Search This Blog

Friday, September 14, 2018

The Open Insulin Project: A Case Study for ‘Biohacked’ Medicines


New innovation ecosystems for drug discovery and development are emerging.
Members of the ‘do-it-yourself biology’ community, sometimes called ‘biohackers,’ are contributing to this new frontier by experimenting with the development of medical treatments and devices.
An initiative known as the Open Insulin Project is working to develop a protocol for insulin production in order to sidestep intellectual property.
Follow-on work could contribute to a number of different insulin distribution structures, including ‘home-brewed’ insulin for personal use.
The current regulatory system is incongruous with emerging innovation ecosystems such as the Open Insulin Project.
New innovation ecosystems are emerging that challenge the complex intellectual property and regulatory landscape surrounding drug development in the United States (US). A prime example is an initiative known as the Open Insulin Project. The goal of the project is to sidestep patents and enable generic manufacturers to produce cheaper insulin. However, the US regulatory environment, not patent exclusivity, is the main barrier to insulin affordability. If the Open Insulin Project succeeds in releasing an open protocol for insulin manufacturing, follow-on work could enable a number of new insulin production ecosystems, including ‘home-brewed’ insulin. Regulators will need to consider how to proceed in a future where commercial pharmaceuticals remain unaffordable, but patients are empowered to produce drugs for their personal use.

References

Abelson, R. and Thomas, K. (2018) Fed up with drug companies, hospitals decide to start their own. New York Times18 January 2018
  • Schellekens H.
  • et al.
Making individualized drugs a reality.
Nat. Biotechnol. 2017; 35507-513
  • Anon
Patient-centered drug manufacture.
Nat. Biotechnol. 2017; 35485
  • del Savio L.
The place of crowdfunding in the discovery of scientific and social value of medical research.
Bioethics. 2017; 31384-392
Smith, P.A. (2016) A do-it-yourself revolution in diabetes care, New York Times 23 February 2016
Zhang, S. (2018) A biohacker regrets publicly injecting himself with CRISPR. The Atlantic 20 February 2018
Lussenhop, J. (2017) Why I injected myself with an untested gene therapy. BBC News 21 November 2017
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2017) Genome editing an ethical reviewa short guide. Nuffield Council on Bioethics
  • Hua X.
  • et al.
Expenditures and prices of antihyperglycemic medications in the United States: 2002–2013.
JAMA. 2016; 3151400
  • Greene J.A.
  • Riggs K.R.
Why is there no generic insulin? Historical origins of a modern problem.
N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 3721171-1175
  • Beran D.
  • et al.
Constraints and challenges in access to insulin: a global perspective.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016; 4275-285
Thomas, K. (2017) Drug makers accused of fixing prices on insulin, New York Times 30 January 30, 2017
Picchi, A. (2018) The rising cost of insulin: “horror stories every day.” CBS News 9 May 2018
  • Cefalu W.T.
  • et al.
Insulin access and affordability working group: conclusions and recommendations.
Diabetes Care. 2018; 411299-1311
  • Muller N.
  • et al.
Randomized crossover study to examine the necessity of an injection-to-meal interval in patients with type 2 diabetes and human insulin.
Diabetes Care. 2013; 361865-1869
  • Davidson M.B.
Insulin analogs—is there a compelling case to use them?.
Diabetes Care. 2014; 371771-1774
  • Scott A.
  • et al.
Socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, morbidity, and diabetes management for adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.
PLoS One. 2017; 12e0177210
  • Grintsova O.
  • et al.
Inequalities in health care among patients with type 2 diabetes by individual socio-economic status (SES) and regional deprivation: a systematic literature review.
Int. J. Equity Health. 2014; 1343
  • Heinemann L.
  • Hompesch M.
Biosimilar insulins.
J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2014; 86-13
  • Owens D.R.
  • et al.
The emergence of biosimilar insulin preparations—a cause for concern?.
Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2012; 14989-996
  • McCamish M.
  • Woollett G.
The state of the art in the development of biosimilars.
Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2012; 91405-417
  • Tsiftsoglou A.S.
  • et al.
Development and regulation of biosimilars: current status and future challenges.
BioDrugs. 2013; 27203-211
  • McCamish M.
  • Woollett G.
Worldwide experience with biosimilar development.
mAbs. 2011; 3209-217
  • Rotenstein L.S.
  • et al.
Opportunities and challenges for biosimilars: What’s on the horizon in the global insulin market?.
Clin. Diabetes. 2012; 30138-150
Ramsey, L. (2016) A cheaper version of the lifesaving diabetes medication just launched in the US, Business Insider 15 December 2016
  • Paradise J.
  • Janson C.
Decoding the research exemption.
Nat. Rev. Genet. 2006; 7148-154
  • Kaplan W.A.
  • Beall R.F.
The global intellectual property ecosystem for insulin and its public health implications: an observational study.
J. Pharm. Policy Pract. 2017; 103
  • Upadhyet S.
Understanding patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e): the collisions between patent, medical device and drug laws.
St. Clara High Technol. Law J. 2000; 177-8
  • Rathore A.S.
  • et al.
Monitoring quality of biotherapeutic products using multivariate data analysis.
AAPS J. 2016; 18793-800
  • Minghetti P.
  • et al.
Regulatory framework of pharmaceutical compounding and actual developments of legislation in Europe.
Health Policy (New York). 2014; 117328-333
  • Perez-Pinera P.
  • et al.
Synthetic biology and microbioreactor platforms for programmable production of biologics at the point-of-care.
Nat. Commun. 2016; 712211
  • Stark Casagrande S.
  • Cowie C.C.
Health insurance coverage among people with and without diabetes in the U.S. adult population.
Diabetes Care. 2012; 352243-2249

Jefferies Projects $573M Peak Sales For Cara Therapeutics’ Lead Candidate


Cara Therapeutics Inc CARA 1.63%, a biotech company developing non-opioid pain relief drugs, has earned a bullish review from Jefferies.

The Analyst

Analyst Matthew Andrews initiated coverage of Cara with a Buy rating and $30 price target.

The Thesis

Cara’s lead program is intravenous Korsuva, which is being tested in chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis-associated pruritis, or CKD-HD-aP, Andrews said in the initiation note. (See his track record here.)
The drug has a promising opportunity given that 180,000 patients in the U.S. suffer from the disease and there is no FDA-approved drug, the analyst said.
Jefferies estimates peak penetration for Korsuva at 27 percent and peak-adjusted U.S. sales of $573 million.
The CR845 Phase 2/3 study for Korsuva met its primary endpoint by reducing the Worst Itch-Numeric Rating Scale, or WI-NRS, by 3.8 points at Week 8 from the baseline relative to a placebo, Andrew said.
Based on the data, the candidate was granted breakthrough therapy designation.
Andrews forecast a high likelihood of success in two similar Phase 3 U.S. and global studies initiated in January and December.
The top-line data from the Phase 3 studies, due in mid-2019, is likely to be Cara’s next key catalyst, the analyst said.
A Phase 2/3 study of IV CR845 showed statistically significant pain relief with reduced opioid-related side-effects in post-operative acute pain, according to Jefferies.

Stifel: DBV Attractive Ahead Of Potential 2019 Approval For Peanut Allergy Drug


Shares of DBV TECHNOLOGIE/S ADR DBVT 1.19%, a clinical-stage biotech developing treatment options for food allergies, present a favorable risk-reward profile over the next 12 months, according to Stifel.

The Analyst

Analyst Derek Archila initiated coverage of DBV Tech with a Buy rating and $35 price target.

The Thesis

Stifel projects a more than 50-percent probability for the BLA for DBV Tech’s Viaskin Peanut — now in a Phase 3 clinical program for peanut allergy in children between 4 and 11 — to be accepted by the FDA, Archila said in the initiation note. (See his track record here.)
This is despite the pipeline asset missing its lower confidence level in its Phase 3 study, the analyst said.
Stifel said the candidate is likely to receive a positive Adcom vote and subsequent approval on the basis of its compelling safety profile, efficacy data from its open-label extension study and the company’s chief scientific officer, an internationally acclaimed food allergy expert.
Citing Stifel’s physician survey, Archila said he sees potential for Viaskin Peanut to capture significant market share across the severity spectrum of peanut allergy patients. The analyst estimates worldwide peak sales of about $1.7 billion in 2034, although his 2020-2025 estimates are 25-65 percent below the Street consensus.
A positive panel vote in the first half of 2019 could push the stock toward $43, while an unfavorable verdict could drag it to $15, Archila said.
“We believe the stock could get begin to see some upward momentum on the back of a BLA acceptance sometime in [the fourth quarter] ahead of the Adcom, which we expect in the [the first half].”