Search This Blog

Thursday, July 13, 2023

After First Approval, Experts Point to Barriers in Cell Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes

 Last month, the FDA approved CellTrans’ Lantidra as the first cellular therapy for Type 1 diabetes. The next day, Eli Lilly agreed to pay more than $300 million for Sigilon Therapeutics, with whom it is co-developing a cell therapy for the autoimmune illness. And these announcements came on the heels of new data presented by Vertex and Sernova for their respective cell therapies for T1D. Needless to say, this space is hot—but experts say challenges remain. 

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) occurs when autoreactive T cells in the immune system attack insulin-secreting pancreatic islets. Cytotoxic T cells kill islets, leaving patients dependent on life-long insulin treatments. Cell therapy aims to introduce cells into the patient that can produce insulin.

Lantidra (donislecel)’s success is a testament to this approach. Of 30 patients in two non-randomized trials, 21 were insulin-free for at least a year, 10 of whom maintained this status for more than five years.

But the therapy didn’t work for everyone: Five patients did not achieve any insulin-free days. Denise Faustman, director of immunobiology at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, pointed to the underlying disease as the biggest barrier to the success of cell therapies for T1D.

“When you look at where transplants work and where transplants don’t work, if there’s an underlying disease that caused the failure of the cells or the organ, if you put the cells or the organ back in . . . the disease reoccurs.” With an islet transplant, “you’re putting [the islets] back into the den of lions that destroyed the original cells.”

Faustman said Lantidra’s approval was “surprising” because CellTrans did not conduct randomized, double-blinded trials.

“There’s no publication and there’s no randomized, double-blinded trials,” Faustman said. “You’re kind of waiting for that kind of data to know what to think.” 

But with several other cell therapies for T1D in the pipeline, it’s clear that the biopharma industry is optimistic about the approach.

The Past and the Future: Overcoming Challenges

Cell therapy and islet transplantation are not new, Faustman said. In fact, researchers have been working on these approaches for more than 30 years.

The idea came from observations of patients who became insulin-independent after a whole pancreas transplant, Michael Lehmicke, vice president of science and industry affairs at the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), told BioSpace. Today, there are approximately 19 cell and gene therapies in various stages of development for diabetes, Lehmicke said.

Vertex has gone all in, with two therapies in Phase I/II trials. At the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s annual conference in June, the Boston-based biotech presented data from the ongoing trial of VX-880 showing that two patients achieved insulin independence after at least one year of treatment with the therapy. A second therapy, VX-264, received Investigational New Drug (IND) clearance in March.

One issue that Vertex and other developers of cell therapies have to contend with is the immune system. Immunosuppressive regimens are often used to prevent rejection of the cells. Both Lantidra and VX-880 involve such treatments.

In addition to potentially limiting the effectiveness of the treatments, Faustman noted that immunosuppressive drugs raise patients’ risk of infection. “If you’re a long-term diabetic, even after 40 years, you may die from the immunosuppression before you die from your original disease.” 

VX-264 takes a different approach, encapsulating cells in a surgically implanted protective device—sometimes called a baggie—designed to shield them from the body’s immune system. While this approach avoids the need for immunosuppression, Faustman noted that it comes with its own challenges. For example, the encapsulation devices may fibrose, she said. Secondly, when islet cells are encapsulated, they cannot be put into the bloodstream. Not only does this raise the question of how long the islets will survive in this environment, but it could limit the cells’ ability to respond to blood glucose levels.

“The islet needs to sense glucose, glucose has to get into the baggie, then the islet has to secrete insulin and the insulin has to get back out into the bloodstream,” she said.

Philip Toleikis_Sernova
Philip Toleikis

London, Ontario–based Sernova is taking a similar but slightly different approach. Also at ADA, Sernova presented data from the Phase I/II trial of its Cell Pouch System in patients with T1D and severe hypoglycemia unawareness, reporting that the first five patients to complete islet transplants achieved insulin independence for periods of 6 to 38 months.

The Cell Pouch “is not a typical encapsulation technology,” Philip Toleikis, president and CEO of Sernova, told BioSpace in an email. It’s a macro-device made of a series of channels that, when inserted deep under the skin, fill with highly vascularized tissue to form an organ-like environment, he explained. 

“Over the course of a few weeks, the Cell Pouch naturally vascularizes with surrounding tissues to create an environment for the long-term survival and function of therapeutic cells,” he continued. Toleikis said it is this tissue integration that is key to preventing fibrosis of the device.

A third approach, in preclinical development at Vertex, involves genetically modifying embryonic stem cells so that they are less susceptible to rejection by the immune system. “But those haven’t been published and they’re a long way off,” Faustman said. 

Yet another barrier to the widespread implementation of cell therapies for T1D is limited source materials, Lehmicke said. Lantidra relies on the pancreatic cells of deceased donors, which means an available pancreas is still required, he noted. To address this concern, some companies have turned to stem cells, which, depending on the source, could allow more patients to be treated “because the cell supply is less limited,” Lehmicke said.

Toleikis said that, in collaboration with partner Evotec, Sernova plans to begin clinical trials with its induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) islet-like clusters, which "unlike human-derived pancreatic islets, which are fragile and hardly scalable . . . can be collected from a blood sample." Therefore, they can provide "an unlimited supply of islet clusters potentially for all people with diabetes.”

https://www.biospace.com/article/following-first-approval-experts-point-to-barriers-in-cell-therapy-for-type-1-diabetes-/

Intercept upped to Buy from Sell by Wainwright

 Target to $19 from $8

https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=ICPT&ty=c&ta=1&p=d

TG Therapeutics falls as Roche succeeds in Phase 3 trial for multiple sclerosis therapy

TG Therapeutics falls as Roche succeeds in Phase 3 trial for multiple sclerosis therapy



FDA approves Perrigo's contraceptive as first over-the-counter pill in US

 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved the over-the-counter use of Perrigo's contraceptive drug, paving the way for millions of women to purchase birth control pills without prescription for the first time in the country.

The daily contraceptive, Opill, was first approved for prescription use in 1973, and the over-the-counter approval clears the way for people to obtain it without first seeing a health care provider.

The approval was expected to reduce barriers for women in obtaining contraceptives, at a time of increased focus on birth control since the U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned the constitutional right to terminate pregnancies by scrapping a landmark ruling in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case.

The pill will be available in store and online in the first quarter of next year, Perrigo said. The company will share information on pricing and distribution plans in advance, it said.

Studies have shown that a high proportion of consumers understood the label instructions for using the drug, supporting their ability to properly use the drug when it is available as an over-the-counter product, the FDA said.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-us-fda-approves-perrigos-124312536.html

Wednesday, July 12, 2023

Chinese Military May Have Had COVID-19 Virus In Its Possession As Early As September 2019

 by Joe Wang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

According to the World Health Organization, there have been 6,947,192 confirmed COVID-19 deaths globally as of June 28. Of those, 1,127,152 occurred in the United States, making the number of Americans killed by the virus more than 19 times the number of American soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

And yet, over three years since the beginning of the pandemic, we still don’t know where the virus originated. The fear is that the next time around, the number of deaths could be much higher; because we didn’t learn from this pandemic, we wouldn’t be as prepared as we should for the next one.

This fear is shared by all Americans. That is probably why in March, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed the “COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023,” requesting that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) “declassify all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of COVID-19.” “The ODNI must submit to Congress an unclassified report with all such information with redactions only as necessary to protect sources and methods,” the new law says.

On June 23, ODNI released a 10-page report titled “Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” As someone who has been following this development closely, ODNI’s report told me nothing beyond what I already knew, except for one little gem on page 5: that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had developed a technique that “left no traces of genetic modification of SARS-like coronaviruses.”

Some of the WIV’s genetic engineering projects on coronaviruses involved techniques that could make it difficult to detect intentional changes,” the report stated.

Why did the WIV want to develop such a technique? Scientists at the institute had been publishing their research on viruses in the best scientific journals, including on “genetic modification of SARS-like coronaviruses,” so it didn’t look like they wanted to hide what they had been doing. Maybe what they published was only part of their research, and they wanted to conceal the research they didn’t publish? What would that be?

Before the ODNI report, U.S. investigative journalists revealed in early June that three WIV researchers, Ben Hu, Ping Yu, and Yan Zhu, were allegedly the first COVID-19 patients, having fallen ill in the fall of 2019. They were reportedly conducting research on SARS-like viruses and engaging in “gain-of-function” experiments. Gain-of-function, which involves altering the properties of a pathogen in order to study its potential impact on human health, increases the infectiousness of viruses and/or makes them more lethal.

The WIV denied such allegations. “The recent news about so-called ‘patient zero’ in WIV are absolutely rumors and ridiculous,” Ben Hu told the journal Science in June.

I was hoping that the ODNI report would shed more light on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. It didn’t, but a patent application I found through a web search strongly suggests that the Liberation Army (PLA) had the genetic sequence of the virus in its possession as early as September 2019. This would fit well with the allegation that the three WIV scientists were infected by the virus in the fall of 2019.

It’s worth noting that the same allegation was made by the Department of Justice in a fact sheet published Jan. 15, 2021, which said the U.S. government had “reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak.”

Officially, World Learned of Virus in January 2020

The first cases of the atypical pneumonia (later known as COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan in December 2019. The news was soon supressed by the Chinese Communist Party, as China was preparing to celebrate the Lunar New Year—a time that no bad news is allowed. Whistleblowers like Dr. Wenliang Li were punished. Officially, Chinese virologists did not have a chance to study the novel virus until early January 2020.

On Jan. 11, 2020, Professor Yong-Zhen Zhang’s group from Fudan University in Shanghai submitted the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 to GenBank (accession number MN908947.1) in Maryland. Prof. Zhang obtained the virus by collecting bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from a 41-year old male patient in Wuhan, who had been admitted to hospital on Dec. 26, 2019. Chinese state media reported his death on Jan. 11, 2020.

Jan. 11, 2020, was the day that SARS-CoV-2 officially became known to the world. WHO announced that it had received the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus from the Chinese regime and would soon make it public.

(Dana Brillante)

PLA’s Warp Speed Vaccine Research

On Feb. 24, 2020, Dr. Yusen Zhou and 10 other inventors from the PLA’s Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology in Beijing filed a patent application (number 202010112679.9) titled “Novel coronavirus titled “COVID-19 vaccine, preparation methods and applications.” The application described in detail the design of the vaccine, the method to produce the vaccine, and the immunogenicity of the vaccine.

I am a vaccine scientist who worked for one of the world’s largest vaccine companies for more than 10 years, and I spearheaded SARS-CoV-1 vaccine development in 2003. I was stunned by the speed these PLA inventors were able to not only study the new virus and develop and test a vaccine so quickly, but also put together a patent application in merely 44 days (from Jan. 11 to Feb. 24)!

Vaccine development is an arduous process, usually taking about 10-15 years on average to accomplish. Before COVID-19, the fastest a vaccine that had ever been developed was the mumps vaccine in 1967, which took four years.

Of course, the U.S. government’s “Operation Warp Speed” made it possible for vaccine companies to accelerate their processes, which we now know compromised safety and effectiveness. Moderna published their Phase I/II clinical data on July 14, 2020, and Pfizer published theirs on Aug. 12, 2020. Then in December of that year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines Emergency Use Authorization.

When I worked in the vaccine industry, I was the liaison between R&D (Research and Development) scientists (which I was also a member of) and our in-house lawyers in the IP (Intellectual Property) office. I was personally involved in the filing of dozens of patent applications. Normally, patent applications should be filed as soon as scientists discover something new, useful, and non-obvious—the three properties patent lawyers stress that scientists keep an eye out for and document.

A patent application can be filed before a vaccine is tested and granted for distribution. One could argue that the PLA’s application was “provisional,” meaning it would serve as a placeholder so that experimental results could be added later when available, hence it is possible that it only took 44 days to draft their patent application.

Yes, when things move extremely smoothly, a patent application could be put together in about one and a half months. However, the PLA’s filing contains real experimental data that would take time and effort to perform and collect. This makes it extremely unlikely that the scientists only received access to the virus information on or after Jan. 11, 2020.

Telling Timeline

If the PLA did have access to the virus, maybe they got the information from Prof. Zhang before he submitted the genetic sequence to GenBank, or maybe they got it elsewhere. Or it could be that since the scientists are with the PLA, how they obtained the virus constitutes a military secret.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/chinese-military-may-have-had-covid-19-virus-its-possession-early-september-2019

Supreme Court Revives Whistleblowers' Medicare, Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits

 by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court resurrected two whistleblower lawsuits against companies for allegedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid.

The cases concern the federal False Claims Act (FCA), a key tool the government uses to combat health care fraud, and “scienter,” a legal term meaning prior intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has called the FCA “the centerpiece of the government’s anti-fraud arsenal.”

The new orders followed the court’s unanimous decision on June 1 to reinstate whistleblower actions against pharmacy operators SuperValu and Safeway for allegedly overcharging the government by filing false Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement claims for prescription drugs they sold.

That ruling, United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, held that the scienter requirement under the False Claims Act, which asks whether an accused party “knowingly” filed a “false” claim with the government, refers to the party’s knowledge and subjective beliefs, as opposed to what an objectively reasonable person may have believed.

Sometimes called the Lincoln Law, the FCA was enacted in 1863 to deal with defense contractor fraud during the Civil War.

The act currently provides that anyone who knowingly files false claims with the government is liable for triple damages plus a $2,000 penalty for each false claim.

The FCA allows the government to pursue perpetrators on its own and for private citizens to sue those who defraud the government on behalf of the government in what are known as qui tam suits. Such private citizens, who are called relators, may be awarded part of what the government recovers.

To prove scienter under the statute, the government or the whistleblower must demonstrate that the company acted “knowingly,” or with “reckless disregard,” or “deliberate ignorance” of the law in question.

On June 30, in Olhausen v. Arriva Medical LLC and United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales LLC, the Supreme Court summarily granted the petitions of two whistleblowers while at the same time skipping over the oral argument phase when the merits of the case would have been considered.

The court issued unsigned orders in the two cases in a flurry of eleventh-hour rulings as it wrapped up its regular term and recessed for the summer. The court did not explain why it made the two new decisions. No justices dissented.

At the same time, the court vacated the judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Olhausen and of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Sheldon, remanding those respective cases to those lower courts in light of its decision last month in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-revives-whistleblowers-medicare-medicaid-fraud-lawsuits

Data Brokers To Be Barred From Selling Your Location Data Under Proposed Mass. Law

 A law under consideration in Massachusetts would ban data brokers from selling cell phone location dataGizmodo reports.

The Location Shield Act would outlaw "selling, leasing, trading, or renting location data" in the state of Massachusetts, and would require companies to obtain user consent if they want to collect or process such data. Noncompliance with the law would expose companies to state legal action via the AG's office, along with class-action litigation.

The law appears to have been catalyzed by the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Ever since federal protections for abortion were abolished, the issue of data privacy has taken on new relevance for women. Rights advocates fear that digital evidence of all sorts (including, potentially, data of the kind that the Shield Act tackles) may be used to prosecute women for breaking abortion laws. As a result, a number of rights groups, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, pushed for the adoption of the Shield Act, partially as a means of protecting abortion-seekers from prosecution, should they choose to travel to the state for medical procedures. Massachusetts is considered a safe haven for women from other states who may travel there to seek abortions. -Gizmodo

"Every day, unregulated data brokers buy and sell personal location data from apps on our cellphones, revealing where we live, work, play, and more. To protect our privacy, safety, access to abortion and other essential health care, Massachusetts needs to ban this practice now by passing the Location Shield Act," wrote the ACLU on its website

Now to see if it passes, and if so, whether other states will follow suit.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/data-brokers-be-barred-selling-your-location-data-under-proposed-massachusetts-law