BLAs) determine the need for drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies for a therapeutic protein (TP) by providing a systematic, risk-based approach.

Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease
The pharmacological effect of a targeted therapy is often related to a particular molecular alteration, and many diseases are caused by a range of different molecular alterations (some of which may be rare). Therefore, a targeted therapy may have differential effects among patients with the same disease who have different molecular alterations. The purpose of this guidance is to describe general approaches to evaluating the benefits and risks of targeted therapeutics within a clinically defined disease where some molecular alterations may occur at low frequencies.

Clinical Pharmacogenomics: Premarket Evaluation in Early-Phase Clinical Studies and Recommendations for Labeling
This guidance is intended to assist the pharmaceutical industry and other investigators engaged in new drug development in evaluating how variations in the human genome, specifically DNA sequence variants, could affect a drug’s pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy, or safety. The guidance provides recommendations on when and how genomic information should be considered to address questions arising during drug development and regulatory review.

Clinical Trials

All clinical trials guidances are listed here.

Enhancing Participation in Clinical Trials — Eligibility Criteria, Enrollment Practices, and Trial Designs
This guidance recommends approaches that sponsors of clinical trials intended to support a new drug application or a biologics license application can take to increase enrollment of a representative population in their clinical trials. This guidance considers both demographic characteristics of study populations (e.g., sex, race, ethnicity, age, location of residency) and non-demographic characteristics of populations (e.g., patients with organ dysfunction, comorbid conditions, disabilities, those at the extremes of the weight range, and populations with diseases or conditions with low prevalence). Enrolling participants with a wide range of baseline characteristics may create a study population that more accurately reflects the patients likely to take the drug if it is approved and allow assessment of the impact of those characteristics on the safety and effectiveness of the study drug.

E8(R1) General Considerations for Clinical Studies
This guidance describes internationally accepted principles and practices in the design and conduct of clinical studies of drug and biological products. The guidance is intended to assist sponsors and other parties that design clinical studies, and to promote the quality of the studies submitted to regulatory authorities, while allowing for flexibility.

Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to describe various strategies for grouping and ordering endpoints for analysis and applying some well-recognized statistical methods for managing multiplicity within a study in order to control the chance of making erroneous conclusions about a drug’s effects. Basing a conclusion on an analysis where the risk of false conclusions has not been appropriately controlled can lead to false or misleading representations regarding a drug’s effects.

E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multi-Regional Clinical Trial
With the increasing globalization of drug development, it has become important that data from multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) can be accepted by regulatory authorities across regions and countries as the primary source of evidence to support marketing approval of drugs (medicinal products). The purpose of this guidance is to describe general principles for the planning and design of MRCTs with the aim of increasing the acceptability of MRCTs in global regulatory submissions.

Decentralized Clinical Trials for Drugs, Biological Products, and Devices
This draft guidance provides recommendations for sponsors, investigators, and other stakeholders regarding the implementation of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) for drugs, biological products, and devices. In this guidance, a DCT refers to a clinical trial where some or all of the trial-related activities occur at locations other than traditional clinical trial sites.

Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products: Guidance for Industry
The purpose of this guidance is to assist industry in developing enrichment strategies that can be used in clinical investigations intended to demonstrate effectiveness (and in some cases safety) of human drugs and biological products. This guidance defines several types of enrichment strategies, provides examples of potential clinical trial designs, and discusses potential regulatory considerations when using enrichment strategies in clinical trials.

Ethical Considerations for Clinical Investigations of Medical Products Involving Children
Clinical investigations in children are essential for obtaining data on the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biological products, and medical devices in children and to protect children from the risks associated with exposure to medical products that may be unsafe or ineffective. Children are a vulnerable population who cannot consent for themselves and who therefore are afforded additional safeguards when participating in a clinical investigation. Such safeguards are an essential requirement for the initiation and conduct of pediatric investigations as part of a medical product development program.

Master Protocols for Drug and Biological Product Development
This guidance document provides recommendations on the design and analysis of trials conducted under a master protocol as well as guidance on the submission of documentation to support regulatory review.

There are some other Guidances which were issued and I will discuss them in another post.  These include Guidances on minimizing use of animals for preclinical toxicology, Innovative clinical trial design especially for gene and cell therapies, and use of AI in designing of clinical trials.

For more information go to the FDA website at : https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidances-drugs/guidance-documents-rare-disease-drug-development

Other Articles on FDA Guidances on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:

FDA Guidance on Use of Xenotransplanted Products in Human: Implications in 3D Printing

FDA Guidance Documents Update Nov. 2015 on Devices, Animal Studies, Gene Therapy, Liposomes

FDA Cellular & Gene Therapy Guidances: Implications for CRSPR/Cas9 Trials 

New FDA Draft Guidance On Homologous Use of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products – Implications for 3D BioPrinting of Regenerative Tissue

FDA Guidelines For Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology (DART) Studies for Small Molecules

 

Read Full Post »

Real Time Coverage Morning Session on Precision Oncology: Advancing Precision Medicine Annual Conference, Philadelphia PA November 1 2024

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Notes from Precision Medicine for Rare Diseases 9:00AM – 10:50

Precision Medicine and markers Cure models vs disease models  Dr Ekker from UT MD Anderson

 

  • UT MD Anderson zebrafish disease model program now focusing more on figuring the mechanisms by which a disease model is reverted to normal upon CRISPR screens
  • Traditional drug development process long and expensive
  • 2nd in class only takes 4 years while 3rd in class drugs take only 1.5 years
  • Health-in-a-fish: using a CRE system to go from disease to normal
  • The theory is making a CRE or CURE avatar; taking a diseased zebrafish and reverse engineering the disease genome
  • He used transposon based CRE mutational mutants with protein trap and 3’ exon trap (transposon based mutagenesis)
  • He reverted the diseased gene by CRE
  • He feels that can scale up to using organoids to develop more cure based models

 

FDA Christine Nguyen MD regulatory perspective of framework of drug approval for rare diseases

  • 1 in 10 Amercians have rare diseases; 70% genetic and half are children
  • Due to Orphan Drug Act in 2023 half of novel drugs approved for rare diseases
  • CDER and FDA 550 unique drugs for over 1000 rare diseases
  • Clinical and surrogate validated endpoints are important for traditional approvals
  • For accelerated approval need predictive surrogate endpoint of clinical benefit
  • For accelerated approval needs completion of a confirmatory trials so FDA has new authority under FDORA; FDA can dictate trial milestones
  • Candidate surrogate endpoints: known to predict (validated) for traditional approval but reasonably likely to predict for accelerated approval
  • Does surrogate endpoint associated with a causal pathway?  Also important to understand the magnitude of benefit so surrogate should be quantitative not just qualitative
  • RDEA is a series of 3 public workshops at FY2027 to promote innovation and novel endpoints and guidance

 

Frank Sasinowski FDA regulatory flexibility beyond One Positive Adequate and Well Controlled Trial

  •  As we move to rare diseases we may only have one well controlled study so FDA feels we need new regulatory frameworks and guidelines especially for rare disease clinical trails especially with precision medicine
  • Accelerated approval does not mean your evidence is any less stringent that traditional approval (only difference is endpoint but quality of evidence the same)

 

  • Confirmatory evidence is a primary concern
  • In 2021 FDA coordinated with the two divisions CBER and CDER
  • Sometimes a primary endpoint shows positive benefit but secondary endpoints may not; FDA now feels that results from one well designed AWC gives confirmatory evidence
  • FDA can be flexible by taking in consideration the quantity and quality of confirmatory evidence and the totality of evidence
  • So pharmacology studies, natural history etc.  can be enough
  • For a drug like Lamzede for mannosidosis there were no positive endpoint studies or for ADA SCID disease there was other compelling evidence
  • The FDA does have flexibility when it comes to advanced precision medicines and ultr rare diseases

10:50 Do we Really Need Liquid Biopsy? A Panel Discussion on the Issues Hampering the full Adoption of Liquid Biopsy

  • In Mexico leading cancer is colorectal but only have the FIT test and noone except one organization who issupplying health access
  • Access to precision medicine is a concern:  the communication between the patient, who is pushing this more than healthcare, needs to be coordinated better with all stakeholders in care
  • We also need to educate many physicians even oncologists (like in Virginia) a better understanding of genetics and omics
  • FT3 consortium does testing to therapy (multistakeholder group comprised of patient advocacy groups); focus on amplifying global efforts to increase access; they are trying to make a roadmap to help access in other countries; when it comes to precision medicine it is usually the nurses that are aksing for training because they are usually the first responders for the patient’s questions
  • In rural areas just getting access to liquid biopsy is a concern and maybe satellite sites might be useful because the time to schedule is getting worse (like 3 or more months)
  •  A recent paper showed that liquid biopsy may actually perpetuate health disparities and not ameliorate them
  • BloodPAC: there are barriers to LB access and adoption so consortium felt that there were many areas that need to be addressed: financial, access, disparities, education
  • ctDNA to define variants was the past focus; there is growing realization that there are representatives populations in your R&D studies
  • Submission of data to BloodPac is easier to do for tissue not for liquid biopsy;  there is lack of harmonization across many of these databanks
  • Reimbursement: is a barrier to access for liquid biopsy
  • Illumina: challenge finding clinical utility for payers; FDA approval is not as hard; show improved outcomes for patients; Medicare is starting to approve some tests but the criteria bar keeps changing with payers; 
  • How do we leverage the on-market data to support performance of your diagnostic test or genomic panel

 

This event will be covered by the LPBI Group on Twitter.  Follow on

@Pharma_BI

@StephenJWillia2

@Aviva1950

@AdvancingPM

using the following meeting hashtags

#AdvancingPM #precisionmedicine

Read Full Post »

Targeting amyloidopathy

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

LPBI

 

Targeting a rare amyloidotic disease through rationally designed polymer conjugates

Inmaculada Conejos–Sánchez, Isabel Cardoso, Maria J. Saraiva, María J.Vicent
Journal of Controlled Release 178 (2014), 95–100
Saraiva et al. discovered in 2006 a RAGE-based peptide sequence capable of preventing transthyretin (TTR) aggregate-induced cytotoxicity, hallmark of initial stages of an inherited rare amyloidosis known as Familial Amyloidotic Polyneuropathy (FAP). To allow clinical progression of this peptidic sequence as FAP treatment, a family of polymer conjugates has been designed, synthesised and fully characterised. This approach fulfills the strategies defined in the Polymer Therapeutics area as an exhaustive physico-chemical characterisation fitting activity output towards a novel molecular target that is described here. RAGE peptide acts extracellularly, therefore, nointracellular drug delivery was necessary. PEG was selected as carrier and polymer–drug linker optimisation was then carried out by means of biodegradable (disulphide) and non-biodegradable (amide) covalent bonds. Conjugate size in solution, stability under invitro and in vivo scenarios and TTR binding affinity through surface plasmon resonance (SPR) was also performed with all synthesised conjugates. In their in vitro evaluation by monitoring the activation of caspase-3 in Schwann cells, peptide derivatives demonstrated retention of peptide activity reducing TTR aggregates (TTRagg) cytotoxicity upon conjugation and a greater plasma stability than the parent free peptide. The results also confirmed that a more stable polymer–peptide linker (amide) is required to secure therapeutic efficiency.

Polymer therapeutics are well established as successful first generation nanomedicines for treatment of infectious diseases and cancer[1]. Polymer–protein, drug and aptamer conjugates are innovative chemical entities capable of improving bioactive compound properties and thus increasing efficacy and decreasing toxicity[2,3]. Design of second generation of conjugates is now focussing on improved polymer structures, polymer–based combination therapy and novel molecular targets with great potential to further progress the clinical importance of these unique technologies [4]. Novel conjugates for the treatment of neuropathological disorders are proposed in this study. Amyloidosis is well known in the form of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, but the target disease here is a rarer pathological disorder named familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP). FAPs constitute an important group of inherited amyloidosis diseases, and one of the most commonFAPs is caused by a mutated protein called transthyretin (TTR), which forms amyloid deposits, mainly in the peripheral nervous system [5]. The aggregation cascade of this mutated protein, produces a TTR aggregate (TTRagg) able to trigger neurodegeneration through engagement with the receptor-for-advanced-glycation-end-products (RAGE) which is present on peripheral neurons. RAGE signalling has been defined to be involved in many human pathologies such as Alzhehimer’s disease, diabetes and ageing, among others. This receptor is also up-regulated in tissues fromFAP patients [6]. The secreted RAGE form, named soluble RAGE (sRAGE), acts as a decoy to trap ligands and prevent interaction with cell surface receptors. sRAGE was shown to have important inhibitory effects in several cell cultures and transgenic mouse models, in which it prevented or reversed full-length RAGE signalling.

Saraiva et al. [7] discovered a specific peptidic sequence (named RAGE peptide) that is able to suppress TTRagg-induced cytotoxicity in cell culture. A reduced version of that peptide was proved to maintain the activity and the affinity of the initial peptide. The final peptide (compound A) contains 6 amino acids and responds to the sequence (from N to C terminus): YVRVRY. Although this provides an opportunity to design novel therapeutics for FAP treatment, peptide therapeutics themselves display well known challenges for in vivo use, e.g. low stability, poor pharmacokinetics and potential immunogenicity. Moreover the RAGE peptide demonstrates low solubility in plasma limiting its potential for i.v.administration.

……

Herein, novel specific nanoconjugates for the treatment of amyloidosis, and in particular familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy are reported. Apart from the research reported by Prof Arima et al. [22] using a hepatocyte-targeted FAP siRNA complex with lactosylated dendrimer (G3)/α-cyclodextrin(Lac-α-CDE(G3)), no other type of polymer therapeutic has been reported up to now for the treatment of this chronic degenerative family of diseases. Our rational design started from an active biomolecule of peptidic nature (RAGE peptide) that recognises the TTR prefibrillar aggregates responsible to promote cell death in FAPpatients [7]. The clinical progress of this promising inhibitor was masked by the well-known limitations of peptides, such as low solubility, low stability and possible immunogenicity. PEGylation through various linking strategies was successfully accomplished here as a solution for the named drawbacks, using a systematic approach to maintain peptide activity and receptor binding specificity. The data relating toTTR binding affinity, conjugate linker stability and the conjugate size distribution in solution of PEG– RAGE peptide conjugates indicate that the conjugates containing amide linkers have the greatest potential for further development as FAP inhibitors. Moreover, this novel conjugate has promising possibilities as a FAP therapeutic to be used alone in the early stages of the disease or as part of rationally designed combination therapy [23,24]. Preliminary in vivo studies (biodistribution) are shown in the supporting information demonstrating the enhanced plasma stability of the peptide upon conjugation (Fig.5S) , showing nospecific accumulation in any organ and renal excretion. More exhaustive in vivo experiments are currently ongoing with selected conjugates.

 

Read Full Post »