Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts tagged ‘Biologics’

Slowly but surely, we are seeing more use of social media in one area where I really think it can help a lot – clinical trials.

Regular readers will know of my passion for use of biomarkers in studies to ensure that the patients most likely to respond and therefore benefit will get treatment, thereby sparing those unlikely to respond of the debilitating systemic side effects. This also helps to reduce false hope and raise more realistic expectations.

I was therefore delighted to see a new video from the folks at MD Anderson Cancer Center where Dr Anas Younes, a lymphoma expert, is explaining about the new trials they have open in a rare form of lymphoma, Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma (PTCL), with some new agents in development.

The groups stated mission is abundantly clear and admirable:

“Our mission is to improve the cure rate of patients with PTCL and reduce treatment-related toxicity by developing novel targeted therapy using rationally designed small molecules, antibodies and combination regimens of biologic agents.”

Check out the short video below – if you can’t see it, you can click this link to take you directly to it:

http://youtu.be/UTCBWQtk65s

PTCL is very rare indeed, but…

  • It is good to see companies invest in clinical trials to continue to improve outcomes
  • Social media sharing through YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and blogs is a great way to aid awareness of clinical trials for those are suffering
  • More awareness will hopefully lead to faster enrolment and earlier readouts that can be publicly shared with all
  • Dr Younes is a fellow believer in targeted agents in a targeted fashion based on the underlying biology of the disease.  Love this – using targeted agents in an untargeted fashion is both silly and a waste of time/research dollars
  • Academia is probably the ideal way to provide this sort of education – are you more likely to believe or be persuaded by a passionate medical specialist from a top cancer center or a pharma company advertising clinical trials?

There has been some excellent research from Pew Internet recently that showed, as Susannah Fox summarised for me via Twitter:

“Most patients say professionals are more helpful than peers for diagnosis, Rx, treatments.”

She has also published another in-depth report that looked at Peer-To-Peer healthcare.  I particularly liked the aims:

“This report shows how people’s networks are expanding to include online peers, particularly in the crucible of rare disease.”

Those online peers could be connections from all walks of life, who like me, like to share fascinating stuff from reputable sources such as Pew Internet, Manhattan Research and top cancer centers such as MD Anderson.  The beauty of social media is that we can all share information and help improve medical education and awareness across a broad church.  As Thomas Friedman said, the world is indeed getting flatter.

For those of you who know someone who has been diagnosed with PTCL or other rare lymphomas and is in need of treatment, do share Dr Younes’ video with them – they may be able to help.

 

 

1 Comment

The current Nature Reviews Drug Discovery has a short analysis of last year’s FDA approvals for new molecular entities (NME) and biologics:

“The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved 15 new molecular entities and 6 new biologics in 2010. The total of 21 new products falls below the 25 approved in 2009 and the 24 in 2008.”

Here’s a graphic of the overall trend since 1996:

2010 FDA drug approvals

Source: Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

You can see that for drugs, the trend has been downwards since 1996, although the last few years have been fairly stable. The biologics, while only a small proportion of the total have been steady.

What you can’t see in the chart above is:

  1. Ratio of submissions to approvals
  2. Impact of generic approvals
  3. Shift from mass market primary care drugs to specialty and orphan drugs.

Over the next few years within the oncology sector, for example, I think we will see more targeted drugs emerging that affect smaller patient populations.   A good example of this is Pfizer’s crizotinib, which was filed last month for ALK translocations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).  The target population is only ~5% of NSCLC.

The other trend that hasn’t yet made a huge impact, but will likely do so in future, is biosimilars and biobetters. That’s a whole different ball game entirely.

What do you think will happen this year? Hopefully there won’t be as many complete response letters (CRL) in 2011 as there were in 2010!

References:

ResearchBlogging.orgMullard, A. (2011). 2010 FDA drug approvals Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10 (2), 82-85 DOI: 10.1038/nrd3370

Biosimilars are very much a hot topic of late.  They are approved new versions of innovator biopharmaceutical products, following patent expiry.  Essentially, this is like a generic version of the biologic product, hence their alternative name, follow-on biologics.

Recently, the FDA approved the Momenta/Sandoz’s follow-on versions of sanofi-aventis’s Lovenox, a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), used to prevent and treat deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.   The patent expired in July 2010 and approval was given on July 23rd.  Reports in the press suggest that erosion of the brand was both fast and steep, with a 60% shift in market share to the cheaper versions almost overnight.

At present, the FDA doesn’t have a recognised approval system for follow-on biologics, so the process is somewhat fuzzy.  I’m not sure why the FDA approved Momenta’s versionof enoxaparin, but not Teva or Amphastar’s, although inevitably, there was a lot of noise surrounding the issue in the press over the last year.  I’m not going to go into the details of the shenanigans over this, but a quick Google search will offer more information than many will have time to read!

What was interesting to me was that Momenta scientists published an interesting paper in Nature Biotechnology (reference below) on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells.   CHO cells are the most common cells used to synthesise recombinant proteins used in many drugs and are extremely well studied.  Previously, however, CHO cells were thought to lack the biosynthetic ability necessary to synthesize a particular glycoprotein, but the Momenta scientists found otherwise, underlining their expertise and research in this field.

These players – Momenta, Sandoz, Teva and Amphastar – probably have the lead in follow-on biologics for now, so they will be interesting companies to watch out for as the patent cliffs in biologics begins to hit big Pharma between now and 2015.

Now, while the FDA still doesn’t have any official regulations for follow-on biologics, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has begun to tackle the issue head on, posting draft guidelines last week.  You can check them out online.  According to the EMA:

“The Agency has released the draft guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing monoclonal antibodies for a six-month consultation period.

The guideline lays down the requirements for medicines containing monoclonal antibodies that claim to be similar to another such medicine already marketed.

Comments on the draft guideline can be submitted to the Agency up to 31 May 2011.”

Unfortunately, I haven’t had time to digest the EMA proposals yet, but we will post a full synopsis in a future blog post soon.

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions, please feel to add them in the comments below.

References:

ResearchBlogging.org Bosques, C., Collins, B., Meador, J., Sarvaiya, H., Murphy, J., DelloRusso, G., Bulik, D., Hsu, I., Washburn, N., Sipsey, S., Myette, J., Raman, R., Shriver, Z., Sasisekharan, R., & Venkataraman, G. (2010). Chinese hamster ovary cells can produce galactose-α-1,3-galactose antigens on proteins Nature Biotechnology, 28 (11), 1153-1156 DOI: 10.1038/nbt1110-1153

11 Comments
error: Content is protected !!