Articles Posted in Science

Sustainability.pngOn May 1, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council included a Forum on sustainability. “Addressing the Evolving Sustainability Demands in the Biotech Industry“. Sustainability has become a hot topic for many companies including pharmaceutical and other manufacturers of FDA-regulated products because of the need to provide for long-term maintenance of our earth’s resources. Sustainability broadly is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of well being, which has ecological, economic, political, and cultural dimensions.

The Forum featured a mix of industry speakers: Moderator, Wayne Bates, Ph.D., P.E., Vice President and Sustainability Director at Capaccio Environmental Engineering, Inc. and panelists:
James McCabe, Sustainability Manager, Global Operations/Services, Waters Corporation; Tony Meenaghan, Senior Director of Facilities Management, Environmental Health and Safety and Engineering, EMD Serono, Inc.; David Reilly, Global Energy Manager, Novartis; Timothy Stoll, LEED, Director for Development and Leasing, BioMed Realty Trust.

The speakers explained that sustainability programs have arisen due to the concern about how companies impact in environment. The goal is that a sustainability program “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Sustainability is not meant to be trendy, it is about environmental stewardship, social well being, and economic prosperity over long term (bearable, viable, equitable). In process, many of these programs have been random acts of sustainability rather than a coordinated plan.
Continue reading

genetherapy.jpgThe promise of gene therapy as a commercially-available tool for treating genetic disorders may finally be inching closer to reality. On July 20, 2012 the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) took the first step towards making gene therapy treatment a reality by recommending the gene therapy, Glybera® (alipogene tiparvovec), for marketing approval in the European Union (“EU”). Glybera®, which is indicated for the treatment of lipoprotein lipase (“LPL”) deficiency, was developed by Netherlands-based, uniQure.

Patients lacking LPL enzymes are unable to break down fats. The CHMP press release states that:

So far, management of patients with the disorder consists of strict reduction of dietary fat to less than 20% of the daily caloric intake. It is very difficult to comply with such a dietary regimen and as a consequence many patients experience life-threatening pancreatitis attacks requiring admission to hospital.

Due to the difficult circumstances faced by individuals suffering from LPL deficiencies that trigger severe or multiple pancreatitis attacks, the CHMP has deemed the treatment benefits afforded by this gene therapy to be worth its risks.

Fundamentally, gene therapy is a method by which exogenous “functioning” or “normal” DNA replaces “abnormal” DNA that is responsible for a particular genetic disorder. Gene therapy was originally touted in the 1970s as a potential way to treat genetic disorders.
Continue reading

Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP Partner Brian J. Malkin will present a controversial topic concerning the type of clinical trials that FDA will require for biosimilar product applications entitled: “Safely Conducting Biosimilars Clinical Trials: Understanding FDA’s Requirements for Biosimilar Clinical Trials”. Mr. Malkin will address what FDA has said about its “selective and targeted approach” for biosimilar clinical trials and how biosimilar applicants may be able to rely on certain clinical trial data from the innovator’s product, as well as assessing the risks and benefits for conducting such clinical trials. Mr. Malkin’s presentation is part of the American Conference Institute’s 14th Advanced Summit on Clinical Trials: Ensuring Safe and Compliant Domestic and International Clinical Trials on July 17-18, 2012 in Boston.

nanotechnology.bmpThe Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, otherwise known as the User Fee Bill, has passed through Congress and awaits the President’s signature. This Bill, mostly known for implementing user fees for generic drug applications, also provides new programs to foster the study of nanomaterials in products regulated by FDA. Section 1126 of Title XI, Subsection C calls for the Secretary to “intensify and expand activities related to enhancing scientific knowledge regarding nanomaterials, … to address issues relevant to the regulation of those products, including potential toxicology, the potential benefit of new therapies derived from nanotechnology, the effects of nanomaterials on biological systems, and the interaction of such nanomaterials with biological systems.” This provision mirrors the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 introduced by Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) last year, which stalled after its introduction in the Senate.

Nanomaterials utilize nanotechnology–manipulation of matter on the atomic and molecular scale. Nanomaterials, measured in billionths of a meter, range from 1- 100 nanometers (nm) and are used in a range of products, from paint and sunscreen to drugs and cosmetics. In 2010, the National Science Foundation estimated that nanotechnology-based products and manufacturing would add 2 million jobs and $1 trillion dollars in revenue to the world economy by 2015. These nanoproducts have different physical, chemical, and biological properties than conventionally-scaled materials, and some speculate that these properties may involve unknown risks to humans and our environment.

Written by Caroline Bercier

Other Posts By This Author

The importance of nanomaterials has been recognized for some time. President Clinton advocated nanotechnology research, and President George W. Bush increased funding for nanotechnology development in 2003 with the passage of The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. However, this will be the first time that Congress has mandated that FDA study nanotechnology to evaluate the safety and toxicity of nanomaterials in consumer goods and products.
Continue reading

On June 5, SoloHealth announced that FDA approved its next-generation SoloHealth Station, a self-service health care device which strives to assist people with both education and awareness about their health. SoloHealth, an Atlanta-based company, has worked to empower consumers through the use of technology to achieve a healthier, and consequently better, America. With the recent FDA approval and an aggressive rollout plan for 2012, the SoloHealth Station is taking the lead in using self-service technology to develop a healthier America.

 

 

Just prior to receiving the inaugural Intel Innovation Award, CEO and Founder of SoloHealth, Bart Foster, described the SoloHealth Station as a kiosk equipped with both the “functionality and technology to drive consumer education, awareness, and ultimately action.” SoloHealth makes clear that the kiosk will not replace an examination by a medical professional. Essentially, the SoloHealth Station will provide consumers with an initial health screening and encourage them to visit a health care provider for a follow-up examination.

Written by Elizabeth Zinke

Other Posts By This Author

The SoloHealth Station offers a highly personalized, targeted, and interactive opportunity for consumers by employing a touch user interface and interactive video to guide consumers through the simple health tests. It will allow consumers to screen their vision, blood pressure, weight, and body mass index in less than seven minutes. In addition, the SoloHealth Station will provide a symptom checker as well as an overall health assessment. These services are provided free of charge.
Continue reading

Stem Cell.jpgOn May 17, Health Canada approved Prochymal® (remestemcel-L) for the treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease (“GvHD”) in children. GvHD, a complication of bone marrow transplantation, occurs when the white blood cells in the grafted tissue recognize the host’s organs as foreign and attack the host. Acute GvHD usually presents within three months of the bone marrow transplant, and most often causes damage to the liver, skin, stomach, and intestines. Acute GvHD is categorized as stage I, II, III, or IV based on the number of affected areas, and the severity of the damage. Prochymal® is the first approved treatment for GvHD worldwide, and it receives eight and one half years of exclusivity in Canada.

Currently, the standard treatment for GvHD is intravenous steroids, which suppress the immune system to prevent attack of the transplant recipient’s organs. Treatment with steroids, however, is only successful in 30 to 50 percent of patients, as suppressing the immune system can lead to infections or even death. Health Canada approved Prochymal® for use in children with acute GvHD where steroid treatment has been unsuccessful.

Author's photo

Written by Julie E. Kurzrok

Other Posts By This Author

Prochymal® is comprised of mesenchymal stem cells from the bone marrow of a healthy adult donor. Prochymal®’s approval falls under Canada’s Notice of Compliance with Conditions (“NOC/c”) Pathway, which requires that Osiris Therapeutics, the drug’s maker, continue with confirmatory clinical testing. Osiris presented data to Health Canada showing clinically meaningful responses in 61 to 64 percent of children with severe GvHD that failed to respond to steroids. This data is very encouraging, considering that severe GvHD has a mortality rate of close to 80 percent. Health Canada relied on this data in granting regulatory approval to Osiris. Prochymal® is currently available in the U.S. (and several other countries) under the Expanded Access Program, for patients “2 months to 17 years with acute GvHD, grades B-D, that is not responsive to steroid therapy.”

FDA has required additional data from Osiris before it will consider Prochymal® for approval, so Osiris plans to apply for approval in the U.S. later this year after it collects the required information. Osiris also plans to use Prochymal® for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, heart attack, COPD, Type I diabetes, and for potential Acute Radiation Syndrome. The company is currently conducting clinical studies for these indications.

DNA.jpgOn May 17, FDA’s Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research released an Addendum to Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals. Recognizing the need for greater harmony in the regulatory standards for biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals among Europe, Japan, and the United States, FDA issued the original Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals Guidancein July 1997.

According to the original guidance, preclinical safety evaluations have three goals: (1) to identify an initial safe dose and subsequent dose escalation scheme in humans; (2) to identify potential target organs for toxicity and for the study of whether such toxicity is reversible; and (3) to identify safety parameters for clinical monitoring. That guidance set forth a basic framework for the preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals to “improve the quality and consistency of the preclinical safety data supporting the development of biopharmaceuticals.”

The Addendum is meant to “complement, provide clarification on, and update” the original guidance. According to FDA, following the Addendum’s guidance should “facilitate the timely conduct of clinical trials, reduce the use of animals . . . and reduce the use of other drug development resources.” Specifically, the Addendum addresses the following topics: species selection, study design, immunogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and assessment of carcinogenic potential.
Continue reading

by Howard E. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

gene.jpgLate last year, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) published a new guideline, “Guideline on the use of pharmacogenetic methodologies in the pharmacokinetic evaluation of medicinal products” to provide a framework for where it is recommended that pharmacogenetics should be implemented in the drug development process. At the same time, the guideline recognizes that pharmacogenetics may not be equally important for every drug.

Patients are not all identical and different individuals may well react to a particular medicine in diverse ways. For example the manner in which a patient absorbs and/or metabolizes a particular drug may well differ form one to another. In recent years there has been a rapid development in the understanding of the influence of genes on interindividual differences in drug action. Hence the pharmacokinetics of many medicinal products is prone to interindividual variability, caused by several factors such as gender, age, weight, impaired renal and hepatic function, and genetics.

In the field of pharmacogenetics, interindividual variability in genes influencing or predicting the outcome of drug treatment (e.g., genes encoding drug transporters, drug metabolizing enzymes, drug targets, biomarker genes) is studied in relation to efficacy of drug treatment and adverse drug reactions. A knowledge of genetic factors influencing absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (“ADME”) is centered on drug metabolism. Genetic variations in metabolizing enzymes may lead to: (i) increased or decreased clearance of the parent drug or pharmacologically active or toxic metabolites, (ii) increased or decreased production of active metabolites of the respective prodrugs, or (iii) increased or decreased formation of toxic products.
Continue reading

by Howard Rosenberg

Thumbnail image for Stem Cell.jpg

The EU ban on stem cell patents, issued in an October 2011 Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) opinion, continues to generate controversy and input from a wide variety of viewpoints. This week Aurora Plomer, professor of law and bioethics at Sheffield University argued that the ban not only imperiled Europe’s competitiveness but also the protection of human rights.

The professor attacked the decision from a legal perspective arguing the ruling suffered from several flaws. She stated that the drafting history of the EU directive on biotechnological inventions, showed that the intention was never to render unpatentable lawful research and that there isn’t a uniform pan-European view on what respect for human dignity means with regard to human embryos, contrary to the position taken by the Court of Justice. She also pointed out that the ruling was inconsistent with the settled law of the European Court of Human Rights in that that court has applied a “margin of appreciation” doctrine in relation to the rights of the embryo accepting that the status of the embryo can differ from state to state.

The CJEU’s decision, binding on all member states, was that the concept of a human embryo had to be understood in a very wide sense ensuring respect for human dignity and, consequently, stem cell lines whose derivation required the destruction of human embryos were not patentable under European law. However, if the European Convention on Human Rights has no requirement for a consistent application or understanding of embryonic human rights amongst the EU member states then the CJEU’s decision may well be at odds with it. According to Professor Plomer,. the CJEU ruling raises important questions about the compatibility of EU law with the European Convention on Human Rights, which the EU is bound to respect.

Professor Plomer also felt that the ban would deter investment and frustrate the EU’s goal of harmonising laws to speed up the development of regenerative treatments that are anticipated to offer huge therapeutic potential, e.g. in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
Continue reading

by Fitz Beckwith Collings

Buddy_Blood_Drop.jpgOn November 10, FDA approved HEMACORD, a cord blood biologic, for use in patients with “disorders affecting the hematopoietic system that are inherited, acquired, or result from myeloablative treatment.” The active ingredient in HEMACORD consists of hematopoietic progenitor cells that express the cell surface marker CD34. The potency of cord blood is determined by measuring the number of total nucleated cells (“TNC”) and CD34+ cells, and cell viability. Each unit of HEMACORD contains a minimum of 5 x 10(8) total nucleated cells with at least 1.25 x 10(6) viable CD34+ cells at the time of cryopreservation.

Cells expressing CD34 (CD34+ cell) are normally found in the umbilical cord and bone marrow as hematopoietic cells, a subset of mesenchymal stem cells, endothelial progenitor cells, endothelial cells of blood vessels but not lymphatics (except pleural lymphatics), mast cells, a sub-population dendritic cells (which are factor XIIIa negative) in the interstitium and around the adnexa of dermis of skin, as well as cells in soft tissue tumors. Matching for at least 4 of 6 HLA-A antigents, HLA-B antigens, and HLA-DRBI alleles is recommended. The HLA typing and nucleated cell count for each individual unit of HEMACORD are documented on the container label or accompanying records.

Cord blood may used to treat disorders that generally result in diminished or lost capacity to form new blood cells, e.g., following radiation therapy. The undifferentiated hematopoietic cells in cord blood migrate to the bone marrow once inside the body. Once there, they mature and divide, replenishing lost or absent blood cell populations and function, including immune function, of blood-borne cells of marrow origin. In patients with enzymatic abnormalities due to certain severe types of storage disorders, mature leukocytes resulting from HPC-C transplantation may be able to circulate and improve cellular functions of some native tissues. HEMACORD is the first hematopoietic progenitor cell-cord cell therapy licensed by the FDA.
Continue reading