Author Archives: admin


Salit Discusses the Use of Staging and Grading for Patients With GVHD to Choose Appropriate Treatment – Targeted Oncology

Rachel B. Salit, MD, discussed the case of a 48-year-old patient with graft-versus-host-disease.

Rachel B. Salit, MD, associate professor, Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, WA, discussed the case of a 48-year-old patient with graft-versus-host-disease.

Targeted OncologyTM: What are your thoughts on the currently accepted options for acute GVHD (aGVHD) prophylaxis?

SALIT: Between calcineurin inhibitors, if we have a choice, my preference is usually tacrolimus. Tacrolimus is better tolerated [than cyclosporin] in terms of adverse events [AEs], blood pressure, kidney function, and [even] the smell.

Methotrexate is a tried-and-true prophylaxis, especially in the myeloablative or high-intensity transplant setting. [In contrast], mycophenolate mofetil [MMF]; [CellCept] is usually used in the nonmyeloablative or reduced-intensity setting. When calcineurin inhibitors were used with MMF as prophylaxis for GVHD, the GVHD was higher. Thats why we [use] methotrexate [instead of MMF].1

Sirolimus [Rapamune] is often combined with a calcineurin inhibitor and MMF, or with a calcineurin inhibitor and methotrexate. Sirolimus is very well tolerated, except for some triglyceride AEs. Additionally, the combination of sirolimus plus MMF and a calcineurin inhibitor has been shown to significantly decrease GVHD in the reduced-intensity setting compared with [the effect observed with] MMF and a calcineurin inhibitor alone.2

CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cellantibody therapy plus antithymocyte globulin [ATG] and alemtuzumab [Lemtrada] are more frequently used in Europe [than in the United States]. There have been mixed results, and there is some concern of increased relapse with [anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) therapy]. Ex vivo T-cell depletion and CD34-positive cell selection [are] also uncommon in the United States.

Posttransplant cyclophosphamide [Cytoxan] [is becoming more common], and it was originally [used in the setting of] haploidentical transplants. Now it is increasingly used in the unrelated donor setting, and Im sure it will be translated to the sibling setting, too. [This regimen] has been shown to decrease effector T cells.3 Moreover, chronic GVHD is [reduced by this regimen], but aGVHD is not changed.

A recent study retrospectively compared many patients [with haploidentical donors] to a smaller number of patients [who had] unrelated donors and who received posttransplant cyclophosphamide. The data showed that the patients with unrelated donors and posttransplant cyclophosphamide had better overall survival [OS] and decreased relapse compared with the patients with haploidentical donors.4

For a long time, [most trials that compared GVHD and OS between patients with haploidentical] vs unrelated or sibling donors have shown that posttransplant [cyclophosphamide in the setting of haploidentical] transplants is associated with reduced chronic GVHD, but the other outcomes were the same. Is this result attributable to the fact that the transplant is haploidentical, or is it attributable to the posttransplant cyclophosphamide? I think that question will be answered within the next [few] years.

What risk factors for GVHD do you notice in the case described?

There are multiple risk factors. The fact that the donor is multiparous puts the recipient at higher risk for GVHD. The patients high intensity, myeloablative conditioning regimen increases the risk for GVHD, as do the donors CMV seropositivity and the fact that the patient and donor are not sex matched. The risk of GVHD also increases with donor age.

Risk for GVHD is also increased by major human leukocyte antigen [HLA] disparity. We look at class I [HLA-A, -B, and -E] and class II [HLA-DR and -DQ] antigens, with a 10 out of 10 score constituting a match. There are data coming out that show that the class II antigen HLA-DP also matters in certain cases5; a match that includes this antigen [a 12 out of 12 (score)] is better than a 10 out of 10 [score]. [This patients donor was HLA-matched, but] minor HLA mismatches can increase the risk of GVHD [in patients like this one whose donor is unrelated].

Stem cell source and graft composition are other considerations, but this patient received peripheral blood, which confers a higher risk of GVHD than does bone marrow. Peripheral blood has a higher CD34-positive cell count, therefore a higher T-cell dose; both factors increase GVHD risk. At our center, we dont often cap CD34-positive cell count or T-cell dose, except in the haploidentical setting.

I would not include ABO blood type as a risk factor. There are mixed data regarding whether major and minor ABO mismatches lead to increased GVHD.6

What standardized guidelines exist for organ staging and grading in the context of aGVHD?

[According to Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium], the skin, the liver, and gastrointestinal [GI] tract are the 3 organs included in aGVHD staging. The skin is [described in terms of] the percentage of body surface area [BSA] affected. Stage 0 is no rash, stage 1 is a rash covering less than 25% of the BSA, stage 2 is a rash covering 25% to 50% of the BSA, stage 3 is a rash covering greater than 50% of the BSA, and stage 4 is generalized erythroderma.7

According to the liver status [bilirubin level], staging starts at stage 0 [less than 2 mg/dL] and progresses through stage 1 [2-3 mg/dL], stage 2 [3.1-6 mg/dL], and stage 3 [6.1-15 mg/dL] to a final stage of 4 [greater than 15 mg/dL]. The lower GI staging system [counts] the number of episodes per day of liquid stool output. Stage 0 is fewer than 3 episodes [of stool output], stage 1 is 3 to 4 episodes, stage 2 is 5 to 7 episodes, and stage 3 is greater than 7 episodes. If you have an inpatient, then you can use these exact quantities. If you have an outpatient, you can use these values as rough markers. Regarding the upper GI staging system, in stage 0, nausea, vomiting, or anorexia are absent or intermittent, but in stage 1, they are persistent.

The other thing I often look at [to judge] severity [of GI involvement] is the electrolytes. For example, if the patient says they are having 5 episodes of stool a day, but their potassium and magnesium are normal and theyre not becoming acidemic, then you [might consider that] these stools are only of small volume. If the patient starts to have electrolyte abnormalities or starts to become acidemic, then you [should consider that] maybe theyre having more diarrhea than theyre [telling you].

When we grade according to most severe target organ involvement, grade I reflects the presence only of stage 1 to 2 skin involvement. Any GI or liver involvement is automatically [at least grade] II, the point at which you would consider treating symptoms topically. Grade IIA indicates upper GI involvement, and grade IIB indicates lower GI involvement.8 Once the patient gets to grade III, they almost always [require] systemic therapy.7

What stage and grade would you give this patient?

With 60% skin involvement, he would have a skin stage of 3, and with 4 episodes of diarrhea per day, he would have a lower GI stage of 1. [He would have an overall clinical grade of IIB.]

What are GVHD and aGVHD biomarkers, and how are they used?

Biomarkers of GVHD are markers of inflammation found in the blood that will tell you the patient is at a higher risk for developing GVHD. These biomarkers include elafin, IL-2 receptor-, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor receptor-1, hepatocyte growth factor, and regenerating islet-derived 3- [NCT00224874].9 The use of biomarkers [to predict patients risk of developing GVHD could guide physicians as they choose] a starting steroid dosage, eg, 2 mg/kg vs 1 mg/kg.

What data guide your decisions about steroid therapy in GVHD?

Although the concept of GVHD and aGVHD risk stratification is not generally used in practice, high-risk GVHD vs standard-risk GVHD has been shown to be associated with a lower rate of complete response to steroids [27% vs 48%, respectively; P < .001] and higher treatment-related mortality [incidence at 6 months after steroid therapy onset, 44% vs 22%, respectively; P < .001].10 If a patient has a higher grade of GVHD, they are more likely to be steroid refractory.

The steroid response of GVHD is classified as steroid refractory or resistant if GVHD progresses within the first 3 to 5 days of prednisone therapy onset [ 2 mg/kg per day], fails to improve within 5 to 7 days of treatment initiation at 1 mg/kg or shows an incomplete response after more than 28 days [of immunosuppressive treatment including steroids]. Steroid dependence [means that either] the prednisone cannot be tapered below 2 mg/kg daily or the GVHD recurs during the steroid taper.11

You cant really [know] who is going to respond to steroids without [trying]. Our initial treatment for any patient with GVHD is steroids. There are no data to suggest that we [should] add something other than steroids as the first line or that we [should] add double therapy for the first line. Its going to be different for every individual.

Also, regarding steroid therapy, the question has been raised: If patients receive higher doses sooner, will that result in a lower [total] exposure to steroids? In the study we did at our institution, we found that when patients with skin GVHD were randomly assigned [to receive] 1 mg/kg vs 0.5 mg/kg, patients [who received the lower dose] had a longer and higher overall exposure to steroids.12 [In cases of skin GVHD], we tend to undertreat patients, and it may help to give them at least 1 mg/kg, but for GI GVHD, we usually give 1 mg/kg. It may not help to give 2 mg/kg unless the GVHD is severe.

Other than steroids, what therapy options exist for aGVHD, according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)?

Ruxolitinib [Jakafi] is the only approved therapy, and it is supported by category 1 evidence. Some other therapies, such as MMF and sirolimus, are [relatively] benign. Other treatments, like ATG, are more toxic, whereas extracorporeal photopheresis [ECP] doesnt have a lot of data [to support it]. However, we do use a lot of ECP, [primarily for] steroid-dependent GVHD of the skin.13

What data support the use of ruxolitinib for aGVHD?

In the REACH1 study [NCT02953678], patients with steroid refractory grade 2 to 4 aGVHD received ruxolitinib, 5 mg twice a day. Later, patients could increase to 10 mg twice a day.14,15

The overall response rate [ORR] at day 28 was about 55%. The best ORR at any time during treatment was 73%. Time to response was about 7 days [range, 6-49]. The median duration of response was almost a year. Death from causes other than malignancy relapse was found in about 50% of patients. The median OS was about 5 months, whereas median OS for steroid refractory GVHD was 1 month, [but median OS for day 28 responders was not reached].16,17 The overall response rate [ORR] at day 28 was about 55%. The best ORR at any time during treatment was 73%. Time to response was about 7 days [range, 6-49]. The median duration of response was almost a year. Death from causes other than malignancy relapse was found in about 50% of patients. The median OS was about 5 months, whereas median OS for steroid-refractory GVHD was 1 month, [but median OS for day 28 responders was not reached].15

The ORR at day 28 was 62% in the ruxolitinib group vs 39% in the control group [odds ratio (OR), 2.64; 95% CI, 1.65-4.22; P < .001]; the durable ORR at day 56 was 40% in the ruxolitinib group vs 22% in the control group [OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.43-3.94; P < .001].18 These results led to the FDA approval of ruxolitinib for second-line therapy for steroid-refractory aGVHD.19

[Separate analyses were conducted of] GI and skin GVHD. In the ruxolitinib group, aGVHD staging of the lower GI was stage 3 and 4 for most patients at baseline. This was reduced in most patients to stage 0, 1, and 2 by day 28. In contrast, most patients treated with BAT still presented with stage 2 to 4 GVHD by day 28. Likewise for the skin, the GVHD stage was more likely to decrease following treatment with ruxolitinib than with BAT.19

Median failure-free survival was 5 months in the ruxolitinib group vs 1 month in the BAT group [HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35-0.60]; 5 months was a big achievement compared with our previous standard. After 1 year, 40% of the patients in the experimental group were still alive. Regarding AEs associated with ruxolitinib, the most difficult [AE to manage] is thrombocytopenia [in REACH2, affecting 33% of the ruxolitinib group vs 18% of the BAT group]. Infections with ruxolitinib [in the context of GVHD] probably are equivalent to [those observed with] any other immune suppression drug [for cytomegalovirus, 26% in the ruxolitinib group, 21% in the BAT group].19

REFERENCES:

1. Yoshida S, Ohno Y, Nagafuji K, et al. Comparison of calcineurin inhibitors in combination with conventional methotrexate, reduced methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil for prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease after umbilical cord blood transplantation. Ann Hematol. 2019;98(11):2579-2591. doi:10.1007/s00277-019-03801-z

2. Bejanyan N, Rogosheske J, DeFor TE, et al. Sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as calcineurin inhibitor-free graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis for reduced-intensity conditioning umbilical cord blood transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22(11):2025-2030. doi:10.1016/j. bbmt.2016.08.005

3. Wodarczyk M, Ograczyk E, Kowalewicz-Kulbat M, Druszczyska M, Rudnicka W, Fol M. Effect of cyclophosphamide treatment on central and effector memory T cells in mice. Int J Toxicol. 2018;37(5):373-382.

4. Shaw BE. Related haploidentical donors are a better choice than matched unrelated donors: counterpoint. Blood Adv. 2017;1(6):401-406. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2016002188

5. Zachary AA, Leffell MS. HLA mismatching strategies for solid organ transplantation - a balancing act. Front Immunol. 2016;7:575. doi:10.3389/ fimmu.2016.00575

6. Brierley CK, Littlewood TJ, Peniket AJ, et al. Impact of ABO blood group mismatch in alemtuzumab-based reduced-intensity conditioned haematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(7):931-938. doi:10.1038/bmt.2015.51

7. Harris AC, Young R, Devine S, et al. International, multicenter standardization of acute graft-vs-host disease clinical data collection: a report from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22(1):4-10. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.09.001

8. Lee SJ. Classification systems for chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2017;129(1):30-37. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-07-686642

9. Levine JE, Logan BR, Wu J, et al. Acute graft-vs-host disease biomarkers measured during therapy can predict treatment outcomes: a Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network study. Blood. 2012;119(16):3854-3860. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-01-403063

10. MacMillan ML, Robin M, Harris AC, et al. A refined risk score for acute graft-vs-host disease that predicts response to initial therapy, survival, and transplant-related mortality. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(4):761-767. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.01.001

11. Schoemans HM, Lee SJ, Ferrara JL, et al; European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation [EBMT] Transplant Complications Working Party; EBMT-National Institutes of Health [NIH]-Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research [CIBMTR] GVHD Task Force. EBMT-NIH-CIBMTR Task Force position statement on standardized terminology & guidance for graft-vs-host disease assessment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(11):1401-1415. doi:10.1038/s41409-018-0204-7

12. Mielcarek M, Furlong T, Storer BE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of lower dose prednisone for initial treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: a randomized controlled trial. Haematologica. 2015;100(6):842-848. doi:10.3324/haematol.2014.118471

13. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Hematopoietic cell transplantation, version 5.2021. Accessed October 13, 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/hct.pdf

14. Chao N. Finally, a successful randomized trial for GVHD. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1853-1854. doi:10.1056/NEJMe2003331

15. Jagasia M, Zeiser R, Arbushites M, Delaite P, Gadbaw B, von Bubnoff N. Ruxolitinib for the treatment of patients with steroid-refractory GVHD: an introduction to the REACH trials. Immunotherapy. 2018;10(5):391-402. doi:10.2217/ imt-2017-0156

16. Jagasia M, Perales MA, Schroeder MA, et al. Ruxolitinib for the treatment of steroid-refractory acute GVHD (REACH1): a multicenter, open-label phase 2 trial. Blood. 2020;135(20):1739-1749. doi:10.1182/blood.2020004823

17. Jagasia M, Ali H, Schroeder MA, et al. Ruxolitinib in combination with corticosteroids for the treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-vs-host disease: results from the phase 2 REACH1 trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(suppl 3):S52. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.12.130

18. Zeiser R, von Bubnoff N, Butler J, et al; REACH2 Trial Group. Ruxolitinib for glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-vs-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1800-1810. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1917635

19. Przepiorka D, Luo L, Subramaniam S, et al. FDA approval summary: ruxolitinib for treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease. Oncologist. 2020;25(2):e328-e334. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0627

Read the rest here:
Salit Discusses the Use of Staging and Grading for Patients With GVHD to Choose Appropriate Treatment - Targeted Oncology

Orchard Therapeutics Reports Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results and Highlights Recent Business Updates – BioSpace

Updates from OTL-201 Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study in MPS-IIIA and OTL-204 Preclinical Study for GRN-FTD at ESGCT Showcase Potential for HSC Gene Therapy in Multiple Neurodegenerative Disorders

Launch Activities for Libmeldy Across Key European Countries, including Reimbursement Discussions, Progressing in Anticipation of Treating Commercial Patients

Frank Thomas, President and Chief Operating Officer, to Step Down Following Transition in 2022; Search for a Chief Financial Officer Initiated

Cash and Investments of Approximately $254M Provide Runway into First Half 2023

BOSTONandLONDON, Nov. 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --Orchard Therapeutics (Nasdaq: ORTX), a global gene therapy leader, today reported financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2021, as well as recent business updates and upcoming milestones.

This quarter, we are pleased by the progress demonstrated by our investigational neurometabolic HSC gene therapy programs with promising preclinical and clinical updates at ESGCT, said Bobby Gaspar, M.D., Ph.D., chief executive officer of Orchard. With follow-up in OTL-201 for MPS-IIIA patients now ranging between 6 and 12 months, biomarker data remain highly encouraging, showing supraphysiological enzyme activity and corresponding substrate reductions in the CSF and urine. The launch strategy for Libmeldy is also advancing in Europe with momentum building on reimbursement discussions and patient finding activities.

Recent Presentations and Business Updates

Data presentations at ESGCT

Clinical and pre-clinical data from across the companys investigational hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) gene therapy portfolio were featured in two oral and seven poster presentations at the European Society of Gene & Cell Therapy Congress (ESGCT) on October 19-22. Highlights from key presentations are summarized below:

R&D Investor Event Summary

In September, Orchard hosted an R&D investor event highlighting its discovery and research engine in HSC gene therapy, including an update on the OTL-104 program in development for NOD2 Crohns disease (NOD2-CD) and potential new applications in HSC-generated antigen-specific regulatory T-cells (Tregs) and HSC-vectorization of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

The discussion also covered the differentiated profile of Orchards HSC gene therapy approach, which has exhibited favorable safety, long-term durability and broad treatment applicability.

Libmeldy (atidarsagene autotemcel) launch in Europe

Orchard is providing an update on the following key launch activities for Libmeldy in Europe:

Executive organizational update

The company also announced that Frank Thomas will step down from his role as president and chief operating officer, following a transition in 2022. A search for a chief financial officer is underway. Mr. Thomas other responsibilities will be assumed by existing members of the leadership team in commercial and corporate affairs. Orchard recently strengthened the executive team with the appointments of Nicoletta Loggia as chief technical officer and Fulvio Mavilio as chief scientific officer and the promotion of Leslie Meltzer to chief medical officer.

I want to extend my gratitude to Frank Thomas for his immense contributions to Orchard, said Gaspar. During his tenure, Frank oversaw the transition of the organization to a publicly traded company and has managed operations with a focus on cross-company innovation, including his role as a key architect in creating and executing the focused business plan we rolled out in 2020. Along with the entire board of directors and leadership team, I appreciate Franks commitment to facilitate a smooth transition during this time.

Gaspar continued, Our search is focused on a CFO to lead the broad strategic planning efforts necessary to capitalize on the full potential of our hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy platform. We have a strong team in place to aid Orchards success in this next phase of growth and are well capitalized through the anticipated completion of several value-creating milestones.

Upcoming Milestones

In June 2021, Orchard announced several portfolio updates following recent regulatory interactions for the companys investigational programs in metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD), Mucopolysaccharidosis type I Hurler syndrome (MPS-IH) and Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS).

Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results

Revenue from product sales of Strimvelis were $0.7 million for the third quarter of 2021 compared to $2.0 million in the same period in 2020, and cost of product sales were $0.2 million for the third quarter of 2021 compared to $0.7 million in the same period in 2020. Collaboration revenue was $0.5 million for the third quarter of 2021, resulting from the collaboration with Pharming Group N.V. entered into in July 2021. This revenue represents expected reimbursements for preclinical studies and a portion of the $17.5 million upfront consideration received by Orchard under the collaboration, which will be amortized over the expected duration of the agreement.

Research and development (R&D) expenses were $20.8 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to $14.7 million in the same period in 2020. The increase was primarily due to higher manufacturing and process development costs for the companys neurometabolic programs and lower R&D tax credits as compared to the same period in 2020. R&D expenses include the costs of clinical trials and preclinical work on the companys portfolio of investigational gene therapies, as well as costs related to regulatory, manufacturing, license fees and development milestone payments under the companys agreements with third parties, and personnel costs to support these activities.

Selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses were $13.0 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to $13.0 million in the same period in 2020. SG&A expenses are expected to increase in future periods as the company builds out its commercial infrastructure globally to support additional product launches following regulatory approvals.

Net loss was $36.4 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to $20.3 million in the same period in 2020. The increase in net loss as compared to the prior year was primarily due to higher R&D expenses as well as the impact of foreign currency transaction gains and losses. The company had approximately 125.5 million ordinary shares outstanding as of September 30, 2021.

Cash, cash equivalents and investments as of September 30, 2021, were $254.1 million compared to $191.9 million as of December 31, 2020. The increase was primarily driven by net proceeds of $143.6 million from the February 2021 private placement and $17.5 million in upfront payments from the July 2021 collaboration with Pharming Group N.V., offset by cash used for operating activities and capital expenditures. The company expects that its cash, cash equivalents and investments as of September 30, 2021 will support its currently anticipated operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the first half of 2023. This cash runway excludes an additional $67 million that could become available under the companys credit facility and any non-dilutive capital received from potential future partnerships or priority review vouchers granted by the FDA following future U.S. approvals.

About Libmeldy / OTL-200

Libmeldy (atidarsagene autotemcel), also known as OTL-200, has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of MLD in eligible early-onset patients characterized by biallelic mutations in the ARSA gene leading to a reduction of the ARSA enzymatic activity in children with i) late infantile or early juvenile forms, without clinical manifestations of the disease, or ii) the early juvenile form, with early clinical manifestations of the disease, who still have the ability to walk independently and before the onset of cognitive decline. Libmeldy is the first therapy approved for eligible patients with early-onset MLD.

The most common adverse reaction attributed to treatment with Libmeldy was the occurrence of anti-ARSA antibodies. In addition to the risks associated with the gene therapy, treatment with Libmeldy is preceded by other medical interventions, namely bone marrow harvest or peripheral blood mobilization and apheresis, followed by myeloablative conditioning, which carry their own risks. During the clinical studies, the safety profiles of these interventions were consistent with their known safety and tolerability.

For more information about Libmeldy, please see the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) available on the EMA website.

Libmeldy is approved in the European Union, UK, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. OTL-200 is an investigational therapy in the US.

Libmeldy was developed in partnership with the San Raffaele-Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy (SR-Tiget) in Milan, Italy.

About Orchard

At Orchard Therapeutics, our vision is to end the devastation caused by genetic and other severe diseases. We aim to do this by discovering, developing and commercializing new treatments that tap into the curative potential of hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) gene therapy. In this approach, a patients own blood stem cells are genetically modified outside of the body and then reinserted, with the goal of correcting the underlying cause of disease in a single treatment.

In 2018, the company acquired GSKs rare disease gene therapy portfolio, which originated from a pioneering collaboration between GSK and the San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy in Milan, Italy. Today, Orchard has a deep pipeline spanning pre-clinical, clinical and commercial stage HSC gene therapies designed to address serious diseases where the burden is immense for patients, families and society and current treatment options are limited or do not exist.

Orchard has its global headquarters inLondonandU.S. headquarters inBoston. For more information, please visitwww.orchard-tx.com, and follow us onTwitterandLinkedIn.

Availability of Other Information About Orchard

Investors and others should note that Orchard communicates with its investors and the public using the company website (www.orchard-tx.com), the investor relations website (ir.orchard-tx.com), and on social media (TwitterandLinkedIn), including but not limited to investor presentations and investor fact sheets,U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfilings, press releases, public conference calls and webcasts. The information that Orchard posts on these channels and websites could be deemed to be material information. As a result, Orchard encourages investors, the media, and others interested in Orchard to review the information that is posted on these channels, including the investor relations website, on a regular basis. This list of channels may be updated from time to time on Orchards investor relations website and may include additional social media channels. The contents of Orchards website or these channels, or any other website that may be accessed from its website or these channels, shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements about Orchards strategy, future plans and prospects, which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include express or implied statements relating to, among other things, Orchards business strategy and goals, including its plans and expectations for the commercialization of Libmeldy, the therapeutic potential of Libmeldy (OTL-200) and Orchards product candidates, including the product candidates referred to in this release, Orchards expectations regarding its ongoing preclinical and clinical trials, including the timing of enrollment for clinical trials and release of additional preclinical and clinical data, the likelihood that data from clinical trials will be positive and support further clinical development and regulatory approval of Orchard's product candidates, and Orchards financial condition and cash runway into the first half of 2023. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond Orchards control, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in these forward-looking statements. In particular, these risks and uncertainties include, without limitation: the risk that prior results, such as signals of safety, activity or durability of effect, observed from clinical trials of Libmeldy will not continue or be repeated in our ongoing or planned clinical trials of Libmeldy, will be insufficient to support regulatory submissions or marketing approval in the US or to maintain marketing approval in the EU, or that long-term adverse safety findings may be discovered; the risk that any one or more of Orchards product candidates, including the product candidates referred to in this release, will not be approved, successfully developed or commercialized; the risk of cessation or delay of any of Orchards ongoing or planned clinical trials; the risk that Orchard may not successfully recruit or enroll a sufficient number of patients for its clinical trials; the risk that prior results, such as signals of safety, activity or durability of effect, observed from preclinical studies or clinical trials will not be replicated or will not continue in ongoing or future studies or trials involving Orchards product candidates; the delay of any of Orchards regulatory submissions; the failure to obtain marketing approval from the applicable regulatory authorities for any of Orchards product candidates or the receipt of restricted marketing approvals; the inability or risk of delays in Orchards ability to commercialize its product candidates, if approved, or Libmeldy, including the risk that Orchard may not secure adequate pricing or reimbursement to support continued development or commercialization of Libmeldy; the risk that the market opportunity for Libmeldy, or any of Orchards product candidates, may be lower than estimated; and the severity of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Orchards business, including on clinical development, its supply chain and commercial programs. Given these uncertainties, the reader is advised not to place any undue reliance on such forward-looking statements.

Other risks and uncertainties faced by Orchard include those identified under the heading "Risk Factors" in Orchards quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2021, as filed with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC), as well as subsequent filings and reports filed with theSEC. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release reflect Orchards views as of the date hereof, and Orchard does not assume and specifically disclaims any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

Contacts

Investors Renee Leck Director, Investor Relations +1 862-242-0764 Renee.Leck@orchard-tx.com

Media Benjamin Navon Director, Corporate Communications +1 857-248-9454 Benjamin.Navon@orchard-tx.com

Read the rest here:
Orchard Therapeutics Reports Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results and Highlights Recent Business Updates - BioSpace

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market Size, Analytical Overview, Growth Factors, Demand, Trends and Forecast to 2026 – Northwest Diamond Notes

Industry Growth Forecast Report on Stem Cell Therapy Market size | Segment by Applications (Musculoskeletal Disorder , Wounds & Injuries , Cornea , Cardiovascular Diseases and Others), by Type (Autologous and Allogeneic), Regional Outlook, Market Demand, Latest Trends, Stem Cell Therapy Industry Growth & Revenue by Manufacturers, Company Profiles, Growth Forecasts 2025. Analyzes current market size and upcoming 5 years growth of this industry.

Stem Cell Therapy Market 2020 Research report contains a qualified and in-depth examination of Stem Cell Therapy Market. At first, the report provides the current Stem Cell Therapy business situation along with a valid assessment of the Stem Cell Therapy business. Stem Cell Therapy report is partitioned based on driving Stem Cell Therapy players, application and regions. The progressing Stem Cell Therapy economic situations are additionally discovered in the report.

The report also includes several valuable information on the Stem Cell Therapy market, derived from various industrial sources. The report studies the competitive environment of the Stem Cell Therapy market is based on company profiles and their efforts on increasing product value and production.

Request Sample Copy of this Report @ https://www.nwdiamondnotes.com/request-sample/64052

Top Key Manufacturers in Worldwide Stem Cell Therapy Market Are:

Osiris Therapeutics , Molmed , JCR Pharmaceutical , NuVasive , Anterogen , Chiesi Pharmaceuticals , Medi-post , Pharmicell and Takeda (TiGenix

Porters five forces model in the report provides insights into the competitive rivalry, supplier and buyer positions in the market and opportunities for the new entrants in the global automotive industry over the period of 2020 to 2025. Further, competitive landscape given in the report brings an insight into the investment areas that existing or new market players can consider.

By Structural Form, the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market is segmented into:

Global Stem Cell Therapy market by application:

Musculoskeletal Disorder , Wounds & Injuries , Cornea , Cardiovascular Diseases and Others

The research report provides insight study on:

Why should I buy these reports?

Request Customization on This Report @ https://www.nwdiamondnotes.com/request-for-customization/64052

Original post:
Global Stem Cell Therapy Market Size, Analytical Overview, Growth Factors, Demand, Trends and Forecast to 2026 - Northwest Diamond Notes

CRISPR Therapeutics Provides Business Update and Reports Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results – Yahoo Finance

-Achieved target enrollment in CTX001 clinical trials for beta thalassemia (TDT) and sickle cell disease (SCD); regulatory submissions planned for late 2022-

-Reported positive results from the ongoing Phase 1 CARBON clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of CTX110 for CD19+ B-cell malignancies; enrollment continues, with potential registrational trial incorporating consolidation dosing expected to initiate in Q1 2022-

-Implementing consolidation dosing protocols for CTX120 and CTX130 clinical trials; enrollment continues, with top-line data expected to report in 1H 2022-

-Regenerative medicine and in vivo programs continue to progress and remain on track-

ZUG, Switzerland and CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 03, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CRISPR Therapeutics (Nasdaq: CRSP), a biopharmaceutical company focused on creating transformative gene-based medicines for serious diseases, today reported financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2021.

The third quarter marked significant progress across our portfolio, said Samarth Kulkarni, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of CRISPR Therapeutics. With our partner Vertex, we achieved target enrollment for the CTX001 clinical trials in patients with beta thalassemia and sickle cell disease, which can support regulatory submissions in late 2022. Additionally, we demonstrated proof of concept for our allogeneic CAR-T platform with positive data from our CARBON trial of CTX110, which showed that immediately available off-the-shelf cell therapies can offer efficacy similar to autologous CAR-T with a differentiated safety profile for patients with large B-cell lymphomas. Based on these encouraging results, we plan to expand the CARBON trial into a potentially registrational trial in the first quarter of 2022. Furthermore, we hope to bring these transformative allogeneic CAR-T therapies to patients in outpatient and community oncology settings, enabling broad access."

Story continues

Recent Highlights and Outlook

Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results

Cash Position: Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were $2,477.4 million as of September 30, 2021, compared to $2,589.4 million as of June 30, 2021. The decrease in cash of $112.0 million was primarily driven by cash used in operating activities to support ongoing research and development of the Companys clinical and pre-clinical programs.

Revenue: Total collaboration revenue was $0.3 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to $0.1 million for the third quarter of 2020. Collaboration revenue primarily consisted of revenue recognized in connection with our collaboration agreements with Vertex.

R&D Expenses: R&D expenses were $105.3 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to $71.0 million for the third quarter of 2020. The increase in expense was driven by development activities supporting the advancement of the hemoglobinopathies program and wholly-owned immuno-oncology programs, as well as increased headcount and supporting facilities related expenses.

G&A Expenses: General and administrative expenses were $24.4 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to $21.5 million for the third quarter of 2020. The increase in general and administrative expenses for the year was primarily driven by headcount-related expense.

Net Loss: Net loss was $127.2 million for the third quarter of 2021, compared to a net loss of $92.4 million for the third quarter of 2020.

About CTX001CTX001 is an investigational, autologous, ex vivo CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy that is being evaluated for patients suffering from TDT or severe SCD, in which a patients hematopoietic stem cells are edited to produce high levels of fetal hemoglobin (HbF; hemoglobin F) in red blood cells. HbF is a form of the oxygen-carrying hemoglobin that is naturally present at birth, which then switches to the adult form of hemoglobin. The elevation of HbF by CTX001 has the potential to alleviate or eliminate transfusion requirements for patients with TDT and reduce or eliminate painful and debilitating sickle crises for patients with SCD. Earlier results from these ongoing trials were published as a Brief Report in The New England Journal of Medicine in January of 2021.

Based on progress in this program to date, CTX001 has been granted Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT), Fast Track, Orphan Drug, and Rare Pediatric Disease designations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for both TDT and SCD. CTX001 has also been granted Orphan Drug Designation from the European Commission, as well as Priority Medicines (PRIME) designation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), for both TDT and SCD.

Among gene-editing approaches being investigated/evaluated for TDT and SCD, CTX001 is the furthest advanced in clinical development.

About the CRISPR-Vertex Collaboration Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics entered into a strategic research collaboration in 2015 focused on the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to discover and develop potential new treatments aimed at the underlying genetic causes of human disease. CTX001 represents the first potential treatment to emerge from the joint research program. Under a recently amended collaboration agreement, Vertex will lead global development, manufacturing and commercialization of CTX001 and split program costs and profits worldwide 60/40 with CRISPR Therapeutics.

About CLIMB-111 The ongoing Phase 1/2 open-label trial, CLIMB-Thal-111, is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a single dose of CTX001 in patients ages 12 to 35 with TDT. The trial will enroll up to 45 patients and follow patients for approximately two years after infusion. Each patient will be asked to participate in a long-term follow-up trial.

About CLIMB-121 The ongoing Phase 1/2 open-label trial, CLIMB-SCD-121, is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a single dose of CTX001 in patients ages 12 to 35 with severe SCD. The trial will enroll up to 45 patients and follow patients for approximately two years after infusion. Each patient will be asked to participate in a long-term follow-up trial.

About CLIMB-131 This is a long-term, open-label trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTX001 in patients who received CTX001 in CLIMB-111 or CLIMB-121. The trial is designed to follow participants for up to 15 years after CTX001 infusion.

About CTX110 CTX110, a wholly owned program of CRISPR Therapeutics, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting cluster of differentiation 19, or CD19. CTX110 is being investigated in the ongoing CARBON trial.

About CARBON The ongoing Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open label clinical trial, CARBON, is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX110 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies.

About CTX120 CTX120, a wholly-owned program of CRISPR Therapeutics, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting B-cell maturation antigen, or BCMA. CTX120 is being investigated in an ongoing Phase 1 single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX120 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. CTX120 has been granted Orphan Drug designation from the FDA.

About CTX130 CTX130, a wholly-owned program of CRISPR Therapeutics, is a healthy donor-derived gene-edited allogeneic CAR-T investigational therapy targeting cluster of differentiation 70, or CD70, an antigen expressed on various solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. CTX130 is being developed for the treatment of both solid tumors, such as renal cell carcinoma, and T-cell and B-cell hematologic malignancies. CTX130 is being investigated in two ongoing independent Phase 1, single-arm, multi-center, open-label clinical trials that are designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several dose levels of CTX130 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory renal cell carcinoma and various subtypes of lymphoma, respectively.

About CRISPR Therapeutics CRISPR Therapeutics is a leading gene editing company focused on developing transformative gene-based medicines for serious diseases using its proprietary CRISPR/Cas9 platform. CRISPR/Cas9 is a revolutionary gene editing technology that allows for precise, directed changes to genomic DNA. CRISPR Therapeutics has established a portfolio of therapeutic programs across a broad range of disease areas including hemoglobinopathies, oncology, regenerative medicine and rare diseases. To accelerate and expand its efforts, CRISPR Therapeutics has established strategic collaborations with leading companies including Bayer, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and ViaCyte, Inc. CRISPR Therapeutics AG is headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, with its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, CRISPR Therapeutics, Inc., and R&D operations based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and business offices in San Francisco, California and London, United Kingdom. For more information, please visit http://www.crisprtx.com.

CRISPR THERAPEUTICS word mark and design logo, CTX001, CTX110, CTX120, and CTX130 are trademarks and registered trademarks of CRISPR Therapeutics AG. All other trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

CRISPR Therapeutics Forward-Looking Statement This press release may contain a number of forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended, including statements made by Dr. Kulkarni in this press release, as well as statements regarding CRISPR Therapeutics expectations about any or all of the following: (i) the safety, efficacy, data and clinical progress of CRISPR Therapeutics various clinical programs, including CTX001, CTX110, CTX120 and CTX130; (ii) the status of clinical trials and preclinical studies (including, without limitation, the expected timing of data releases and development, as well as initiation and completion of clinical trials) and development timelines for CRISPR Therapeutics product candidates; (iii) expectations regarding the data that has been presented from our various clinical trials (including our CARBON trial) as well as data that will be generated by ongoing and planned clinical trials, and the ability to use that data for the design and initiation of further clinical trials or to support regulatory filings; (iv) the actual or potential benefits of regulatory designations; (v) the potential benefits of CRISPR Therapeutics collaborations and strategic partnerships; (vi) the intellectual property coverage and positions of CRISPR Therapeutics, its licensors and third parties as well as the status and potential outcome of proceedings involving any such intellectual property; (vii) the sufficiency of CRISPR Therapeutics cash resources; and (viii) the therapeutic value, development, and commercial potential of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technologies and therapies including as compared to other therapies. Without limiting the foregoing, the words believes, anticipates, plans, expects and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. You are cautioned that forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain. Although CRISPR Therapeutics believes that such statements are based on reasonable assumptions within the bounds of its knowledge of its business and operations, forward-looking statements are neither promises nor guarantees and they are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk. Actual performance and results may differ materially from those projected or suggested in the forward-looking statements due to various risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the potential for initial and preliminary data from any clinical trial and initial data from a limited number of patients not to be indicative of final trial results; the potential that clinical trial results may not be favorable; that one or more of CRISPR Therapeutics internal or external product candidate programs will not proceed as planned for technical, scientific or commercial reasons; that future competitive or other market factors may adversely affect the commercial potential for CRISPR Therapeutics product candidates; uncertainties inherent in the initiation and completion of preclinical studies for CRISPR Therapeutics product candidates (including, without limitation, availability and timing of results and whether such results will be predictive of future results of the future trials); uncertainties about regulatory approvals to conduct trials or to market products; the potential impacts due to the coronavirus pandemic such as (x) delays in regulatory review, manufacturing and supply chain interruptions, adverse effects on healthcare systems and disruption of the global economy; (y) the timing and progress of clinical trials, preclinical studies and other research and development activities; and (z) the overall impact of the coronavirus pandemic on its business, financial condition and results of operations; uncertainties regarding the intellectual property protection for CRISPR Therapeutics technology and intellectual property belonging to third parties, and the outcome of proceedings (such as an interference, an opposition or a similar proceeding) involving all or any portion of such intellectual property; and those risks and uncertainties described under the heading "Risk Factors" in CRISPR Therapeutics most recent annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly report on Form 10-Q, and in any other subsequent filings made by CRISPR Therapeutics with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available on the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov. Existing and prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. CRISPR Therapeutics disclaims any obligation or undertaking to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this press release, other than to the extent required by law.

Investor Contact: Susan Kim +1-617-307-7503 susan.kim@crisprtx.com

Media Contact: Rachel Eides +1-617-315-4493 rachel.eides@crisprtx.com

CRISPR Therapeutics AG Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited, In thousands except share data and per share data)

Three Months Ended September 30,

Nine Months Ended September 30,

2021

2020

2021

2020

Revenue:

Collaboration revenue

$

329

$

148

$

900,733

$

349

Grant revenue

495

1,331

Total revenue

$

824

$

148

$

902,064

$

349

Operating expenses:

Research and development

105,321

71,008

304,163

184,581

General and administrative

24,352

21,539

78,675

62,442

Total operating expenses

129,673

92,547

382,838

247,023

(Loss) income from operations

(128,849

)

(92,399

)

519,226

(246,674

)

Total other income, net

1,101

160

3,806

5,804

Net (loss) income before income taxes

(127,748

)

(92,239

)

523,032

(240,870

)

Benefit (provision) for income taxes

595

Read more:
CRISPR Therapeutics Provides Business Update and Reports Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results - Yahoo Finance

BioLineRx Announces an Oral Presentation and Three Poster Presentations at the 63rd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting &…

TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov. 4, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --BioLineRx Ltd. (NASDAQ: BLRX) (TASE: BLRX), a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical Company focused on oncology, today announced an oral presentation and three poster presentations at the 63rd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting & Exposition, which is being held December 11-14, 2021 in Atlanta, GA, and virtually.

The oral presentation will elaborate on the successful results of the Company's GENESIS Phase 3 pivotal trial. The study showed highly significant and clinically meaningful results supporting the use of Motixafortide on top of G-CSF for mobilization of stem cells for subsequent collection and transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. In addition, the poster presentations will show that extended inhibition of the CXCR4 receptor by Motixafortide results in the mobilization of high numbers of stem cells, including specific sub-populations, which were correlated with reduced time to engraftment when infused in high numbers.

The Company is also presenting findings from in-vivo and in-vitro pre-clinical studies demonstrating that Motixafortide acts as an immunomodulator by affecting the biology of regulatory T cells (Tregs), supporting biomarker findings from the Company's COMBAT Phase 2 study in pancreatic cancer patients.

"We are very pleased with the breadth of our oral and poster presentations at this year's ASH meeting, which reflect the versatility of Motixafortide as the potential backbone of promising new treatments for both hematological and solid tumor cancers," stated Philip Serlin, Chief Executive Officer of BioLineRx. "Of particular note is the oral presentation on the outstanding results from our GENESIS Phase 3 pivotal study in stem cell mobilization demonstrating that Motixafortide effectively mobilizes a high number of cells enabling ~90% of patients to undergo transplantation following a single administration of Motixafortide and a single apheresis session. In addition, the high number of cells mobilized by Motixafortide enables infusion of an optimal number of cells, which could result in faster time to engraftment, and also allows for cryopreservation for future transplantation(s). These results, together with our recently completed successful pharmacoeconomic study, strongly support our view that Motixafortide on top of G-CSF can become the new standard of care in SCM, if approved, to the benefit of patients and payers alike. We look forward to submitting an NDA in the first half of next year, as previously communicated."

Further details of the presentations are provided below.

Oral Presentation

Title: Motixafortide (BL-8040) and G-CSF Versus Placebo and G-CSF to Mobilize Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: The GENESIS Trial

Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021

Time: 12:00 PM

Location: Georgia World Congress Center, Hall A1

This oral presentation describes the GENESIS Phase 3 pivotal trial design, endpoints and results. The GENESIS study was a double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter trial, in which 122 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either Motixafortide + G-CSF or placebo + G-CSF for stem cell mobilization prior to stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients. Total CD34+ cells/kg were analyzed on site to determine if patients mobilized to the goal and all samples were subsequently sent for assessment by a central laboratory. The number of CD34+ cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice.

The study concluded that a single administration of Motixafortide on top of G-CSF significantly increased the proportion of patients mobilizing 6x106 CD34+ cells/kg for stem cell transplantation (92.5%) vs G-CSF alone (26.2%) in up to two apheresis days (p<0.0001), while enabling 88.8% to collect 6x106 CD34+ cells/kg in just one apheresis day (vs 9.5% with G-CSF alone; p<0.0001). In addition, the median number of hematopoietic stem cells mobilized in one apheresis day with Motixafortide + G-CSF was 10.8x106 CD34+cells/kg vs 2.1x106 CD34+ cells/kg with G-CSF alone.

Poster Presentations

Title:Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Higher Doses of CD34+ Cells and Specific CD34+ Subsets Mobilized with Motixafortide and/or G-CSF is Associated with Rapid Engraftment A Post-hoc Analysis of the GENESIS Trial

Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021

Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

The CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) dose infused during stem cell transplantation remains one of the most reliable clinical parameters to predict quality of engraftment. A minimum stem cell dose of 2-2.5x106 CD34+ cells/kg is considered necessary for reliable engraftment, while optimal doses of 5-6x106 CD34+ cells/kg are associated with faster engraftment, as well as fewer transfusions, infections, and antibiotic days.

An analysis was performed using pooled data from all patients in the GENESIS trial to evaluate time to engraftment based on the total number of CD34+ cells/kg infused, as well as specific numbers of CD34+ cell sub-populations infused.

The addition of Motixafortide to G-CSF enabled significantly more CD34+ cells to be collected in one apheresis (median 10.8x106 CD34+ cells/kg) compared to G-CSF alone (2.1x106 CD34+ cells/kg), as well as 3.5-5.6 fold higher numbers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), multipotent progenitors (MPPs), common myeloid progenitors (CMPs) and granulocyte and macrophage progenitors (GMPs) (all p-values <0.0004). A dose response was observed with a significant correlation between faster time to engraftment and infusion of higher number of total CD34+ HSPC doses (6x106 CD34+ cells/kg) and combined HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets. The high number of CD34+ cells/kg mobilized with Motixafortide on top of G-CSF enables the potential infusion of 6x106 CD34+ cells/kg, as well as cryopreservation of cells for later use.

Title: Immunophenotypic and Single-Cell Transcriptional Profiling of CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells Mobilized with Motixafortide (BL-8040) and G-CSF Versus Plerixafor and GCSF Versus Placebo and G-CSF: A Correlative Study of the GENESIS Trial

Date: Monday, December 13, 2021

Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

CD34 expression remains the most common immunophenotypic cell surface marker defining human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). The addition of CXCR4 inhibitors to G-CSF has increased mobilization of CD34+ HSPCs for stem cell transplantation; yet the effect of CXCR4 inhibition, with or without G-CSF, on mobilization of specific immunophenotypic and transcriptional CD34+ HSPC subsets is not well-characterized.

Motixafortide is a novel cyclic peptide CXCR4 inhibitor with a low receptor-off rate and extended in vivo action when compared to plerixafor. GENESIS Phase 3 trial patients were prospectively randomized (2:1) to receive either Motixafortide + G-CSF or placebo + G-CSF for HSPC mobilization. Demographically similar multiple myeloma patients undergoing mobilization with plerixafor + G-CSF prior to stem cell transplant were prospectively enrolled in a separate tissue banking protocol.

Extended CXCR4 inhibition with Motixafortide + G-CSF mobilized significantly higher numbers of combined CD34+ HSCs, MPPs and CMPs compared to plerixafor + G-CSF or G-CSF alone (p<0.05). Additionally, Motixafortide + G-CSF mobilized a 10.5 fold higher number of immunophenotypically primitive CD34+ HSCs capable of broad multilineage hematopoietic reconstitution compared to G-CSF alone (p<0.0001) and similar numbers compared to plerixafor + G-CSF. Furthermore, lack of CXCR4 inhibition resulted in mobilization of more-differentiated HCSs, whereas extended CXCR4 inhibition with Motixafortide + G-CSF (but not plerixafor + G-CSF) mobilized a unique MPP-III subset expressing genes specifically related to leukocyte differentiation.

Title: The High Affinity CXCR4 Inhibitor, BL-8040, Impairs the Infiltration, Migration, Viability and Differentiation of Regulatory T Cells

Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021

Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

This poster describes results of pre-clinical in-vivo and in-vitro studies demonstrating that Motixafortide potentially acts as an immunomodulator by affecting the biology of regulatory T cells. Motixafortide reduced the amount of infiltrating Tregs into the tumors, impaired the migration of Tregs toward CXCL12 and induced Tregs cell death. Furthermore, Motixafortide was found to inhibit the differentiation of nave CD4 T cells toward Tregs.

About BioLineRx

BioLineRx Ltd. (NASDAQ/TASE: BLRX) is a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on oncology. The Company's business model is to in-license novel compounds, develop them through clinical stages, and then partner with pharmaceutical companies for further clinical development and/or commercialization.

The Company's lead program, Motixafortide (BL-8040), is a cancer therapy platform that was successfully evaluated in a Phase 3 study in stem cell mobilization for autologous bone-marrow transplantation, has reported positive results from a pre-planned pharmacoeconomic study, and is currently in preparations for an NDA submission. Motixafortide was also successfully evaluated in a Phase 2a study for the treatment of pancreatic cancer in combination with KEYTRUDA and chemotherapy under a clinical trial collaboration agreement with MSD (BioLineRx owns all rights to Motixafortide), and is currently being studied in combination with LIBTAYO and chemotherapy as a first-line PDAC therapy.

BioLineRx is also developing a second oncology program, AGI-134, an immunotherapy treatment for multiple solid tumors that is currently being investigated in a Phase 1/2a study.

For additional information on BioLineRx, please visit the Company's website at http://www.biolinerx.com, where you can review the Company's SEC filings, press releases, announcements and events.

Various statements in this release concerning BioLineRx's future expectations constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include words such as "may," "expects," "anticipates," "believes," and "intends," and describe opinions about future events. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of BioLineRx to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause BioLineRx's actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: the initiation, timing, progress and results of BioLineRx's preclinical studies, clinical trials and other therapeutic candidate development efforts; BioLineRx's ability to advance its therapeutic candidates into clinical trials or to successfully complete its preclinical studies or clinical trials; BioLineRx's receipt of regulatory approvals for its therapeutic candidates, and the timing of other regulatory filings and approvals; the clinical development, commercialization and market acceptance of BioLineRx's therapeutic candidates; BioLineRx's ability to establish and maintain corporate collaborations; BioLineRx's ability to integrate new therapeutic candidates and new personnel; the interpretation of the properties and characteristics of BioLineRx's therapeutic candidates and of the results obtained with its therapeutic candidates in preclinical studies or clinical trials; the implementation of BioLineRx's business model and strategic plans for its business and therapeutic candidates; the scope of protection BioLineRx is able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering its therapeutic candidates and its ability to operate its business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; estimates of BioLineRx's expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and its needs for additional financing; risks related to changes in healthcare laws, rules and regulations in the United States or elsewhere; competitive companies, technologies and BioLineRx's industry; risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic; and statements as to the impact of the political and security situation in Israel on BioLineRx's business. These and other factors are more fully discussed in the "Risk Factors" section of BioLineRx's most recent annual report on Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021. In addition, any forward-looking statements represent BioLineRx's views only as of the date of this release and should not be relied upon as representing its views as of any subsequent date. BioLineRx does not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements unless required by law.

Contact:

Tim McCarthy LifeSci Advisors, LLC +1-212-915-2564 [emailprotected]

or

Moran Meir LifeSci Advisors, LLC +972-54-476-4945 [emailprotected]

SOURCE BioLineRx Ltd.

See the original post here:
BioLineRx Announces an Oral Presentation and Three Poster Presentations at the 63rd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting &...

Century Therapeutics to Present at the 63rd American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Host Virtual Research & Development Update – Yahoo…

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Century Therapeutics (NASDAQ: IPSC), an innovative biotechnology company developing induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived cell therapies in immuno-oncology, today announced that preclinical data from the Companys CNTY-101 program and CAR-iT platform will be presented in two posters at the 63rd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting & Exposition, on December 11-14, 2021 in Atlanta, Georgia and virtually.

The Company also announced today that it will host a virtual research & development update on Thursday, December 16, 2021 from 8:00 AM - 9:30 AM EST to share progress on its iPSC technology platform and pipeline. Eduardo Sotomayor, M.D., director of the Cancer Institute at Tampa General Hospital, will discuss the current treatment paradigm for B-cell malignancies. For additional information on how to access the event, please visit the Events & Presentations section of Centurys website.

Details of the two poster presentations are as follows:

Abstract Number: 1729 Title: Development of Multi-Engineered iPSC-Derived CAR-NK Cells for the Treatment of B-Cell Malignancies Session Name: 703. Cellular Immunotherapies: Basic and Translational: Poster I Session Date: Saturday, December 11, 2021 Session Time: 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM Presenter: Luis Borges, Chief Scientific Officer, Century Therapeutics

Abstract Number: 2771 Title: Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Gamma Delta CAR-T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy Session Name: 703 Cell Therapies: Basic and Translational Session Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 Session Time: 6:00 PM 8:00 PM Presenter: Mark Wallet, Vice President, Immuno-Oncology, Century Therapeutics

Full abstracts are currently available through the ASH conference website.

About Century Therapeutics

Century Therapeutics (NASDAQ: IPSC) is harnessing the power of adult stem cells to develop curative cell therapy products for cancer that we believe will allow us to overcome the limitations of first-generation cell therapies. Our genetically engineered, iPSC-derived iNK and iT cell product candidates are designed to specifically target hematologic and solid tumor cancers. We are leveraging our expertise in cellular reprogramming, genetic engineering, and manufacturing to develop therapies with the potential to overcome many of the challenges inherent to cell therapy and provide a significant advantage over existing cell therapy technologies. We believe our commitment to developing off-the-shelf cell therapies will expand patient access and provide an unparalleled opportunity to advance the course of cancer care. For more information on Century Therapeutics please visit http://www.centurytx.com.

Story continues

Century Therapeutics Forward-Looking Statement

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of, and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of, The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release, other than statements of historical facts or statements that relate to present facts or current conditions, including but not limited to, statements regarding our clinical development plans, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as may, might, will, should, expect, plan, aim, seek, anticipate, could, intend, target, project, contemplate, believe, estimate, predict, forecast, potential or continue or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this presentation are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, including, among others: our ability to successfully advance our current and future product candidates through development activities, preclinical studies, and clinical trials; our reliance on the maintenance of certain key collaborative relationships for the manufacturing and development of our product candidates; the timing, scope and likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals, including final regulatory approval of our product candidates; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations; the performance of third parties in connection with the development of our product candidates, including third parties conducting our future clinical trials as well as third-party suppliers and manufacturers; our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and develop sales and marketing capabilities, if our product candidates are approved; and our ability to maintain and successfully enforce adequate intellectual property protection. These and other risks and uncertainties are described more fully in the Risk Factors section of our most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at http://www.sec.gov. You should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur, and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, we operate in a dynamic industry and economy. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties that we may face. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

For More Information: Company: Elizabeth Krutoholow investor.relations@centurytx.comInvestors: Melissa Forst/Maghan Meyers century@argotpartners.comMedia: Joshua R. Mansbach century@argotpartners.com

Originally posted here:
Century Therapeutics to Present at the 63rd American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Host Virtual Research & Development Update - Yahoo...

BioRestorative Therapies Prices $23 Million Public Offering – GlobeNewswire

Common stock will begin trading on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol BRTX November 5, 2021

MELVILLE, N.Y., Nov. 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BioRestorative Therapies, Inc. (the Company") (NASDAQ:BRTX), a life sciences company focused on adult stem cell-based therapies, today announced the pricing of the underwritten public offering of 2,300,000 units, each consisting of one share of its common stock and a warrant to purchase one share of its common stock at a per unit price of $10.00. The warrants have a per share exercise price of $10.00, are exercisable immediately, and expire five years from the date of issuance. The aggregate gross proceeds from the offering are expected to total $23 million, before deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by the Company and without giving effect to proceeds from any subsequent exercise of warrants.

As a result of the offering, the Companys common stock will become listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and will trade under the ticker symbol BRTX beginning November 5, 2021. The offering is expected to close on or about November 9, 2021, subject to customary closing conditions. In addition, the Company has granted to the underwriters of the offering a 45-day option to purchase up to 345,000 additional shares and/or additional warrants to purchase up to 345,000 shares of common stock to cover over-allotments, if any.

Roth Capital Partners is acting as sole manager for the offering.

BioRestorative Therapies advancement to The Nasdaq Capital Market continues a year of growth and accomplishment for our company during which time we emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization, transformed our business, strengthened our financial position and enhanced our IP position said Lance Alstodt, President and Chief Executive Officer of BioRestorative.

The securities described above are being sold by BioRestorative Therapies pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-258611) that was previously filed by BioRestorative Therapies with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) and declared effective on November 4, 2021 and an additional registration statement filed pursuant to Rule 462(b), which became effective upon filing. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy these securities, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

The offering is being made only by means of the written prospectus forming part of the effective registration statement. Electronic copies of the accompanying prospectus may be obtained, when available, by contacting Roth Capital Partners, 888 San Clemente, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Attn: Prospectus Department, telephone: 800-678-9147, or email at rothecm@roth.com, or by visiting the SECs website at http://www.sec.gov.

About BioRestorative Therapies, Inc. BioRestorative Therapies, Inc. (www.biorestorative.com) develops therapeutic products using cell and tissue protocols, primarily involving adult stem cells. Our two core programs, as described below, relate to the treatment of disc/spine disease and metabolic disorders:

Disc/Spine Program (brtxDISC): Our lead cell therapy candidate, BRTX-100, is a product formulated from autologous (or a persons own) cultured mesenchymal stem cells collected from the patients bone marrow. We intend that the product will be used for the non-surgical treatment of painful lumbosacral disc disorders or as a complementary therapeutic to a surgical procedure. The BRTX-100 production process utilizes proprietary technology and involves collecting a patients bone marrow, isolating and culturing stem cells from the bone marrow and cryopreserving the cells. In an outpatient procedure, BRTX-100 is to be injected by a physician into the patients damaged disc. The treatment is intended for patients whose pain has not been alleviated by non-invasive procedures and who potentially face the prospect of surgery. We have received authorization from the Food and Drug Administration to commence a Phase 2 clinical trial using BRTX-100 to treat chronic lower back pain arising from degenerative disc disease.

Metabolic Program (ThermoStem): We are developing a cell-based therapy candidate to target obesity and metabolic disorders using brown adipose (fat) derived stem cells to generate brown adipose tissue (BAT). BAT is intended to mimic naturally occurring brown adipose depots that regulate metabolic homeostasis in humans. Initial preclinical research indicates that increased amounts of brown fat in animals may be responsible for additional caloric burning as well as reduced glucose and lipid levels. Researchers have found that people with higher levels of brown fat may have a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors and other risks, including, without limitation, those set forth in the Company's latest Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You should consider these factors in evaluating the forward-looking statements included herein, and not place undue reliance on such statements. The forward-looking statements in this release are made as of the date hereof and the Company undertakes no obligation to update such statements.

CONTACT:

Email: ir@biorestorative.com

See more here:
BioRestorative Therapies Prices $23 Million Public Offering - GlobeNewswire

Lab-Growing Everything Might Be The Only Way To Attain A Sustainable World – Intelligent Living

Our Need For Things Lab-Grown

What was once something of the movies objects forming themselves in thin air is real now. Various things can be grown in a laboratory setting, some even on a large scale for commercial distribution. This technology could be a big part of the solution to establish sustainable societies. At the moment, we harvest organs from the deceased, rear animals for meat and dairy, destroy forests by cutting down trees for wood, mine the earth for diamonds, and the list goes on. All these things can already be lab-made or are on the brink of reality.

Once these staples of society can be mass-made affordably, they could supply the world while minimally impacting the natural environment. Acres of land wouldnt need to be used for food and building materials, meaning deforestation can cease, for starters. Looking at lab-grown meats alone: they require 99% less land than traditionally farmed meats, generate up to 96% fewer emissions, use up to 96% less water, and no animals need to be slaughtered in the process.

Naturally, there will be short-term disruptions, particularly job-related. For example, eco-friendly agriculture will mean fewer farms and agriculture jobs. But new employment opportunities will emerge in the scientific and technical fields related to lab-grown foods.

Whats the difference between 3D printing (additive manufacturing) and lab-grown, you may be wondering? 3D printing uses material as ink anything from plastic to cellular material whereas lab-grown materials start off as a bit of material that multiplies on its own, replicating natural processes. Thus, lab-grown material has the same cellular structure as the naturally occurring material and mimics the natural formation process but within a much shorter period.

In the future, we are bound to see various lab-grown breakthroughs coming from the medical field. Eventually, there should be alternative sources for organs and blood cultured from stem cells. In addition, there will likely be lab-produced medicines (lotions, ointments, balms, nutraceuticals, energy drinks, etc.), breast milk, and more.

Scientists are well on the way to functioning full-sized organs, with several innovations in fully functional mini-organs, or organoids, making headlines in recent years. For now, these organoids are tools for testing new drugs and studying human diseases. But soon enough, these research teams will take the technology to the next level and develop organs that can be used for implantation when someone needs an organ replacement. So far, the brain, liver, lungs, thymus, heart, blood, and blood vessels are among the growing list of lab-grown medical accomplishments.

A team of scientists from the University of Pittsburgh managed to grow miniature human livers using induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs) made from human skin cells. Meaning, in the far future, someone needing a liver transplant could have the organ grown from their own skin cells! This method may even reduce the chances of a patients immune system rejecting the new tissue because it would recognize the cells as self. Whats more, their lab-grown livers matured in under a month compared to two years in a natural environment.

The scientists tested their fully-functional mini-livers by transplanting them into rats. In this proof-of-concept study, the lab-made organs survived for four days inside their animal hosts, secreting bile acids and urea like a healthy liver would.

A research team led by the University Hospital Dsseldorf induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to grow into pea-sized brain organoids with rudimentary eye structures that sense light and send signals to the rest of the brain. They used skin cells taken from adult donors, reverted them back into stem cells, and placed them into a culture mimicking a developing brains environment, which encourages them to form specific brain cells. Their mini-brains grew optic cups, vision structures of the eye found where the optic nerve and retina meet. The cups even grew symmetrically, as eyes would, and were functional!

Jay Gopalakrishnan, a senior author of the study, said:

Our work highlights the remarkable ability of brain organoids to generate primitive sensory structures that are light sensitive and harbor cell types similar to those found in the body. These organoids can help to study brain-eye interactions during embryo development, model congenital retinal disorders, and generate patient-specific retinal cell types for personalized drug testing and transplantation therapies.

This achievement is the first time an in vitro system shows nerve fibers of retinal ganglion cells reaching out to connect with their brain target an essential aspect of the mammalian brain.

Scientists from Michigan State University developed functional miniature human heart models grown from stem cells complete with all primary heart cell types and with functioning chambers and vascular tissue. The models could help researchers better understand how hearts develop and provide an ethical platform for treating disease and testing drugs or new treatments.

The teams lab-grown mini hearts follow the fetal development of a human heart, offering a new view into that process. The organoids start beating by day six, and they grow into spheres approximately 1 mm (0.4 in) wide, with all significant cardiac cell types and multiple internal chambers by day 15.

Aside from research purposes, full-sized lab-grown hearts could solve the shortage problem of hearts the world faces today. More than 25 million people suffer heart failure each year. In the United States, approximately 2,500 of the 4,000 people in line for heart transplants receive them. That means almost 50% of the people needing a new heart to keep them alive wont get it.

Unlimited supplies of blood for transfusions are possible with lab-growing technology. Blood has been challenging to grow in the lab. However, real breakthroughs in creating artificial blood have sprung up!

A couple of years ago, Japanese researchers developed universal artificial blood that worked for all blood types. It even has a shelf life of one year stored at room temperature, therefore eliminating the problem of identifying blood type and storage simultaneously.

Like that wasnt impressive enough, last year, a team of scientists from the South China University of Technology, the University of New Mexico, and Sandia National Laboratories created artificial red blood cells (RBCs) with more potential capabilities than real ones! The synthetic RBCs mimic the properties of natural ones such as oxygen transport, flexibility, and long circulation times with the addition of a few new tricks up their sleeves, such as toxin detection, magnetic targeting, and therapeutic drug delivery. In addition, blood contains platelets and red blood cells, so these new cells could be used to make superior artificial blood.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia successfully coaxed stem cells to grow into human blood vessels. The thing that is so remarkable about this study is that the system of blood vessels grown in the lab is virtually identical to the ones currently transporting blood throughout the body. They are using this now to generate new leads in diabetes treatment. They put the lab-grown blood vessels in a petri dish designed to mimic a diabetic environment.

The global demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise by almost 90% over the next 30 years, regardless of the need to cut back on meat consumption. The risk of environmental damage and the rising food demand itself is a problem many have recently addressed. Thats why companies worldwide are on the verge of scaling up all sorts of lab processes to produce various food items, including steaks, chicken, cheese, milk, ice cream, fruits, and more.

Thinktank RethinkX even published research suggesting that proteins from precision fermentation (lab-grown protein using microbes) will be about ten times cheaper than animal protein by 2035, resulting in a collapse of the livestock industry. It says the new food economy will subsequently:

replace an extravagantly inefficient system that requires enormous quantities of inputs and produces considerable amounts of waste with one that is precise, targeted, and tractable. [Using tiny land areas, with a massively reduced requirement for water and nutrients, it] presents the most significant opportunity for environmental restoration in human historyFarm-free food offers hope where hope is missing. We will soon be able to feed the world without devouring it.

The worlds pace of meat consumption is placing a significant strain on the environment. Many studies show that eating less meat is just as crucial to slowing down global warming as using solar panels and zero-emissions vehicles. Unfortunately, animal farming generates an obscene amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet again, scientists come to the rescue, working diligently to fix this situation.

Over a decade ago, researchers created something akin to ground beef, but the complex structure of steak didnt happen until recently, with Aleph Farms debuting its thick-cut rib-eye steak in 2018. Furthermore, that first burger cost around US$345,000, but now the price has dropped dramatically to the point that lab-grown chicken is to be commercially produced and hit grocery store shelves as of this year.

SuperMeat, Eat Just, and Aleph Farms are todays most prominent startups working on getting lab-grown meats to people looking to lower their carbon and environmental footprints. In addition, their products are made from actual animal cells, so theyre real meat, but no animals had to be hurt or killed.

Speaking of Aleph Farms, the company also grew meat in space to show that it can even be done in a zero-gravity environment with limited resources.

Aside from Aleph Farms figuring out how to make steak like an authentic steak, a group of Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) researchers also devised a solution to the texture challenge. First, they made edible gelatin scaffolds that have the texture and consistency of real meat. Then, they grew rabbit and cow muscle cells on this scaffolding. The research demonstrates how realistic meat products are possible!

Parker and his Disease Biophysics Group developed a technique to produce the scaffolding. Its a fiber-production system inspired by cotton candy known as immersion Rotary Jet-Spinning (iRJS). It enabled the team to spin long nanofibers of a specific shape and size using centrifugal force. So, they spun food-safe gelatin fibers, creating the base upon which cells could grow.

Natural muscle tissue is composed of an extracellular matrix, which is the glue that holds the tissue together. As a result, it contributes to the texture of the meat. The spun gelatin fibers mimicked this extracellular matrix and provided the texture to make the lab-grown meat realistic. When the team seeded the fibers with animal (rabbit and cow) muscle cells, they anchored to the gelatin scaffolding and grew in long, thin structures, similar to real meat.

Meanwhile, Boston College developed a new, even greener technology that uses the skeleton of spinach leaves to support bovine animal protein growth. However, animal products arent eliminated from the process entirely. For example, lab-grown steak and chicken are created by painlessly harvesting muscle cells from a living cow, subsequently fed and nurtured to multiply and develop muscle tissue. But for this to have the same texture as real meat, the cells need structural support to flourish and are therefore placed in a scaffold.

Singapore is leading the way, becoming the first country in the world to approve the sale of Eat Justs cultured chicken. The company will start by selling nuggets at a restaurant. Meanwhile, SuperMeat has been handing out lab-grown chicken burgers in Israel for free. Theyre aiming to gain public acceptance of the idea.

The cultured chicken starts as a tiny number of harvested cells. Those cells are put into a bioreactor and fed the same nutrients the living animal would consume to grow. The cells multiply and turn into an edible portion of cultured chicken meat. The meats composition is identical to that of real chicken and offers the same nutritional value. And its cleaner because its antibiotic-free!

Labs are manufacturing dairy products by utilizing the fermentation process of living microbes to produce dairy proteins like whey and casein. These proteins are then used to make dairy products like butter, cheese, and ice cream. Two leading companies in this category are Imagindairy and Perfect Day, which already have several products on supermarket shelves in the United States.

Researchers havent figured out how to make fruits and vegetables yet, but a team is perfecting a cell cultivation process that generates plant biomass. The stuff tastes like the natural-grown product from which the cells were obtained and even exceeded its nutritional properties. Although, the texture of the biomass is different. For example, an apple isnt a solid apple akin to one grown from a tree. Instead, its like applesauce.

Lab-produced materials Including wood, diamonds, leather, glass, clothing, crystals, gels, cardboard, and plastics for making objects are either under development or already available. Many materials need to be taken from nature mined from the earth or cut down from forests. If they can be made in a lab instead, then people could leave nature alone!

A recent project led by a Ph.D. student at MIT paves the way for lab-grown wood one of the worlds most vital resources used to make paper, build houses, heat buildings, and so much more. The process begins with live plant cells cultivated in a growth medium coaxed using plant hormones to become wood-like structures. Next, a gel matrix is used to guide the shape of the cellular growth, and controlling the levels of plant hormones regulates the structural characteristics. Therefore, the technology could grow anything from tables and chairs to doors to boats and so on.

The environmental and socio-economic impact of traditionally mined diamonds has been exposed in recent years, and as awareness grows, the rising popularity of lab-grown diamonds does too. Mined diamonds are linked to bloody conflicts, and their excavation produces carbon emissions, requires substantial water use, and causes severe land disturbances.

Research has found that 1,000 tons of earth have to be shifted, 3,890 liters or more of water is used, and 108kg of carbon is emitted per one-carat stone produced. In addition, the traditional diamond mining industry causes irreversible damage to the environment, hence why, a decade ago, researchers started experimenting with how to grow them in the lab. Its been a feat a long time in the making, but we finally have lab-grown diamonds available for eco-conscious consumers to buy.

Diamonds are made of pure carbon. It takes extreme heat and pressure for carbon to crystalize. In nature, this happens hundreds of miles beneath the Earths surface. The ones being mined were shot out by a volcano millions of years ago. So how have scientists managed to hack such an intense and time-consuming process?

They began by investigating the mechanisms behind the diamond formation, zooming in at the atomic level. This led to the invention of a novel technology that utilizes the process of HPHT (high pressure, high temperature) to mimic the natural atmospheric conditions of diamond formation. Labs can use it to replicate the process and turn pure carbon into diamonds in 2-6 weeks.

Lab-grown gems are eco-friendly rocks, especially when theyre made entirely from the sky, like SkyDiamonds. Even the electricity used to grow its stones is from renewables, so theyll indeed be the worlds first zero-impact diamonds.

But how are the diamonds created out of thin air? They are made of carbon from the sky and rainwater. The sky mining facility is in Stroud. Energy is sourced from wind and sunlight. The CO2 is sourced directly from the air. Hydrogen is produced by splitting rainwater molecules in an electrolysis machine using renewable energy. The captured carbon and hydrogen are then used to make methane, used to grow the diamonds. The final product is a diamond anatomically identical to those mined from the ground. It is even accredited, fully certified, and graded by the International Gemological Institute.

Another company, Climeworks, is also making diamonds using carbon sucked from the sky. However, SkyDiamonds takes it a step forward by using rainwater and sunshine in the process.

The last lab-grown object were going to discuss is not something in the works, but an idea a fantastic and outlandish one thats jumping far into the future but was thought up in 2010 by Mercedes Benz. The luxury car companys ambitious BIOME idea shows just how wild imagination can get with lab-grown technology. It envisions a day when it can grow an entire supercar from scratch.

Mercedes-Benz explained when launching the concept:

The interior of the BIOME grows from the DNA in the Mercedes star on the front of the vehicle, while the exterior grows from the star on the rear. The Mercedes star is genetically engineered in each case to accommodate specific customer requirements, and the vehicle grows when the genetic code is combined with the seed capsule. The wheels are grown from four separate seeds.

This list of lab-grown possibilities is just the tip of the iceberg! Other materials in the pipeline include leather, chocolate, and silk. This intelligent technology can make anything a scientist can dream up! The only limit is the imagination and dedication of brilliant people.

See the rest here:
Lab-Growing Everything Might Be The Only Way To Attain A Sustainable World - Intelligent Living

Probiotics Market to Experience Significant Growth during the Forecast Period 2021-2028 Bolivar Commercial – Bolivar Commercial

Probiotics Market is anticipated to observe growth during the forecast period due to growing demand at the end user level. The business report gives a clue about the uncertainties that may come up due to changes in business activities or introduction of a fresh product in the market. The facts and figures included to produce this report are based on the data collection modules with large sample sizes. It is a meticulous analysis of current scenario of the market, which takes into consideration several market dynamics. Probiotics Market Research study assists customers in understanding a range of drivers and restraints in theProbiotics Marketwhich impacts the market during forecast period.

In addition, the whole Probiotics Market report provides with the information about company profile, product specifications, capacity, production value, and market shares for each company for the year 2021 to 2028 with the help of competitive analysis study. A strong research methodology used in the report consists of data models that include market overview and guide, vendor positioning grid, market time line analysis, company positioning grid, company market share analysis, standards of measurement, top to bottom analysis and vendor share analysis. The world class Probiotics Market research report certainly helps to diminish business risk and failure.

DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT:https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-probiotics-market&Shiv

CAGR

Probiotics market is expected to gain market growth in the forecast period of 2020 to 2027. Data Bridge Market Research analyses the market to account to USD 91.25 billion by 2027 growing at a CAGR of 7.12% in the above-mentioned forecast period. The growing popularity of probiotic dietary supplements among customers is driving the growth of the probiotics market.

The top most players with the entire requirement cover in this report:

The major players covered in the probiotics market report are Chr. Hansen Holding A/S, Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd, Nestl, DuPont, MORINAGA & CO., LTD., BioGaia AB, Protexin, Daflorn Probiotics UK. , DANONE, Yakult USA, Deerland Enzymes, Inc., UAS Laboratories, among other domestic and global players

Segmentation

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market By Type (Allogeneic Stem Cell Therapy, Autologous Stem Cell Therapy), Technology (Cell Acquisition, Cell Production, Cryopreservation, Expansion and Sub-Culture), Product (Adult Stem Cells, Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells), Applications (Musculoskeletal Disorders, Wounds, Injuries, Cardiovascular Diseases, Surgeries, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Other Applications), End Users (Therapeutic Companies, Cell And Tissues Banks, Tools And Reagent Companies, Service Companies), Country (U.S., Canada, Mexico, Germany, Italy, U.K., France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, Russia, Rest of Europe, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Rest of Asia- Pacific, Brazil, Argentina, Rest of South America, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Israel, Rest of Middle East & Africa) Industry Trends and Forecast to 2027

Access Full TOC, Table & Figures:https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-probiotics-market&Shiv

The Report Consolidates All The Fundamental Factors:

The cutthroat scene gives intensive portion of the overall industry for driving business sector players as indicated by deals and volume produced. The report conveys a presence, contenders, and gross edge for each driving player. Besides, the report likewise cooks the natty gritty data about the essential angles, for example, drivers and limiting elements which will characterize the future development of the market. The report gives a serious scene to the main market players. The report shares restrictive experiences into the market to assist with keying players and new contestants comprehend the capability of interests in the Probiotics Market.

The report is an unobtrusive exertion of informed authorities and experts to convey market gauge and investigation. It highpoints the exceptional discernments conveyed by industry specialists. The report gives a natty gritty appraisal of key market elements and extensive data about the construction of the Probiotics Market industry. The report considers contending factors which is significant to take your business to the creative level. This archive is a splendid source that gives present just as future investigation of the business exhaustively.

The report gives imperative bits of knowledge into the overall market, especially the predominant development openings, patterns, and serious situations. The Probiotics Market report gives a natty gritty examination of item advancements, item types, import-trade, esteem chain streamlining, piece of the pie, development sway on homegrown and limited market players.

ACCESS FULL REPORT: https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/global-probiotics-market?utm_source=Shiv&utm_medium=Shiv&utm_id=Shiv

It isolates the market size, by volume and worth, contingent on the sort of usage and region. The report involves past and figures grandstand information, domains of utilization, esteem procedures, and fundamental associations by the geographical region.

Further, the statistical surveying report gives local market examination creation, deals, exchange, and territorial estimate. it additionally gives Probiotics Market money growth strategies like item includes, value pattern examination, channel highlights, territorial and industry speculation opportunity, cost and income estimation, financial execution assessment.

Key Benefits of The Report:

Link:
Probiotics Market to Experience Significant Growth during the Forecast Period 2021-2028 Bolivar Commercial - Bolivar Commercial

Hiltzik: The battle against unlicensed stem cell clinics – Los Angeles Times

In 2017, the Food and Drug Administration closed a loophole exploited by clinics pitching unproven, ineffective and potentially hazardous stem cell therapies directly to consumers.

Those treatments were illegal, the FDA ruled. That was the good news. The agency, however, suspended its enforcement for three years to give these operators time to get right with its regulations. During the pandemic, the FDA added six months to the deadline, so its period of regulatory forbearance expired on May 31.

What happened in the meantime? Instead of stem cell purveyors reaching out to the FDA to work out how to meet federal regulations, a torrent of shady operations poured into the field so many that the task of protecting the public from them may now exceed the FDAs capabilities.

Dont believe the hype.

The FDAs warnings against unlicensed stem cell clinics

Thats the concern of Leigh Turner, a public health expert at UC Irvine, longtime critic of stem cell treatment claims and author of a new study that tracked the explosion of businesses offering purported stem cell treatments and cures during the FDAs hands-off period.

The paper is essentially a follow-up to a seminal study Turner conducted with Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis in 2016, which identified 351 businesses hawking stem cell treatments directly to consumers through 540 clinics.

Newsletter

Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik

Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Enter email address

Sign Me Up

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Turners new study, which was published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Cell Stem Cell, identified 1,480 businesses operating 2,754 clinics nationwide.

That hardly seems like progress, Turner told me. Now the problem the FDA faces is four times larger than what existed in 2016. The FDA only has so many employees and so many inspectors. They dont really have enough inspectors to send them to 1,480 businesses.

The FDA hasnt been entirely inactive. Over the last 3 years it issued more than 400 warning letters to stem cell marketers, clinics and healthcare providers, notifying them that they may be operating outside the law. But it hasnt done much more than that.

The proliferation of stem cell claims points to a major breakdown in Americas healthcare regulatory system generally.

Given the size of this clinic industry the risk to the public is huge, Knoepfler says. The industry threatens the authority of the FDA itself. It might be one of the largest and most serious noncompliance challenges that the FDA has ever faced in its history. What would the FDA do if pharmaceutical firms were selling unapproved drugs at 2,700 clinics all over the country? It would be considered a national emergency.

State medical boards, which have at least nominal authority to ride herd on the practices of licensed physicians in this field, have done little of note. The Medical Board of California, a state that with 347 clinics is the largest center of facilities in Turners database, created a two-member Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapy Task Force in 2018.

The task force hasnt met since 2019, according to a board spokesman, and hasnt issued any reports. Board records indicate that it received 33 complaints about stem cell treatments from 2018 through this year, and has taken no disciplinary or administrative actions in response.

California hasnt done much to rise to the challenge, Turner says.

A few words may be useful about the regulatory environment. The chief targets of the FDAs enforcement program, such as it is, have been clinics that extract fat cells from customers through liposuction and then supposedly extract stem cells from the fat and inject them back into the customers bodies as treatments. Some purportedly extract stem cells from customers bone marrow.

The conditions for which these treatments are commonly offered include pain, sports injuries, heart and lung disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, autism, diabetes, vision loss and erectile dysfunction.

No scientifically validated evidence exists for any of these claims, the FDA notes. The only stem cell products approved by the FDA are a few derived from umbilical cord blood, and then only for a very limited category of blood system diseases.

Beyond that, the agency advises consumers, Dont believe the hype.

The purveyors of unproven and unlicensed treatments identified by Turner charge as much as $28,000 for their services, with an average of more than $5,000 often ponied up by unwary customers seduced by advertising and irresponsibly credulous reports in the press.

The treatments typically are not covered by insurance, so customers are paying out of pocket.

Under FDA regulations, most stem cell treatments being sold to customers are illegal. Thats because the products are deemed to be unlicensed drugs. Exceptions exist for some surgical procedures and in cases in which almost identical cells are reinjected into patients, but the FDA says few of the targeted clinics qualify.

The FDAs position was endorsed by a federal judge in Miami in 2019, when she shut down a clinic that the FDA had sued for offering unapproved stem cell procedures. The clinic lost an appeal of her ruling in June. A separate lawsuit the FDA filed against California Stem Cell Treatment Center and associated businesses is awaiting a verdict from U.S. Judge Jesus G. Bernal in Riverside following a trial he conducted in May.

The offered treatments are not only unproven, but potentially hazardous. Reports of adverse outcomes from unlicensed treatments have proliferated, some of them gruesome. In a report issued in June, researchers at the Pew Charitable Trusts documented reports of adverse outcomes from 360 patients between 2004 and mid-2020.

These figures are almost certainly conservative, as clinics operating outside the law are highly unlikely to follow rules mandating that they report adverse reactions among their customers. Indeed, the FDA in its lawsuit against the California defendants asserted that numerous adverse outcomes experienced by their patients were not reported to the agency.

A note cited by the FDA from the file of one patient who was unable to walk for six months after receiving a stem cell injection in her knee from a clinic associated with the defendants, read, Not all treatments are successful. Not really adverse event due to the treatment. At trial, defendant Mark Berman said the clinics product has had very rare adverse events.

FDA officials have said that their expectations that stem cell treatment purveyors would engage with the agency during the forbearance period to work out how to come into compliance with its regulations proved wildly optimistic. We have been very disappointed in the number of clinics that have come in, Wilson Bryan, a top FDA official, told a law conference in June.

The FDA may not have recognized that the clinics they were targeting never had any intention of meeting its regulations.

Were talking about a huge number of businesses that are failing to comply with federal law, but have no reasonable prospects of coming into compliance, Turner says. They dont have clinical research programs. They dont have qualified stem cell researchers. Theyre just peddlers putting out a shingle on the internet.

Instead of using that three-year period to change their practices and comply with the law, lots of businesses stayed in the marketplace and did nothing to change what they were doing, and a huge number of other operators poured into the marketplace.

Over the last five years or so, or since Turner and Knoepfler published their original report, stem cell treatment claims have become just one more offering by practitioners advertising other services of dubious effectiveness.

Stem cell treatment has become just a routine claim, Turner says, from all kinds of orthopedic clinics, sports medicine clinics, podiatrists, chiropractors, naturopaths, wellness clinics. They market an array of services and stem cells are just something else they can sell, like cryotherapy or acupuncture.

Its unclear whether some of these operations really even use stem cells some may be offering just costly placebos, Turner conjectures.

The threat to public health from unlicensed and unproven stem cell claims will only get worse if the FDA fails to act forcefully.

People make the mistake of thinking that these are businesses that will go under if they get a bit of a push from the FDA or FTC [Federal Trade Commission] Turner says. The truth is that some of them are quite well capitalized and have the resources to go out and join these battles.

The FDA may be waiting for Judge Bernals ruling before taking the next step but thats dependent on his finding in the FDAs favor. It could seek mass injunctions, admittedly a big practical challenge, Knoepfler says. He adds, Looking ahead, the agency should take quick, large-scale, and even creative actions if it has any hope to make a dent in this clinic industry.

Read this article:
Hiltzik: The battle against unlicensed stem cell clinics - Los Angeles Times