Category Archives: Stell Cell Research


Biologics Safety Testing Market Size And Forecast | Top Key Players Charles River Laboratories International Merck KGaA, Lonza Group Ltd., SGS SA,…

New Jersey, United States,-The latest research report provides a complete assessment of theBiologics Safety TestingMarketfor the forecast year 2022-2029, which is beneficial for businesses regardless of their size and revenue. This survey report covers the key market insights and industry approach related to COVID-19 (Omicron) in the coming years. TheBiologics Safety Testingmarket report provides data and information on the development of the investment structure, technological improvements, market trends and developments, capabilities, and in-depth information on the major players of theBiologics Safety Testingmarket. The market strategies followed worldwide in relation to the current and future scenario of the industry have also been detailed in the study.

The report begins with a brief presentation and overview of theBiologics Safety Testingmarket, the current market landscape, market trends, key market players, product type, application, and region. It also covers the impact of COVID-19 (Omicron) on theBiologics Safety TestingMarket Trends, Future Forecast, Growth Opportunities, End-User Industries, and Market Players. It also provides historical data, current market scenarios, and future insights into the Biologics Safety Testingmarket. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of market value with the product price, demand, gross margin, and supply of theBiologics Safety Testingmarket. The Competitive Perspective section of the report provides a clear insight into the market share analysis of the major players in the industry.

Get Full PDF Sample Copy of Report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=24306

Key Players Mentioned in the Biologics Safety Testing Market Research Report:

Charles River Laboratories International Merck KGaA, Lonza Group Ltd., SGS S.A., Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Wuxi Apptec, Sartorius AG, Cytovance Biologics, Inc.

The Biologics Safety Testing market is segmented by product and type. All of these segments were examined individually. The detailed study helps to evaluate the factors affecting the Biologics Safety Testing market. Experts analyzed the nature of development, investments in research and development, changing consumption patterns, and the growing number of applications. Furthermore, analysts have also assessed the development of the economy around the Biologics Safety Testing market which is likely to impact its price.

Biologics Safety TestingMarket Segmentation:

Biologics Safety Testing Market by Product and Services

Instruments Services Kits & Reagents

Biologics Safety Testing Market by Application

Vaccine & Therapeutics Development Blood and Blood-Related Product Testing Cellular and Gene Therapy Tissue and Tissue-Related Product Testing Stem Cell Research

Biologics Safety Testing Market by Test Type

Endotoxin Test Sterility Test Cell Line Authentication and Characterization Test Bioburden Test Residual Host Contaminant Detection Test Adventitious Agent Detection Tests Other Test

The regional analysis section of the report allows players to focus on high-growth regions and countries that could help them to expand their presence in the Biologics Safety Testing market. Besides expanding their presence in the Biologics Safety Testing market, regional analysis helps players increase sales while gaining a better understanding of customer behavior in specific regions and countries. The report provides CAGR, revenue, production, consumption, and other important statistics and figures on global and regional markets. It demonstrates how different types, applications, and regional segments of the Biologics Safety Testing market are progressing in terms of growth.

Get Discount On The Purchase Of This Report @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=24306

Biologics Safety Testing Market Report Scope

Determining the pulse of the market becomes easy through this in-detail Biologics Safety Testing market analysis. Key players can find all competitive data and market size of major regions like North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and Middle East. As part of the competitive analysis, certain strategies are profiled which are pursued by key players such as mergers, collaborations, acquisitions and new product launches. These strategies will greatly help industry players to strengthen their market position and grow their business.

Key questions answered in the report:

1. Which are the five top players of the Biologics Safety Testing market?

2. How will the Biologics Safety Testing market change in the next five years?

3. Which product and application will take a lions share of the Biologics Safety Testing market?

4. What are the drivers and restraints of the Biologics Safety Testing market?

5. Which regional market will show the highest growth?

6. What will be the CAGR and size of the Biologics Safety Testing market throughout the forecast period?

For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/biologics-safety-testing-market/

Visualize Biologics Safety Testing Market using Verified Market Intelligence:-

Verified Market Intelligence is our BI-enabled platform for narrative storytelling of this market. VMI offers in-depth forecasted trends and accurate Insights on over 20,000+ emerging & niche markets, helping you make critical revenue-impacting decisions for a brilliant future.

VMI provides a holistic overview and global competitive landscape with respect to Region, Country, and Segment, and Key players of your market. Present your Market Report & findings with an inbuilt presentation feature saving over 70% of your time and resources for Investor, Sales & Marketing, R&D, and Product Development pitches. VMI enables data delivery In Excel and Interactive PDF formats with over 15+ Key Market Indicators for your market.

Visualize Biologics Safety Testing Market using VMI @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/vmintelligence/

About Us: Verified Market Research

Verified Market Research is a leading Global Research and Consulting firm that has been providing advanced analytical research solutions, custom consulting and in-depth data analysis for 10+ years to individuals and companies alike that are looking for accurate, reliable and up to date research data and technical consulting. We offer insights into strategic and growth analyses, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and help make critical revenue decisions.

Our research studies help our clients make superior data-driven decisions, understand market forecast, capitalize on future opportunities and optimize efficiency by working as their partner to deliver accurate and valuable information. The industries we cover span over a large spectrum including Technology, Chemicals, Manufacturing, Energy, Food and Beverages, Automotive, Robotics, Packaging, Construction, Mining & Gas. Etc.

We, at Verified Market Research, assist in understanding holistic market indicating factors and most current and future market trends. Our analysts, with their high expertise in data gathering and governance, utilize industry techniques to collate and examine data at all stages. They are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, subject expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research.

Having serviced over 5000+ clients, we have provided reliable market research services to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony and Hitachi. We have co-consulted with some of the worlds leading consulting firms like McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Bain and Company for custom research and consulting projects for businesses worldwide.

Contact us:

Mr. Edwyne Fernandes

Verified Market Research

US: +1 (650)-781-4080 UK: +44 (753)-715-0008 APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400 US Toll-Free: +1 (800)-782-1768

Email: sales@verifiedmarketresearch.com

Website:- https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/

View original post here:
Biologics Safety Testing Market Size And Forecast | Top Key Players Charles River Laboratories International Merck KGaA, Lonza Group Ltd., SGS SA,...

Cell Expansion Market Size And Forecast | Top Key Players Thermo Fisher Scientific GE Healthcare (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of General Electric…

New Jersey, United States,-The latest research report provides a complete assessment of theCell ExpansionMarketfor the forecast year 2022-2029, which is beneficial for businesses regardless of their size and revenue. This survey report covers the key market insights and industry approach related to COVID-19 (Omicron) in the coming years. TheCell Expansionmarket report provides data and information on the development of the investment structure, technological improvements, market trends and developments, capabilities, and in-depth information on the major players of theCell Expansionmarket. The market strategies followed worldwide in relation to the current and future scenario of the industry have also been detailed in the study.

The report begins with a brief presentation and overview of theCell Expansionmarket, the current market landscape, market trends, key market players, product type, application, and region. It also covers the impact of COVID-19 (Omicron) on theCell ExpansionMarket Trends, Future Forecast, Growth Opportunities, End-User Industries, and Market Players. It also provides historical data, current market scenarios, and future insights into the Cell Expansionmarket. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of market value with the product price, demand, gross margin, and supply of theCell Expansionmarket. The Competitive Perspective section of the report provides a clear insight into the market share analysis of the major players in the industry.

Get Full PDF Sample Copy of Report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=23777

Key Players Mentioned in the Cell Expansion Market Research Report:

Thermo Fisher Scientific GE Healthcare (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of General Electric Company), Lonza Group Ltd., Becton, Dickinson and Company, Corning Merck KGAA, Beckman Coulter, Inc. (Subsidiary of Danaher Corporation), MiltenyiBiotec, Stemcell Technologies, Terumo BCT, Inc. (A Subsidiary of Terumo Corporation).

The Cell Expansion market is segmented by product and type. All of these segments were examined individually. The detailed study helps to evaluate the factors affecting the Cell Expansion market. Experts analyzed the nature of development, investments in research and development, changing consumption patterns, and the growing number of applications. Furthermore, analysts have also assessed the development of the economy around the Cell Expansion market which is likely to impact its price.

Cell ExpansionMarket Segmentation:

Cell Expansion Market, By Product

Consumables Instruments Others

Cell Expansion Market, By Cell Type

Human Cells Animal Cells

Cell Expansion Market, By Application

Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research Cancer and Cell-Based Research Others

Cell Expansion Market, By End-user

Research Institutes Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutical Companies Cell Banks Other End Users

The regional analysis section of the report allows players to focus on high-growth regions and countries that could help them to expand their presence in the Cell Expansion market. Besides expanding their presence in the Cell Expansion market, regional analysis helps players increase sales while gaining a better understanding of customer behavior in specific regions and countries. The report provides CAGR, revenue, production, consumption, and other important statistics and figures on global and regional markets. It demonstrates how different types, applications, and regional segments of the Cell Expansion market are progressing in terms of growth.

Get Discount On The Purchase Of This Report @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=23777

Cell Expansion Market Report Scope

Determining the pulse of the market becomes easy through this in-detail Cell Expansion market analysis. Key players can find all competitive data and market size of major regions like North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and Middle East. As part of the competitive analysis, certain strategies are profiled which are pursued by key players such as mergers, collaborations, acquisitions and new product launches. These strategies will greatly help industry players to strengthen their market position and grow their business.

Key questions answered in the report:

1. Which are the five top players of the Cell Expansion market?

2. How will the Cell Expansion market change in the next five years?

3. Which product and application will take a lions share of the Cell Expansion market?

4. What are the drivers and restraints of the Cell Expansion market?

5. Which regional market will show the highest growth?

6. What will be the CAGR and size of the Cell Expansion market throughout the forecast period?

For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/cell-expansion-market/

Visualize Cell Expansion Market using Verified Market Intelligence:-

Verified Market Intelligence is our BI-enabled platform for narrative storytelling of this market. VMI offers in-depth forecasted trends and accurate Insights on over 20,000+ emerging & niche markets, helping you make critical revenue-impacting decisions for a brilliant future.

VMI provides a holistic overview and global competitive landscape with respect to Region, Country, and Segment, and Key players of your market. Present your Market Report & findings with an inbuilt presentation feature saving over 70% of your time and resources for Investor, Sales & Marketing, R&D, and Product Development pitches. VMI enables data delivery In Excel and Interactive PDF formats with over 15+ Key Market Indicators for your market.

Visualize Cell Expansion Market using VMI @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/vmintelligence/

About Us: Verified Market Research

Verified Market Research is a leading Global Research and Consulting firm that has been providing advanced analytical research solutions, custom consulting and in-depth data analysis for 10+ years to individuals and companies alike that are looking for accurate, reliable and up to date research data and technical consulting. We offer insights into strategic and growth analyses, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and help make critical revenue decisions.

Our research studies help our clients make superior data-driven decisions, understand market forecast, capitalize on future opportunities and optimize efficiency by working as their partner to deliver accurate and valuable information. The industries we cover span over a large spectrum including Technology, Chemicals, Manufacturing, Energy, Food and Beverages, Automotive, Robotics, Packaging, Construction, Mining & Gas. Etc.

We, at Verified Market Research, assist in understanding holistic market indicating factors and most current and future market trends. Our analysts, with their high expertise in data gathering and governance, utilize industry techniques to collate and examine data at all stages. They are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, subject expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research.

Having serviced over 5000+ clients, we have provided reliable market research services to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony and Hitachi. We have co-consulted with some of the worlds leading consulting firms like McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Bain and Company for custom research and consulting projects for businesses worldwide.

Contact us:

Mr. Edwyne Fernandes

Verified Market Research

US: +1 (650)-781-4080 UK: +44 (753)-715-0008 APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400 US Toll-Free: +1 (800)-782-1768

Email: sales@verifiedmarketresearch.com

Website:- https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/

See the rest here:
Cell Expansion Market Size And Forecast | Top Key Players Thermo Fisher Scientific GE Healthcare (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of General Electric...

Bristol Myers Squibb to Demonstrate the Strength of its Growing Cardiovascular Portfolio at the American College of Cardiology’s 71st Annual…

Relatlimab is the third immune checkpoint inhibitor from Bristol Myers Squibb, adding to the Company's growing and differentiated oncology portfolio

Bristol Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) today announced that Opdualag TM (nivolumab and relatlimab-rmbw), a new, first-in-class, fixed-dose combination of nivolumab and relatlimab, administered as a single intravenous infusion, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. 1 The approval is based on the Phase 2/3 RELATIVITY-047 trial, which compared Opdualag (n=355) to nivolumab alone (n=359). 1,2

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220304005561/en/

Opdualag Logo, Bristol Myers Squibb

The trial met its primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), and Opdualag more than doubled the median PFS when compared to nivolumab monotherapy, 10.1 months (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 6.4 to 15.7) versus 4.6 months (95% CI: 3.4 to 5.6); (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.92, P =0.0055). 1 The Opdualag safety profile was similar to that previously reported for nivolumab. 1,2 No new safety events were identified with the combination when compared to nivolumab monotherapy. 1,2 Grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events were 18.9% in the Opdualag arm compared to 9.7% in the nivolumab arm. 2 Drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 14.6% in the Opdualag arm compared to 6.7% in the nivolumab arm. 2

"Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitor more than 10 years ago, we've seen immunotherapy, alone and in combination, revolutionize the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma," said F. Stephen Hodi, M.D., director of the Melanoma Center and the Center for Immuno-Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 3 "Today's approval is particularly significant, as it introduces an entirely new combination of two immunotherapies that may act together to help improve anti-tumor response by targeting two different immune checkpoints LAG-3 and PD-1." 1,2

Opdualag is associated with the following Warnings & Precautions: severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs) including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis with renal dysfunction, dermatologic adverse reactions, myocarditis and other immune-mediated adverse reactions; infusion-related reactions; complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); and embryo-fetal toxicity. 1 Please see Important Safety Information below.

"While we have made great progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma over the past decade, we are committed to expanding dual immunotherapy treatment options for these patients," said Samit Hirawat, chief medical officer, global drug development, Bristol Myers Squibb. 3 "Inhibiting LAG-3 with relatlimab, in a fixed-dose combination with nivolumab, represents a new treatment approach that builds on our legacy of bringing innovative immunotherapy options to patients. The approval of a new medicine that includes our third distinct checkpoint inhibitor marks an important step forward in giving patients more options beyond monotherapy treatment."

Lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) and programmed death-1 (PD-1) are two distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that are often co-expressed on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus contributing to tumor-mediated T-cell exhaustion. 2 The combination of nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and relatlimab (anti-LAG-3) results in increased T-cell activation compared to the activity of either antibody alone. 1 Relatlimab (in combination with nivolumab) is the first LAG-3-blocking antibody to demonstrate a benefit in a Phase 3 study. 1 It is the third checkpoint inhibitor (along with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4) for Bristol Myers Squibb.

"Today's approval is exciting news and offers new hope to the melanoma community. The availability of this treatment combination may enable patients to potentially benefit from a new, first-in-class dual immunotherapy," said Michael Kaplan, president and CEO, Melanoma Research Alliance.

The FDA-approved dosing for adult patients and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older who weigh at least 40 kg is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every four weeks. 1 The recommended dosage for pediatric patients 12 years of age or older who weigh less than 40 kg, and pediatric patients younger than 12 years of age, has not been established. 1

This application was approved under the FDA's Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) pilot program, which aims to ensure that safe and effective treatments are available to patients as early as possible. 4 The review was also conducted under the FDA's Project Orbis initiative, which enabled concurrent review by the health authorities in Australia, Brazil and Switzerland, where the application remains under review.

About RELATIVITY-047

RELATIVITY-047 is a global, randomized, double-blind Phase 2/3 study evaluating the fixed-dose combination of nivolumab and relatlimab versus nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. 1,2 The trial excluded patients with active autoimmune disease, medical conditions requiring systemic treatment with moderate or high dose corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications, uveal melanoma, and active or untreated brain or leptomeningeal metastases. 1 The primary endpoint of the trial is progression-free survival (PFS) determined by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1). 1 The secondary endpoints are overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). 1 A total of 714 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a fixed-dose combination of nivolumab (480 mg) and relatlimab (160 mg) or nivolumab (480 mg) by intravenous infusion every four weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. 1

Select Safety Profile From RELATIVITY-047

Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag occurred in 18% of patients. 1 Opdualag was interrupted due to an adverse reaction in 43% of patients. 1 Serious adverse reactions occurred in 36% of patients treated with Opdualag. 1 The most frequent (1%) serious adverse reactions were adrenal insufficiency (1.4%), anemia (1.4%), colitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.4%), acute myocardial infarction (1.1%), back pain (1.1%), diarrhea (1.1%), myocarditis (1.1%), and pneumonitis (1.1%). 1 Fatal adverse reactions occurred in three (0.8%) patients treated with Opdualag and included hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute edema of the lung, and pneumonitis. 1 The most common (20%) adverse reactions were musculoskeletal pain (45%), fatigue (39%), rash (28%), pruritus (25%), and diarrhea (24%). 1 The Opdualag safety profile was similar to that previously reported for nivolumab. 1,2 No new safety events were identified with the combination when compared to nivolumab monotherapy. 1,2 Grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events were 18.9% in the Opdualag arm compared to 9.7% in the nivolumab arm. 2 Drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 14.6% in the Opdualag arm compared to 6.7% in the nivolumab arm. 2

About Melanoma

Melanoma is a form of skin cancer characterized by the uncontrolled growth of pigment-producing cells (melanocytes) located in the skin. 5 Metastatic melanoma is the deadliest form of the disease and occurs when cancer spreads beyond the surface of the skin to other organs. 5,6 The incidence of melanoma has been increasing steadily for the last 30 years. 5,6 In the United States, approximately 99,780 new diagnoses of melanoma and about 7,650 related deaths are estimated for 2022. 5 Melanoma can be mostly treatable when caught in its very early stages; however, survival rates can decrease as the disease progresses. 6

OPDUALAG INDICATION

Opdualag TM (nivolumab and relatlimab-rmbw) is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

OPDUALAG IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

Immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs) listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

IMARs which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. IMARs can occur at any time after starting treatment with a LAG-3 and PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. While IMARs usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of Opdualag. Early identification and management of IMARs are essential to ensure safe use. Monitor patients closely for symptoms and signs that may be clinical manifestations of underlying IMARs. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment. In cases of suspected IMARs, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if Opdualag requires interruption or discontinuation, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose IMARs are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis

Opdualag can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis, which may be fatal. In patients treated with other PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies, the incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. Immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.7% (13/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.6%), and Grade 2 (2.3%) adverse reactions. Pneumonitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.8% and withholding of Opdualag in 1.4% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Colitis

Opdualag can cause immune-mediated colitis, defined as requiring use of corticosteroids and no clear alternate etiology. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies.

Immune-mediated diarrhea or colitis occurred in 7% (24/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (4.5%) adverse reactions. Colitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 2% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.8% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis

Opdualag can cause immune-mediated hepatitis, defined as requiring the use of corticosteroids and no clear alternate etiology.

Immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 6% (20/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 4 (0.6%), Grade 3 (3.4%), and Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hepatitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.7% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.3% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies

Opdualag can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, hypophysitis, thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can be present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. In patients receiving Opdualag, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 4.2% (15/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (1.4%) and Grade 2 (2.5%) adverse reactions. Adrenal insufficiency led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.1% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.8% of patients.

Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis occurred in 2.5% (9/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.3%) and Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hypophysitis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.3% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.6% of patients.

Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis occurred in 2.8% (10/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (1.1%) adverse reactions. Thyroiditis did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Thyroiditis led to withholding of Opdualag in 0.3% of patients. Hyperthyroidism occurred in 6% (22/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (1.4%) adverse reactions. Hyperthyroidism did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Hyperthyroidism led to withholding of Opdualag in 0.3% of patients. Hypothyroidism occurred in 17% (59/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 2 (11%) adverse reactions. Hypothyroidism led to the permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.3% and withholding of Opdualag in 2.5% of patients.

Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated. Diabetes occurred in 0.3% (1/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, a Grade 3 (0.3%) adverse reaction, and no cases of diabetic ketoacidosis. Diabetes did not lead to the permanent discontinuation or withholding of Opdualag in any patient.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction

Opdualag can cause immune-mediated nephritis, which is defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear etiology. In patients receiving Opdualag, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 2% (7/355) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (0.8%) adverse reactions. Immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 0.8% and withholding of Opdualag in 0.6% of patients.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions

Opdualag can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear alternate etiology. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and Drug Rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms has occurred with PD-1/L-1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue Opdualag depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

Immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (33/355) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.6%) and Grade 2 (3.4%) adverse reactions. Immune-mediated rash did not lead to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag. Immune-mediated rash led to withholding of Opdualag in 1.4% of patients.

Immune-Mediated Myocarditis

Opdualag can cause immune-mediated myocarditis, which is defined as requiring use of steroids and no clear alternate etiology. The diagnosis of immune-mediated myocarditis requires a high index of suspicion. Patients with cardiac or cardio-pulmonary symptoms should be assessed for potential myocarditis. If myocarditis is suspected, withhold dose, promptly initiate high dose steroids (prednisone or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/day) and promptly arrange cardiology consultation with diagnostic workup. If clinically confirmed, permanently discontinue Opdualag for Grade 2-4 myocarditis.

Myocarditis occurred in 1.7% (6/355) of patients receiving Opdualag, including Grade 3 (0.6%), and Grade 2 (1.1%) adverse reactions. Myocarditis led to permanent discontinuation of Opdualag in 1.7% of patients.

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

The following clinically significant IMARs occurred at an incidence of ardiac/Vascular: pericarditis, vasculitis; Nervous System: meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis and demyelination, myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis (including exacerbation), Guillain-Barr syndrome, nerve paresis, autoimmune neuropathy; Ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur. Some cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other IMARs, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Haradalike syndrome, as this may require treatment with systemic steroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss; Gastrointestinal: pancreatitis including increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis (and associated sequelae including renal failure), arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; Endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; Other (Hematologic/Immune) : hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

Infusion-Related Reactions

Opdualag can cause severe infusion-related reactions. Discontinue Opdualag in patients with severe or life-threatening infusion-related reactions. Interrupt or slow the rate of infusion in patients with mild to moderate infusion-related reactions. In patients who received Opdualag as a 60-minute intravenous infusion, infusion-related reactions occurred in 7% (23/355) of patients.

Complications of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT)

Fatal and other serious complications can occur in patients who receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before or after being treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 receptor blocking antibody. Transplant-related complications include hyperacute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, hepatic veno-occlusive disease after reduced intensity conditioning, and steroid-requiring febrile syndrome (without an identified infectious cause). These complications may occur despite intervening therapy between PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and allogeneic HSCT.

Follow patients closely for evidence of transplant-related complications and intervene promptly. Consider the benefit versus risks of treatment with a PD-1/PD-L1 receptor blocking antibody prior to or after an allogeneic HSCT.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity

Based on its mechanism of action and data from animal studies, Opdualag can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with Opdualag for at least 5 months after the last dose of Opdualag.

Lactation

There are no data on the presence of Opdualag in human milk, the effects on the breastfed child, or the effect on milk production. Because nivolumab and relatlimab may be excreted in human milk and because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in a breastfed child, advise patients not to breastfeed during treatment with Opdualag and for at least 5 months after the last dose.

Serious Adverse Reactions

In Relativity-047, fatal adverse reaction occurred in 3 (0.8%) patients who were treated with Opdualag; these included hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute edema of the lung, and pneumonitis. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 36% of patients treated with Opdualag. The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in 1% of patients treated with Opdualag were adrenal insufficiency (1.4%), anemia (1.4%), colitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.4%), acute myocardial infarction (1.1%), back pain (1.1%), diarrhea (1.1%), myocarditis (1.1%), and pneumonitis (1.1%).

Common Adverse Reactions and Laboratory Abnormalities

The most common adverse reactions reported in 20% of the patients treated with Opdualag were musculoskeletal pain (45%), fatigue (39%), rash (28%), pruritus (25%), and diarrhea (24%).

The most common laboratory abnormalities that occurred in 20% of patients treated with Opdualag were decreased hemoglobin (37%), decreased lymphocytes (32%), increased AST (30%), increased ALT (26%), and decreased sodium (24%).

Please see U.S. Full Prescribing Information for Opdualag .

OPDIVO + YERVOY INDICATIONS

OPDIVO (nivolumab), as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

OPDIVO (nivolumab), in combination with YERVOY (ipilimumab), is indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

OPDIVO + YERVOY IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

Severe and Fatal Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

Immune-mediated adverse reactions listed herein may not include all possible severe and fatal immune-mediated adverse reactions.

Immune-mediated adverse reactions, which may be severe or fatal, can occur in any organ system or tissue. While immune-mediated adverse reactions usually manifest during treatment, they can also occur after discontinuation of OPDIVO or YERVOY. Early identification and management are essential to ensure safe use of OPDIVO and YERVOY. Monitor for signs and symptoms that may be clinical manifestations of underlying immune-mediated adverse reactions. Evaluate clinical chemistries including liver enzymes, creatinine, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) level, and thyroid function at baseline and periodically during treatment with OPDIVO and before each dose of YERVOY. In cases of suspected immune-mediated adverse reactions, initiate appropriate workup to exclude alternative etiologies, including infection. Institute medical management promptly, including specialty consultation as appropriate.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). In general, if OPDIVO or YERVOY interruption or discontinuation is required, administer systemic corticosteroid therapy (1 to 2 mg/kg/day prednisone or equivalent) until improvement to Grade 1 or less. Upon improvement to Grade 1 or less, initiate corticosteroid taper and continue to taper over at least 1 month. Consider administration of other systemic immunosuppressants in patients whose immune-mediated adverse reactions are not controlled with corticosteroid therapy. Toxicity management guidelines for adverse reactions that do not necessarily require systemic steroids (e.g., endocrinopathies and dermatologic reactions) are discussed below.

Immune-Mediated Pneumonitis

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated pneumonitis. The incidence of pneumonitis is higher in patients who have received prior thoracic radiation. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 3.1% (61/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (

In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated pneumonitis occurred in 7% (31/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.0%), and Grade 2 (4.4%).

Immune-Mediated Colitis

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated colitis, which may be fatal. A common symptom included in the definition of colitis was diarrhea. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation has been reported in patients with corticosteroid-refractory immune-mediated colitis. In cases of corticosteroid-refractory colitis, consider repeating infectious workup to exclude alternative etiologies. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 2.9% (58/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.7%) and Grade 2 (1%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated colitis occurred in 25% (115/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.4%), Grade 3 (14%) and Grade 2 (8%).

Immune-Mediated Hepatitis and Hepatotoxicity

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated hepatitis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 1.8% (35/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (1.3%), and Grade 2 (0.4%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 15% (70/456) of patients, including Grade 4 (2.4%), Grade 3 (11%), and Grade 2 (1.8%).

Immune-Mediated Endocrinopathies

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause primary or secondary adrenal insufficiency, immune-mediated hypophysitis, immune-mediated thyroid disorders, and Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which can present with diabetic ketoacidosis. Withhold OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information). For Grade 2 or higher adrenal insufficiency, initiate symptomatic treatment, including hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Hypophysitis can present with acute symptoms associated with mass effect such as headache, photophobia, or visual field defects. Hypophysitis can cause hypopituitarism; initiate hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Thyroiditis can present with or without endocrinopathy. Hypothyroidism can follow hyperthyroidism; initiate hormone replacement or medical management as clinically indicated. Monitor patients for hyperglycemia or other signs and symptoms of diabetes; initiate treatment with insulin as clinically indicated.

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 1% (20/1994), including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.6%).In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 8% (35/456), including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.4%), and Grade 2 (4.2%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, adrenal insufficiency occurred in 8% (35/456), including Grade 4 (0.2%), Grade 3 (2.4%), and Grade 2 (4.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypophysitis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (0.3%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hypophysitis occurred in 9% (42/456), including Grade 3 (2.4%) and Grade 2 (6%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, thyroiditis occurred in 0.6% (12/1994) of patients, including Grade 2 (0.2%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hyperthyroidism occurred in 2.7% (54/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, hypothyroidism occurred in 8% (163/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.2%) and Grade 2 (4.8%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, hypothyroidism occurred in 20% (91/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (11%).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, diabetes occurred in 0.9% (17/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (0.4%) and Grade 2 (0.3%), and 2 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Immune-Mediated Nephritis with Renal Dysfunction

OPDIVO and YERVOY can cause immune-mediated nephritis. In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated nephritis and renal dysfunction occurred in 1.2% (23/1994) of patients, including Grade 4 (

Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Adverse Reactions

OPDIVO can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis. Exfoliative dermatitis, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) has occurred with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate nonexfoliative rashes.

YERVOY can cause immune-mediated rash or dermatitis, including bullous and exfoliative dermatitis, SJS, TEN, and DRESS. Topical emollients and/or topical corticosteroids may be adequate to treat mild to moderate non-bullous/exfoliative rashes.

Withhold or permanently discontinue OPDIVO and YERVOY depending on severity (please see section 2 Dosage and Administration in the accompanying Full Prescribing Information).

In patients receiving OPDIVO monotherapy, immune-mediated rash occurred in 9% (171/1994) of patients, including Grade 3 (1.1%) and Grade 2 (2.2%). In patients receiving OPDIVO 1 mg/kg with YERVOY 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, immune-mediated rash occurred in 28% (127/456) of patients, including Grade 3 (4.8%) and Grade 2 (10%).

Other Immune-Mediated Adverse Reactions

The following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions occurred at an incidence of ocular: uveitis, iritis, and other ocular inflammatory toxicities can occur; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis to include increases in serum amylase and lipase levels, gastritis, duodenitis; musculoskeletal and connective tissue: myositis/polymyositis, rhabdomyolysis, and associated sequelae including renal failure, arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica; endocrine: hypoparathyroidism; other (hematologic/immune): hemolytic anemia, aplastic anemia, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), systemic inflammatory response syndrome, histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis (Kikuchi lymphadenitis), sarcoidosis, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, solid organ transplant rejection.

In addition to the immune-mediated adverse reactions listed above, across clinical trials of YERVOY monotherapy or in combination with OPDIVO, the following clinically significant immune-mediated adverse reactions, some with fatal outcome, occurred in nervous system: autoimmune neuropathy (2%), myasthenic syndrome/myasthenia gravis, motor dysfunction; cardiovascular: angiopathy, temporal arteritis; ocular: blepharitis, episcleritis, orbital myositis, scleritis; gastrointestinal: pancreatitis (1.3%); other (hematologic/immune): conjunctivitis, cytopenias (2.5%), eosinophilia (2.1%), erythema multiforme, hypersensitivity vasculitis, neurosensory hypoacusis, psoriasis.

Some ocular IMAR cases can be associated with retinal detachment. Various grades of visual impairment, including blindness, can occur. If uveitis occurs in combination with other immune-mediated adverse reactions, consider a Vogt-Koyanagi-Haradalike syndrome, which has been observed in patients receiving OPDIVO and YERVOY, as this may require treatment with systemic corticosteroids to reduce the risk of permanent vision loss.

Read more:
Bristol Myers Squibb to Demonstrate the Strength of its Growing Cardiovascular Portfolio at the American College of Cardiology's 71st Annual...

Global Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Services Market to 2030 – by Type of Therapy, Therapeutic Area, Scale of Operation and Geography – PR Newswire

DUBLIN, March 21, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Services Market by Type of Therapy, Therapeutic Area, Scale of Operation and Geography: Industry Trends and Global Forecasts, 2021-2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This report features an extensive study of the current landscape and the likely future potential of cell and gene therapy bioassay service providers, over the next decade. The study also features an in-depth analysis, highlighting the capabilities of various industry stakeholders engaged in this field.

Given the various advantages of cell and gene therapies and their ability to address the underlying causes of serious clinical conditions, the preference for such therapeutic modalities has increased over the years. As a result, several cell and gene therapies have been developed and approved for the treatment of a wide range of disease indications. In fact, at the time of this report's publication, more than 30 such therapies had been approved and over 1,200 therapeutic leads are under evaluation in different stages.

Owing to their rising popularity, these upcoming advanced therapeutic products are on the verge of becoming one of the highest valued therapeutic segments within the biopharmaceutical industry. Having said that, as is the case for all biological products, the development of cell and gene therapies is a complex, challenging and cost intensive process. Outsourcing is, therefore, a preferred operational model, with cell and gene therapy innovators relying heavily on specialty contract service providers to handle various aspects of their product development and manufacturing operations. In fact, over three quarters of the biopharmaceutical companies prefer to outsource their operations to the contract service providers and a large part of their expenditure goes to outsourcing services.

Amongst the various operations, the outsourcing of analytical testing services, including environment testing, bioanalytical testing, analytical testing, chemistry and stability testing, method development and validation, and product characterization, has witnessed significant rise in recent years.

The rising demand for outsourcing bioanalytical services has prompted the emergence of several contract research organizations that claim to offer bioassay services for cell and gene therapies. These companies usually have relatively more experience and are well equipped with the instruments and technological platforms to offer both pre-developed and customized bioassays.

In fact, these companies assist in bringing out the maximum efficiency of study design by offering several cost benefits and reducing the associated timelines. Given the benefits of outsourcing the bioassay services and the ongoing efforts of service providers to further improve / expand their respective offerings, we believe that the cell and gene therapy bioassay services market is likely to evolve at a steady pace, till 2030.

In addition to other elements, the study includes:

Key Questions Answered

Key Topics Covered:

1. PREFACE

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. INTRODUCTION

4. MARKET LANDSCAPE

5. COMPANY COMPETITIVENESS ANALYSIS 5.1. Chapter Overview 5.2. Methodology 5.3. Key Parameters 5.4. Competitiveness Analysis: Companies Offering Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Services in North America 5.5. Competitiveness Analysis: Companies Offering Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Services in Europe and Asia-Pacific

6. CELL AND GENE THERAPY BIOASSAY SERVICE PROVIDERS IN NORTH AMERICA: COMPANY PROFILES 6.1. Chapter Overview 6.2. CCRM 6.2.1. Company Overview 6.2.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 6.2.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 6.3. Nexelis 6.3.1. Company Overview 6.3.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 6.3.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 6.4. Pacific BioLabs 6.4.1. Company Overview 6.4.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 6.4.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 6.5. PPD Laboratories 6.5.1. Company Overview 6.5.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 6.5.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 6.6. WuXi Advanced Therapies 6.6.1. Company Overview 6.6.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 6.6.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook

7. CELL AND GENE THERAPY BIOASSAY SERVICE PROVIDERS IN EUROPE AND ASIA-PACIFIC: COMPANY PROFILES 7.1. Chapter Overview 7.2. AnaBioTec 7.2.1. Company Overview 7.2.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 7.2.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.3. Intertek Pharmaceutical Services 7.3.1. Company Overview 7.3.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 7.3.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.4. Lonza 7.4.1. Company Overview 7.4.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 7.4.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.5. Porton Bio 7.5.1. Company Overview 7.5.2. Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Portfolio 7.5.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook

8. MARKET TREND ANALYSIS

9. GLOBAL EVENT AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVE ANALYSIS

10. CASE STUDY: MARKET LANDSCAPE OF CELL AND GENE THERAPIES 10.1. Chapter Overview 10.2. Cell Therapy Market 10.2.1. T-Cell Immunotherapies: Development Pipeline 10.2.1.1. Analysis by Type of Product 10.2.2. CAR-T Cell Therapies: Development Pipeline 10.2.2.1. Analysis by Phase of Development 10.2.2.2. Analysis by Therapeutic Area 10.2.2.3. Analysis by Type of Developer 10.2.2.4. Key Industry Players: Analysis by Number of CAR-T Cell Therapies in Development 10.2.3. TCR-based Therapies: Development Pipeline 10.2.3.1. Analysis by Phase of Development 10.2.3.2. Analysis by Therapeutic Area 10.2.3.3. Analysis by Type of Developer 10.2.3.4. Key Industry Players: Analysis by Number of TCR-based Therapies in Development 10.2.4. TIL-based Therapies: Development Pipeline 10.2.4.1. Analysis by Phase of Development 10.2.4.2. Analysis by Therapeutic Area 10.2.4.3. Analysis by Type of Developer 10.2.4.4. Key Industry Players: Analysis by Number of TIL-based Therapies in Development 10.3. Gene Therapy Market 10.3.1. Gene Therapy Market: Clinical and Commercial Pipeline 10.3.1.1. Analysis by Phase of Development 10.3.1.2. Analysis by Therapeutic Area 10.3.2. Gene Therapy Market: Development Pipeline 10.3.2.1. Analysis by Phase of Development 10.3.2.2. Analysis by Therapeutic Area

11. LIKELY PARTNERS FOR CELL THERAPY BIOASSAY SERVICE PROVIDERS 11.1. Chapter Overview 11.2. Scope and Methodology 11.3. Potential Strategic Partners for Cell Therapy Bioassay Service Providers 11.3.1. Likely Partner Opportunities for Stem Cell Therapy Bioassay Service Providers 11.3.2. Likely Partner Opportunities for CAR-T Therapy Bioassay Service Providers 11.3.3. Likely Partner Opportunities for Dendritic Cell Therapy Bioassay Service Providers 11.3.4. Likely Partner Opportunities for Tumor Cell Therapy Bioassay Service Providers 11.3.5. Likely Partner Opportunities for NK Cell Therapy Bioassay Service Providers

12. LIKELY PARTNERS FOR GENE THERAPY BIOASSAY SERVICE PROVIDERS 12.1. Chapter Overview 12.2. Scope and Methodology 12.3. Potential Strategic Partners for Gene Therapy Bioassay Service Providers 12.3.1. Likely Partner Opportunities in North America 12.3.2. Likely Partner Opportunities in Europe 12.3.3. Likely Partner Opportunities in Asia-Pacific

13. MARKET FORECAST AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS

14. CONCLUSION

15. EXECUTIVE INSIGHTS

16. APPENDIX 1: TABULATED DATA

17. APPENDIX 2: LIST OF COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/5d7pa0

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

Visit link:
Global Cell and Gene Therapy Bioassay Services Market to 2030 - by Type of Therapy, Therapeutic Area, Scale of Operation and Geography - PR Newswire

NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research | STEM Cell …

SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is hereby publishing final "National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research" (Guidelines).

On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The Executive Order states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, to the extent permitted by law.

These Guidelines implement Executive Order 13505, as it pertains to extramural NIH-funded stem cell research, establish policy and procedures under which the NIH will fund such research, and helps ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH policies and procedures, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and these Guidelines, will govern the conduct of intramural NIH stem cell research.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These Guidelines are effective on July 7, 2009.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES: On April 23, 2009 the NIH published draft Guidelines for research involving hESCs in the Federal Register for public comment, 74 Fed. Reg. 18578 (April 23, 2009). The comment period ended on May 26, 2009.

The NIH received approximately 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists and scientific societies, academic institutions, medical organizations, religious organizations, and private citizens. The NIH also received comments from members of Congress. This Notice presents the final Guidelines together with the NIH response to public comments that addressed provisions of the Guidelines.

Title of the Guidelines, Terminology, and Background:

Respondents felt the title of the NIH draft guidelines was misleading, in that it is entitled "National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research," yet addresses only one type of human stem cell. The NIH notes that although the Guidelines pertain primarily to the donation of embryos for the derivation of hESCs, one Section also applies to certain uses of both hESCs and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Also, the Guidelines discuss applicable regulatory standards when research involving human adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject research. Therefore, the title of the Guidelines was not changed.

Respondents also disagreed with the definition of human embryonic stem cells in the draft Guidelines, and asked that the NIH define them as originating from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst. The NIH modified the definition to say that human embryonic stem cells "are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers."

Financial Gain

Respondents expressed concern that derivers of stem cells might profit from the development of hESCs. Others noted that because the stem cells eligible for use in research using NIH funding under the draft Guidelines are those cells that are subject to existing patents, there will be insufficient competition in the licensing of such rights. These respondents suggested that this could inhibit research, as well as increase the cost of any future clinical benefits. The Guidelines do not address the distribution of stem cell research material. It is, however, the NIH's expectation that stem cell research materials developed with NIH funds, as well as associated intellectual property and data, will be distributed in accordance with the NIHs existing policies and guidance, including "Sharing Biomedical Research Resources, Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Grants and Contracts" and "Best Practices for the Licensing of Genomic Inventions." http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/policies_and_guidelines.aspx Even where such policies are not directly applicable, the NIH encourages others to refrain from imposing on the transfer of research tools, such as stem cells, any conditions that hinder further biomedical research. In addition, the Guidelines were revised to state that there should be documentation that "no payments, cash or in kind, were offered for the donated embryos."

Respondents were concerned that donor(s) be clearly "apprised up front by any researchers that financial gain may come from the donation and that the donor(s) should know up front if he/she will share in the financial gain." The Guidelines address this concern by asking that donor(s) was/were informed during the consent process that the donation was made without any restriction or direction regarding the individual(s) who may receive medical benefit from the use of the stem cells, such as who may be the recipients of cell transplants. The Guidelines also require that the donor(s) receive(s) information that the research was not intended to provide direct medical benefit to the donor(s); that the results of research using the hESCs may have commercial potential, and that the donor(s) would not receive financial or any other benefits from any such commercial development.

IRB Review under the Common Rule

Respondents suggested that the current regulatory structure of IRB review under the Common Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A) addresses the core ethical principles needed for appropriate oversight of hESC derivation. They noted that IRB review includes a full review of the informed consent process, as well as a determination of whether individuals were coerced to participate in the research and whether any undue inducements were offered to secure their participation. These respondents urged the NIH to replace the specific standards to assure voluntary and informed consent in the draft Guidelines with a requirement that hESC research be reviewed and approved by an IRB, in conformance with 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, as a prerequisite to NIH funding. Respondents also requested that the NIH create a registry of eligible hESC lines to avoid burdensome and repetitive assurances from multiple funding applicants. The NIH agrees that the IRB system of review under the Common Rule provides a comprehensive framework for the review of the donation of identifiable human biological materials for research. However, in the last several years, guidelines on hESC research have been issued by a number of different organizations and governments, and different practices have arisen around the country and worldwide, resulting in a patchwork of standards. The NIH concluded that employing the IRB review system for the donation of embryos would not ameliorate stated concerns about variations in standards for hESC research and would preclude the establishment of an NIH registry of hESCs eligible for NIH funding, because there would be no NIH approval of particular hESCs. To this end and response to comments, these Guidelines articulate policies and procedures that will allow the NIH to create a Registry. These Guidelines also provide scientists who apply for NIH funding with a specific set of standards reflecting currently recognized ethical principles and practices specific to embryo donation that took place on or after the issuance of the Guidelines, while also establishing procedures for the review of donations that took place before the effective date of the Guidelines.

Federal Funding Eligibility of Human Pluripotent Cells from Other Sources

Respondents suggested that the allowable sources of hESCs potentially available for federal funding be expanded to include hESC lines from embryos created expressly for research purposes, and lines created, or pluripotent cells derived, following parthenogenesis or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The Guidelines allow for funding of research using hESCs derived from embryos created using in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and no longer needed for these purposes, assuming the research has scientific merit and the embryos were donated after proper informed consent was obtained from the donor(s). The Guidelines reflect the broad public support for federal funding of research using hESCs created from such embryos based on wide and diverse debate on the topic in Congress and elsewhere. The use of additional sources of human pluripotent stem cells proposed by the respondents involve complex ethical and scientific issues on which a similar consensus has not emerged. For example, the embryo-like entities created by parthenogenesis and SCNT require women to donate oocytes, a procedure that has health and ethical implications, including the health risk to the donor from the course of hormonal treatments needed to induce oocyte production.

Respondents noted that many embryos undergo Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This may result in the identification of chromosomal abnormalities that would make the embryos medically unsuitable for clinical use. In addition, the IVF process may also produce embryos that are not transferred into the uterus of a woman because they are determined to be not appropriate for clinical use. Respondents suggested that hESCs derived from such embryos may be extremely valuable for scientific study, and should be considered embryos that were created for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose. The NIH agrees with these comments. As in the draft, the final Guidelines allow for the donation of embryos that have undergone PGD.

Donation and Informed Consent

Respondents commented in numerous ways that the draft Guidelines are too procedurally proscriptive in articulating the elements of appropriate informed consent documentation. This over-reliance on the specific details and format of the informed consent document, respondents argued, coupled with the retroactive application of the Guidelines to embryos already donated for research, would result in a framework that fails to appreciate the full range of factors contributing to the complexity of the informed consent process. For example, respondents pointed to several factors that were precluded from consideration by the proposed Guidelines, such as contextual evidence of the consent process, other established governmental frameworks (representing local and community influences), and the changing standards for informed consent in this area of research over time. Respondents argued that the Guidelines should be revised to allow for a fuller array of factors to be considered in determining whether the underlying ethical principle of voluntary informed consent had been met. In addition to these general issues, many respondents made the specific recommendation that all hESCs derived before the final Guidelines were issued be automatically eligible for Federal funding without further review, especially those eligible under prior Presidential policy, i.e., "grandfathered." The final Guidelines seek to implement the Executive Order by issuing clear guidance to assist this field of science to advance and reach its full potential while ensuring adherence to strict ethical standards. To this end, the NIH is establishing a set of conditions that will maximize ethical oversight, while ensuring that the greatest number of ethically derived hESCs are eligible for federal funding. Specifically, for embryos donated in the U.S. on or after the effective date of the Guidelines, the only way to establish eligibility will be to either use hESCs listed on the NIH Registry, or demonstrate compliance with the specific procedural requirements of the Guidelines by submitting an assurance with supporting information for administrative review by the NIH. Thus, for future embryo donations in the United States, the Guidelines articulate one set of procedural requirements. This responds to concerns regarding the patchwork of requirements and guidelines that currently exist.

However, the NIH is also cognizant that in the more than a decade between the discovery of hESCs and today, many lines were derived consistent with ethical standards and/or guidelines developed by various states, countries, and other entities such as the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). These various policies have many common features, rely on a consistent ethical base, and require an informed consent process, but they differ in details of implementation. For example, some require specific wording in a written informed consent document, while others do not. It is important to recognize that the principles of ethical research, e.g., voluntary informed consent to participation, have not varied in this time period, but the requirements for implementation and procedural safeguards employed to demonstrate compliance have evolved. In response to these concerns, the Guidelines state that applicant institutions wishing to use hESCs derived from embryos donated prior to the effective date of the Guidelines may either comply with Section II (A) of the Guidelines or undergo review by a Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD). The ACD, which is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee, will advise NIH on whether the core ethical principles and procedures used in the process for obtaining informed consent for the donation of the embryo were such that the cell line should be eligible for NIH funding. This Working Group will not undertake a de novo evaluation of ethical standards, but will consider the materials submitted in light of the principles and points to consider in the Guidelines, as well as 45 C.F.R. Part 46 Subpart A. Rather than grandfathering, ACD Working Group review will enable pre-existing hESCs derived in a responsible manner to be eligible for use in NIH funded research.

In addition, for embryos donated outside the United States prior to the effective date of these Guidelines, applicants may comply with either Section II (A) or (B). For embryos donated outside of the United States on or after the effective date of the Guidelines, applicants seeking to determine eligibility for NIH research funding may submit an assurance that the hESCs fully comply with Section II (A) or submit an assurance along with supporting information, that the alternative procedural standards of the foreign country where the embryo was donated provide protections at least equivalent to those provided by Section II (A) of these Guidelines. These materials will be reviewed by the NIH ACD Working Group, which will recommend to the ACD whether such equivalence exists. Final decisions will be made by the NIH Director. This special consideration for embryos donated outside the United States is needed because donation of embryos in foreign countries is governed by the laws and policies of the respective governments of those nations. Although such donations may be responsibly conducted, such governments may not or cannot change their national donation requirements to precisely comply with the NIH Guidelines. The NIH believes it is reasonable to provide a means for reviewing such hESCs because ethically derived foreign hESCs constitute an important scientific asset for the U.S.

Respondents expressed concern that it might be difficult in some cases to provide assurance that there was a "clear separation" between the prospective donor(s) decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes and the donor(s) decision to donate the embryos for research purposes. These respondents noted that policies vary at IVF clinics, especially with respect to the degree to which connections with researchers exist. Respondents noted that a particular clinics role may be limited to the provision of contact information for researchers. A clinic that does not have any particular connection with research would not necessarily have in place a written policy articulating the separation contemplated by the Guidelines. Other respondents noted that embryos that are determined not to be suitable for medical purposes, either because of genetic defects or other concerns, may be donated prior to being frozen. In these cases, it is possible that the informed consent process for the donation might be concurrent with the consent process for IVF treatment. Respondents also noted that the initial consent for IVF may contain a general authorization for donating embryos in excess of clinical need, even though a more detailed consent is provided at the actual time of donation. The NIH notes that the Guidelines specifically state that consent should have been obtained at the time of donation, even if the potential donor(s) had given prior indication of a general intent to donate embryos in excess of clinical need for the purposes of research. Accordingly, a general authorization for research donation when consenting for reproductive treatment would comply with the Guidelines, so long as specific consent for the donation is obtained at the time of donation. In response to comments regarding documentation necessary to establish a separation between clinical and research decisions, the NIH has changed the language of the Guidelines to permit applicant institutions to submit consent forms, written policies or other documentation to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Guidelines. This change should provide the flexibility to accommodate a range of practices, while adhering to the ethical principles intended.

Some respondents want to require that the IVF physician and the hESC researcher should be different individuals, to prevent conflict of interest. Others say they should be the same person, because people in both roles need to have detailed knowledge of both areas (IVF treatment and hESC research). There is also a concern that the IVF doctor will create extra embryos if he/she is also the researcher. As a general matter, the NIH believes that the doctor and the researcher seeking donation should be different individuals. However, this is not always possible, nor is it required, in the NIH's view, for ethical donation.

Some respondents want explicit language (in the Guidelines and/or in the consent) stating that the embryo will be destroyed when the inner cell mass is removed. In the process of developing guidelines, the NIH reviewed a variety of consent forms that have been used in responsible derivations. Several had extensive descriptions of the process and the research to be done, going well beyond the minimum expected, yet they did not use these exact words. Given the wide variety and diversity of forms, as well as the various policy, statutory and regulatory obligations individual institutions face, the NIH declines to provide exact wording for consent forms, and instead endorses a robust informed consent process where all necessary details are explained and understood in an ongoing, trusting relationship between the clinic and the donor(s).

Respondents asked for clarification regarding the people who must give informed consent for the donation of embryos for research. Some commenters suggested that NIH should require consent from the gamete donors, in cases where those individuals may be different than the individuals seeking reproductive treatment. The NIH requests consent from the individual(s) who sought reproductive treatment because this/these individual(s) is/are responsible for the creation of the embryo(s) and, therefore, its/their disposition. With regard to gamete donation, the risks are associated with privacy and, as such, are governed by requirements of the Common Rule, where applicable.

Respondents also requested clarification on the statement in the draft Guidelines noting that "although human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves human embryos." For the purpose of NIH funding, an embryo is defined by Section 509, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 111-8, 3/11/09, otherwise known as the Dickey Amendment, as any organism not protected as a human subject under 45 C.F.R. Part 46 that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Since 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has consistently interpreted this provision as not applicable to research using hESCs, because hESCs are not embryos as defined by Section 509. This long-standing interpretation has been left unchanged by Congress, which has annually reenacted the Dickey Amendment with full knowledge that HHS has been funding hESC research since 2001. These guidelines therefore recognize the distinction, accepted by Congress, between the derivation of stem cells from an embryo that results in the embryos destruction, for which federal funding is prohibited, and research involving hESCs that does not involve an embryo nor result in an embryos destruction, for which federal funding is permitted.

Some respondents wanted to ensure that potential donor(s) are either required to put their "extra" embryos up for adoption before donating them for research, or are at least offered this option. The Guidelines require that all the options available in the health care facility where treatment was sought pertaining to the use of embryos no longer needed for reproductive purposes were explained to the potential donor(s). Since not all IVF clinics offer the same services, the healthcare facility is only required to explain the options available to the donor(s) at that particular facility.

Commenters asked that donor(s) be made aware of the point at which their donation decision becomes irrevocable. This is necessary because if the embryo is de-identified, it may be impossible to stop its use beyond a certain point. The NIH agrees with these comments and revised the Guidelines to require that donor(s) should have been informed that they retained the right to withdraw consent for the donation of the embryo until the embryos were actually used to derive embryonic stem cells or until information which could link the identity of the donor(s) with the embryo was no longer retained, if applicable.

Medical Benefits of Donation

Regarding medical benefit, respondents were concerned that the language of the Guidelines should not somehow eliminate a donor's chances of benefitting from results of stem cell research. Respondents noted that although hESCs are not currently being used clinically, it is possible that in the future such cells might be used for the medical benefit of the person donating them. The Guidelines are meant to preclude individuals from donating embryos strictly for use in treating themselves only or from donating but identifying individuals or groups they do or do not want to potentially benefit from medical intervention using their donated cells. While treatment with hESCs is one of the goals of this research, in practice, years of experimental work must still be done before such treatment might become routinely available. The Guidelines are designed to make it clear that immediate medical benefit from a donation is highly unlikely at this time. Importantly, it is critical to note that the Guidelines in no way disqualify a donor from benefitting from the medical outcomes of stem cell research and treatments that may be developed in the future.

Monitoring and Enforcement Actions

Respondents have expressed concern about the monitoring of funded research and the invocation of possible penalties for researchers who do not follow the Guidelines. A grantee's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of award, including confirmed instances of research misconduct, may cause the NIH to take one or more enforcement actions, depending on the severity and duration of the non-compliance. For example, the following actions may be taken by the NIH when there is a failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any award: (1) Under 45 CFR 74.14, the NIH can impose special conditions on an award, including but not limited to increased oversight/monitoring/reporting requirements for an institution, project, or investigator; and (2) under 45 CFR 74.62 the NIH may impose enforcement actions, including but not limited to withholding funds pending correction of the problem, disallowing all or part of the costs of the activity that was not in compliance, withholding further awards for the project, or suspending or terminating all or part of the funding for the project. Individuals and institutions may be debarred from eligibility for all Federal financial assistance and contracts under 2 CFR Part 376 and 48 CFR Subpart 9.4, respectively. The NIH will undertake all enforcement actions in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

These Guidelines apply to the expenditure of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds for research using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and certain uses of induced pluripotent stem cells (See Section IV). The Guidelines implement Executive Order 13505.

Long-standing HHS regulations for Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. 46, Subpart A establish safeguards for individuals who are the sources of many human tissues used in research, including non-embryonic human adult stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells. When research involving human adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject research, Institutional Review Board review may be required and informed consent may need to be obtained per the requirements detailed in 45 C.F.R. 46, Subpart A. Applicants should consult http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html .

It is also important to note that the HHS regulation, Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, may apply to certain research using hESCs. This regulation applies, among other things, to research involving individually identifiable private information about a living individual, 45 C.F.R. 46.102(f). The HHS Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) considers biological material, such as cells derived from human embryos, to be individually identifiable when they can be linked to specific living individuals by the investigators either directly or indirectly through coding systems. Thus, in certain circumstances, IRB review may be required, in addition to compliance with these Guidelines. Applicant institutions are urged to consult OHRP guidances at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html

To ensure that the greatest number of responsibly derived hESCs are eligible for research using NIH funding, these Guidelines are divided into several sections, which apply specifically to embryos donated in the U.S. and foreign countries, both before and on or after the effective date of these Guidelines. Section II (A) and (B) describe the conditions and review processes for determining hESC eligibility for NIH funds. Further information on these review processes may be found at http://www.NIH.gov . Sections IV and V describe research that is not eligible for NIH funding.

These guidelines are based on the following principles:

As directed by Executive Order 13505, the NIH shall review and update these Guidelines periodically, as appropriate.

For the purpose of these Guidelines, "human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)" are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although hESCs are derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves human embryos. All of the processes and procedures for review of the eligibility of hESCs will be centralized at the NIH as follows:

The materials submitted must demonstrate that the hESCs were derived from human embryos: 1) that were created using in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose; and 2) that were donated by donor(s) who gave voluntary written consent for the human embryos to be used for research purposes.

The Working Group will review submitted materials, e.g., consent forms, written policies or other documentation, taking into account the principles articulated in Section II (A), 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, and the following additional points to consider. That is, during the informed consent process, including written or oral communications, whether the donor(s) were: (1) informed of other available options pertaining to the use of the embryos; (2) offered any inducements for the donation of the embryos; and (3) informed about what would happen to the embryos after the donation for research.

Prior to the use of NIH funds, funding recipients should provide assurances, when endorsing applications and progress reports submitted to NIH for projects using hESCs, that the hESCs are listed on the NIH registry.

This section governs research using hESCs and human induced pluripotent stem cells, i.e., human cells that are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although the cells may come from eligible sources, the following uses of these cells are nevertheless ineligible for NIH funding, as follows:

Raynard S Kington, M.D., Ph.D. Acting Director, NIH

Continue reading here:
NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research | STEM Cell ...

LifeBank Chain Announces Upcoming Gene and Cell Collaboration Platform With Disrupt Blockchain Technologies – Yahoo Finance

LifeBank Chain (LBC) focuses on research and development in the field of genetics and cell science, with the purposes of furthering human longevity and expanding access to genetics and cell treatments through cutting-edge technologies.

Gene and Cell Technology

JERUSALEM, Dec. 31, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GENE & CELL MEDICINE LTD located in Israel and Singapore started a new project : LifeBank Chain (LBC). The project LBC plans to build a genetic and cell data collaboration platform.

Genetic research seeks to understand the process of trait inheritance from parents to offspring. The human genetic research is revealing the nature of human bioinformatics and giving scientists a powerful approach to study various health issues of human life.

Cell research focuses on stem cell and immune cell therapies, which are an extremely promising approach for the treatment of many diseases with an immune component including cancer, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation.

The wide applications of these new biological technologies in the medical field greatly reshaped the traditional pharmaceutical industry, whose focus was not only put on the treatment of disease as before but also on gene diagnosis and prevention, which opened the door to the world of personalized and precise medicine.

Blockchain is an emerging technology that has attracted increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners. The functionalities of blockchain technology and smart contracts provide an opportunity over large gene and cell data to support genetic and cell data integrity and security while giving patients control over their own data.

LBC plans to build a genetic and cell data collaboration platform incorporating an extensible cross-chain service system based on individual and institutional nodes. The platform product service layer abstracts all typical kinds of gene and cell blockchain applications and provides the full functions and implementation framework of typical applications.

Story continues

The goal of LifeBank Chain (LBC) is to establish a global-level service platform for sharing and utilizing human genetic and cell data through secured blockchain technologies. The LBC blockchain is designed to provide genetic and cell research industry partners with enterprise-level blockchain infrastructure, industry solutions, and secure, reliable, and flexible blockchain services. LBC will work together with medical practitioners to provide full-solution ancillary reagent services and provide flexible and pioneering tools to simplify therapy workflow at every step of the medical process.

LBC will form a professional and shared social organization -- LBC Life Alliance -- inviting life technology companies, scientific research institutes, medical institutions, etc. to jointly solve medical, health, disease, and public health problems, and jointly build the application standards of gene and stem cell medical technology on the blockchain, and contribute to the cause of human health.

LifeBank Chain enables healthcare professionals to manage the medical data and do research in an auditable, transparent and secure way on LBC's distributed network. LBC continues to closely monitor the evolution of genetics and cell therapy in different medical subspecialties around the world.

LifeBank Chain:

Official Website: https://lifebankchain.io

LBC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lifebankchain Email : lbc@lifebankchain.io

Related Images

Image 1: Gene and Cell Technology

This content was issued through the press release distribution service at Newswire.com.

Attachment

Follow this link:
LifeBank Chain Announces Upcoming Gene and Cell Collaboration Platform With Disrupt Blockchain Technologies - Yahoo Finance

Global Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market By type, By workflow, By scale, By Regional Outlook, Industry Analysis Report and…

The Global Automated And Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market size is expected to reach $2,247. 8 million by 2027, rising at a market growth of 20. 3% CAGR during the forecast period.

New York, Dec. 27, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Global Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market By type, By workflow, By scale, By Regional Outlook, Industry Analysis Report and Forecast, 2021 - 2027" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06193295/?utm_source=GNW Cell therapy is a technology that is based on replacing any dysfunctional or diseased cell with active & functional cells. Stem cells have the capability to differentiate into certain cells required for repairing damaged or defective tissues or cells, which is the reason why they are utilized for these advanced therapies.

Cell therapy technologies are very important in the medicine and cell therapy sector, which has emerged as a crucial aspect of medical practice. In addition, these cell therapy technologies have common functionality as drug delivery, gene therapy, cancer vaccines, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine. The process of cell therapy products delivery can vary from injections to surgical implantation by using some specific equipment.

The growth of the market is driven by the increasing popularity of regenerative medicines & cell therapies along with various advantages provided by automation technologies for the development of these therapies. Additionally, the market growth is further driven by the increasing combination of software technologies and sophisticated therapy development procedures.

COVID-19 Impact Analysis

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has positively impacted the growth of the automated and closed cell therapy processing systems market. It is due to the growing focus of the companies and governments on automation technologies. Along with that, companies have highly invested in the development of advanced therapies and regenerative medicines to fight against the COVID-19 virus. This would support the growth of the market in the coming years.

There are numerous key players that are also focusing on the development of new therapies like exosomes, natural killer cell therapy, stem cell therapy, and others, which would augment the growth of the market in the upcoming years. In addition, governments across the world have also provided their support to the companies for the development of advanced therapies for the coronavirus, thereby created lucrative growth opportunities for the market.

Market Growth Factors:

Growing cases of chronic diseases

Chronic disease is the term used for a group of diseases including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes among others. There is a rise in the number of chronic diseases among the population across the globe. It is majorly due to the sedentary lifestyle, unhealthy diet, and consumption of tobacco. As per the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), chronic disease is a condition that lasts for more than one year and needs immediate medical attention or restricts daily activities or both and involves heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and many more.

The rising popularity of regenerative medicines & cell therapies

Regenerative medicine refers to a group of medicine, which makes different methods to repair, regrow or replace diseased or damaged cells, organs or tissues. In addition, regenerative medicine consists of the generation and usage of therapeutic stem cells, tissue development, and the making of artificial organs. Due to the high accuracy and effectiveness, regenerative medicines and cell therapies are estimated to witness a surge in demand, thereby bolstering the growth of the market.

Market Restraining Factor:

Lack of skilled professionals

As cell therapies are gaining more popularity, the automated processing systems market needs more skilled professionals to carry out these therapies and operate automated systems. However, the dearth of skilled professionals is estimated to hinder the growth of the automated and closed cell therapy processing systems market over the forecast period. In addition, the usage of technologically advanced and highly complicated flow cytometers and spectrophotometers for generating a huge amount of data outputs require knowledge for interpreting and reviewing would hinder the market growth.

Type Outlook

Based on type, the market is segmented into stem cell therapy, and non-stem cell therapy. The non-stem cell therapy segment acquired the highest revenue share of the market in 2020 and is estimated to display the fastest growth rate over the forecast period. This growth is attributed to the rising number of product launches for various non-stem cell therapy applications.

Workflow Outlook

Based on workflow, the market is segmented into separation, expansion, apheresis, fill-finish, cryopreservation and others. Among all, the expansion segment dominated the market with the highest revenue share in 2020. It is due to the rise in adoption of strategies like partnerships among the key market players for the application and adoption of systems.

Scale Outlook

Based on scale, the market is segmented into Pre-commercial/R&D Scale and Commercial Scale. Among these, the pre-commercial/R&D scale segment procured the maximum revenue share of the market in 2020. In the current scenario, the market is in its initial phase owing to the restricted number of products. In addition, many key companies are launching their products only for research objectives.

Regional Outlook

Based on Regions, the market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, Middle East & Africa. In 2020, North America emerged as the leading region in the market with the highest revenue share and is estimated to witness a significant growth rate over the forecast period due to the high demand for regenerative medicines across the regional healthcare sector.

The major strategies followed by the market participants are Partnerships. Based on the Analysis presented in the Cardinal matrix; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. and Cytiva (Danaher Corp.) are the forerunners in the Automated And Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market. Companies such as Terumo Corporation, Lonza Group AG, Miltenyi Biotec are some of the key innovators in Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market.

The market research report covers the analysis of key stake holders of the market. Key companies profiled in the report include Lonza Group AG, Terumo Corporation, Cytiva (Danaher Corporation), Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG, Thermogenesis Holdings, Inc., Cellares Inc., Biospherix ltd., Sartorius AG, and Fresenius Kabi AG.

Recent Strategies Deployed in Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market

Partnerships, Collaborations and Agreements:

Oct-2021: Terumo joined hands with BioCentriq, a clinical manufacturing facility for cell and gene therapies. This collaboration aimed to boost the adoption of automated manufacturing to provide novel cell and gene therapies (CGT) to patients more rapidly and cost-effectively.

Oct-2021: Terumo collaborated with BioCentriq laboratories, a clinical manufacturing facility for cell and gene therapies. This collaboration aimed to bring together the companies respective automation and CDMO knowledge, products, skills, and services to assist meet users where they are in their product development pathway and allow a scalable strategy for the future.

Jul-2021: Cellares Corporation signed an agreement with Poseida Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. Under this agreement, Poseida joined Cellaress Early Access Partnership Program (EAPP).

Jun-2021: Lonza teamed up with CellPoint, a private, clinical-stage Biopharmaceutical Company. This collaboration aimed to swiftly develop numerous T-cell-based therapies and use the Cocoon Platform for clinical point-of-care manufacturing. The utilization of the Cocoon Platform, along with the range of CellPoints therapies & technologies, and Lonzas manufacturing capabilities, would assist to boost the path to the clinic and offer a smoother path to commercial approval.

May-2021: Cytiva collaborated with Multiply Labs, a leader in developing robotic systems for pharmaceutical manufacturing. This collaboration aimed to make a robotic manufacturing system, which would automate the manual portions of the cell therapy manufacturing workflow.

Apr-2021: Fresenius Kabi entered into a distribution agreement with Corvida Medical, provider of a smarter Closed System Transfer Device for Chemotherapy. In this agreement, Fresenius Kabi would be the exclusive U.S. distributor for the HALO Closed System Drug-Transfer Device (CSTD).

Jan-2021: Sartorius joined hands with RoosterBio, a biotechnology company. The collaboration aimed to advance the scale-up of hMSC manufacturing for regenerative medicine by using the top-class solutions of the companies to substantially decrease process development efforts, industrialize the supply chain and boost the development & commercialization of groundbreaking cell-based regenerative cures.

Aug-2020: Lonza came into collaboration with IsoPlexis, a life science technology company. This collaboration aimed at the evolution of cell therapy manufacturing.

Jun-2020: ThermoGenesis entered into an agreement with Corning Incorporateds Life Sciences Division. Under this agreement, ThermoGenesiss X-SERIES products would be distributed under the Corning brand.

Jun-2020: BioSpherix Medical teamed up with Sexton Biotechnologies, a provider of novel manufacturing solutions for the cell and gene therapy (CGT) industry. This collaboration aimed to identify the requirement for cost-efficient & flexible automation solutions during cell and gene therapy process development.

Acquisitions and Mergers:

Jul-2021: Sartorius Stedim Biotech, a division of Sartorius acquired Xell, an innovative partner for the biotech and pharmaceutical industry. This acquisition aimed to expand its current media offering, particularly by specialized media for manufacturing viral vectors and, along with the area of media analytics.

Jan-2020: Fresenius Kabi formed a joint venture with Wilson Wolf and Bio-Techne, namely, ScaleReady. This joint venture aimed to offer the manufacturing technologies & processes required to develop and commercialize the latest cell and gene therapies via individual company products and expertise.

Product Launches and Product Expansions:

Dec-2020: Thermo Fisher Scientific released its Gibco CTS Rotea Counterflow Centrifugation System. This system allows cost-effective, scalable cell therapy development and manufacturing. This CTS Rotea system is the Gibco instrument for cell therapy processing applications as well as streamlines workflows from research via GMP clinical development & commercial manufacturing.

Jul-2020: Miltenyi Biotec introduced the latest CliniMACS Prodigy Adherent Cell Culture System. This system allows the automated, scalable, and closed manufacturing of numerous adherent cell types that include stem cells and their derivatives. Tested procedures involve, for example, GMP-compliant expansion of human mesenchymal stromal cells, and pluripotent stem cells, and the differentiation of the latter into dopaminergic progenitors.

Scope of the Study

Market Segments covered in the Report:

By Type

Separation

Expansion

Apheresis

Fill-Finish

Cryopreservation

By Workflow

Stem Cell Therapy

Non-Stem Cell Therapy

By Scale

Pre-commercial/R&D Scale

Commercial Scale

By Geography

North America

o US

o Canada

o Mexico

o Rest of North America

Europe

o Germany

o UK

o France

o Russia

o Spain

o Italy

o Rest of Europe

Asia Pacific

o China

o Japan

o India

o South Korea

o Singapore

o Malaysia

o Rest of Asia Pacific

LAMEA

o Brazil

o Argentina

o UAE

o Saudi Arabia

o South Africa

o Nigeria

o Rest of LAMEA

Companies Profiled

Lonza Group AG

Terumo Corporation

Cytiva (Danaher Corporation)

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG

Thermogenesis Holdings, Inc.

Cellares Inc.

Biospherix ltd.

Sartorius AG

Fresenius Kabi AG

Unique Offerings

Exhaustive coverage

Continued here:
Global Automated and Closed Cell Therapy Processing Systems Market By type, By workflow, By scale, By Regional Outlook, Industry Analysis Report and...

The Worldwide Culture Media Industry is Expected to Reach $13+ Billion by 2030 – GlobeNewswire

Dublin, Dec. 29, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Culture Media Market by Type, Application, Research Type, and End User: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021-2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global culture media market was valued at $5,492.90 million in 2020, and is projected to reach $13,487.84 million by 2030, registering a CAGR of 9.5% from 2021 to 2030.

Culture media plays a role of growth factor in the cultivation of cell lines. They provide ample environment for the regeneration and growth of cells such as stem cells, and other cell lines. In order to fulfill the requirements of various cell types, different culture media are available which can be solid, liquid, semi-solid depending on the requirement of cell lines. Culture media is also capable of producing monoclonal antibodies which are recently in high demand due to the pandemic situation. Culture media provide the environment suitable for the proliferation of cell lines which makes it compatible for its growth.

An increase in funding in the research and development field and need for new drug discovery is contributing to the growth of the culture media market. Moreover, other factors that fuel the market are the surge in the geriatric population which gives rise in cardiovascular and cancer diseases which create demand in research areas of pharmaceuticals, oncology and stem cell research. Ongoing pandemic situation and rise in prevalence of infectious diseases offers potential growth in the culture media market.

The culture media market is segmented based on type, application, research type, end user, and region. On the basis of type, the market is divided into lysogeny broth, chemically defined media, classical media, serum-free media, specialty media, stem cell media, and others. The applications, the market is segmented into cancer research, biopharmaceuticals, regenerative medicine & tissue engineering, stem cell technologies, drug discovery, and others.

By research type, the culture media market is fragmented into cytogenetics, cell therapy, and others. Depending on end user, the market is classified into biotechnology & pharmaceutical industry, academic institute, research laboratory, and others.Region wise, the culture media market is analyzed across North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and LAMEA.

The report provides extensive competitive analysis and profiles of the key market players such as Avantor Performance Materials, LLC (VWR International, LLC), Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. (Bio-Rad), Corning Incorporated (Corning), Fujifilm Holdings Corporation (Fujifilm), GE Healthcare, HiMedia Laboratories Pvt., Ltd (HiMedia), Lonza Group Ltd. (Lonza), Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck), Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

Key Benefits

Key Topics Covered:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 3: MARKET OVERVIEW3.1. Market definition and scope 3.2. Key findings 3.2.1. Top Player Positioning 3.2.2. Top investment pockets 3.2.3. Top winning strategies 3.3. Porter's five forces analysis 3.4. Market dynamics 3.4.1. Drivers 3.4.1.1. Rise in R&D investments 3.4.1.2. Increase in advancements associated with cell culture media8 3.4.1.3. High demand for cell culture media 3.4.2. Restraints 3.4.2.1. Dearth of skilled professionals 3.4.2.2. Ethical & scientific concerns associated with culture media 3.4.3. Opportunity 3.4.3.1. Untapped potential of the emerging economies 3.5. Product Analysis 3.5.1. Current trends in embryonic stem cell culture media 3.5.2. Classic media products 3.6. IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON CULTURE MEDIA MARKET

CHAPTER 4: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY TYPE4.1. Overview 4.1.1. Market size and forecast 4.2. Lysogeny broth 4.2.1. Key market trends 4.2.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.2.3. Market analysis, by country 4.3. Chemically defined media 4.3.1. Key market trends 4.3.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.3.3. Market analysis, by country 4.4. Classical media 4.4.1. Key market trends 4.4.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.4.3. Market analysis, by country 4.5. Serum-free Media 4.5.1. Key market trends 4.5.3. Market size and forecast, by region 4.5.4. Market analysis, by country 4.6. Specialty media 4.6.1. Key market trends 4.6.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.6.3. Market analysis, by country 4.7. Stem cell media 4.7.1. Key market trends 4.7.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.7.3. Market analysis, by country 4.8. Custom media formulation 4.8.1. Key market trends 4.8.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.8.3. Market analysis, by country 4.9. Other media 4.9.1. Key market trends 4.9.2. Market size and forecast, by region 4.9.3. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 5: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET BY APPLICATION5.1. Overview 5.1.1. Market size and forecast 5.2. Cancer research 5.2.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.2.2. Market analysis, by country 5.3. Biopharmaceuticals 5.3.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.3.2. Market analysis, by country 5.4. Regenerative medicine & tissue engineering 5.4.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.4.2. Market analysis, by country 5.5. Stem cell technology 5.5.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.5.2. Market analysis, by country 5.6. Drug discovery 5.6.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.6.2. Market analysis, by country 5.7. Other Applications 5.7.1. Market size and forecast, by region 5.7.2. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 6: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY RESEARCH TYPE6.1. Overview 6.1.1. Market size and forecast 6.2. Cytogenetics 6.2.1. Market size and forecast, by region 6.2.2. Market analysis, by country 6.3. Cell Therapy 6.3.1. Market size and forecast, by region 6.3.2. Market analysis, by country 6.4. Others 6.4.1. Market size and forecast, by region 6.4.2. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 7: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY END USER7.1. Overview 7.1.1. Market size and forecast 7.2. Biotechnology & pharmaceutical industry 7.2.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.2.2. Market analysis, by country 7.3. Academic institute 7.3.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.3.2. Market analysis, by country 7.4. Research laboratory 7.4.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.4.2. Market analysis, by country 7.5. Others 7.5.1. Market size and forecast, by region 7.5.2. Market analysis, by country

CHAPTER 8: CULTURE MEDIA MARKET, BY REGION

CHAPTER 9: COMPANY PROFILES9.1. Avantor, Inc. 9.1.1. Company overview 9.1.2. Company Snapshot 9.1.3. Operating business segments 9.1.4. Product portfolio 9.1.5. Business performance 9.2. Becton Dickinson and Company. 9.2.1. Company overview 9.2.2. Company snapshot 9.2.3. Operating Business Segment 9.2.4. Product portfolio 9.2.5. Business performance 9.2.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.3. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. 9.3.1. Company Overview 9.3.2. Company Snapshot 9.3.3. Operating segments 9.3.4. Product portfolio 9.3.5. Business performance 9.3.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.4. Corning Incorporated. 9.4.1. Company overview 9.4.2. Company Snapshot 9.4.3. Operating Segments 9.4.4. Product Portfolio 9.4.5. Business performance 9.4.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.5. Fujifilm Holdings Corporation 9.5.1. Company overview 9.5.2. Company snapshot 9.5.3. Operating business segments 9.5.4. Product portfolio 9.5.5. Business performance 9.5.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.6. General Electric Company 9.6.1. Company overview 9.6.2. Company snapshot 9.6.3. Operating business segments 9.6.4. Product portfolio 9.6.5. Business performance 9.7. Hi Media Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 9.7.1. Company overview 9.7.2. Company snapshot 9.7.3. Operating business segments 9.7.4. Product portfolio 9.8. Lonza Group AG 9.8.1. Company overview 9.8.2. Company snapshot 9.8.3. Operating business segments 9.8.4. Product portfolio 9.8.5. Business performance 9.8.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.9. Merck & Co., Inc. 9.9.1. Company overview 9.9.2. Company snapshot 9.9.3. Operating business segments 9.9.4. Product portfolio 9.9.5. Business performance 9.9.6. Key strategic moves and developments 9.10. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 9.10.1. Company overview 9.10.2. Company snapshot 9.10.3. Operating business segments 9.10.4. Product portfolio 9.10.5. Business performance 9.10.6. Key strategic moves and developments

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/z6f8rg

More:
The Worldwide Culture Media Industry is Expected to Reach $13+ Billion by 2030 - GlobeNewswire

Global Single-Use Bioreactors Market by Product, Molecule, Cell type, Application, End-user, and Region – Forecast to 2026 – Yahoo Finance UK

Dublin, Dec. 30, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Single-Use Bioreactors Market by Product (System, 2D, 3D Media Bag, Filtration Assemblies), Molecule (mAbs, Vaccine), Cell type (Mammalian, Bacteria), Application (R&D, Process Development), End User (Biopharma, CROs & CMOs) - Global Forecast to 2026" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global single-use bioreactors market is projected to reach USD 8.8 billion by 2026 from USD 3.4 billion in 2021, at a CAGR of 21.1% during the forecast period.

Increasing adoption of SUBs among small companies and startups, reduced automation complexity, ease in the cultivation of marine organisms, reduced energy and water consumption, the growing biologics market, technological advancements in SUBs, and increasing Biopharmaceutical R&D are factors driving the growth of this market.

By type, the stirred-tank SUBs segment accounted for the largest share of the single-use bioreactors market

The single-use bioreactors market is categorized into major four types, wave-induced SUBs, stirred-tank SUBs, bubble-column SUBs, and other bioreactors. The stirred-tank SUBs segment dominated the single-use bioreactors market in 2020. The large share of this segment can be attributed to factors such as the high preference for stirred-tank SUBs in the cultivation of aerobic microbial cultures due to its ability to provide greater oxygen transfer and reduced engineering challenges such as heat removal, mass transfer, and higher agitation rates.

Asia Pacific: The fastest-growing region in the single-use bioreactors market

The Asia Pacific market is projected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period, mainly due to the growing biopharmaceutical industry, increasing life science research, rising investments by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and the growing number of CROs and CMOs in several APAC countries contribute to its growth.

North America: the largest share of the single-use bioreactors market

Story continues

North America accounted for the largest share of the single-use bioreactors market. Factors such as to the presence of an established biopharmaceutical industry and the presence of major players operating in the single-use bioreactors market in the region are the major factors driving the market growth.

Research Coverage

The report segments the single-use bioreactors market based on region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East & Africa), products (Single-use bioreactor systems (up to 10L, 11-100L, 101-500L, 01-1500L, above 1500L), single-use media bags (2D bags, 3D bags, other bags), single-use filtration assemblies, and other products), type (Stirred-tank SUBs, wave-induced SUBs, bubble-column SUBs, and other SUBs), Type of Cell (Mammalian cells, bacterial cells, yeast cells, and other cells), Molecule Type (Monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, gene-modified cells, stem cells, and other molecules), application (Research & development, process development, and bioproduction), end users (Pharmaceutical & biopharmaceutical companies, CROs and CMOs, and academic & research institutes).

The report also provides a comprehensive review of market drivers, challenges, and opportunities in the single-use bioreactors market.

Market Dynamics

Drivers

Increasing Adoption of Subs Among Small Companies and Startups

Reduced Automation Complexity

Ease in the Cultivation of Marine Organisms

Reduced Energy and Water Consumption

Growing Biologics Market

Technological Advancements in Subs

Increasing Biopharmaceutical R&D

Restraints

Opportunities

Patent Expiry

Emerging Markets

Challenges

Key Industry Trends

Increasing Focus of Single-Use Bioprocessing Capacities and Technological Competitiveness

Increasing Adoption of Single-Use Systems by Contract Manufacturing Organizations

Advent of Automation in Single-Use Bioreactors

Companies Profiled

ABEC

Able Corporation & Biott Corporation

Aptus Bioreactors

BBI-Biotech GmbH

Cell Culture Company

Cellexus

Celltainer Biotech BV

Cesco Bioengineering Co. Ltd.

Danaher Corporation

Distek, Inc.

Endel Engie

Eppendorf AG

G&G Technologies, Inc.

Getinge AB

GPC Bio

Meissner Filtration Products, Inc.

Merck Millipore

New Horizon Biotechnology Inc.

Omnibrx Biotechnologies

PBS Biotech, Inc.

Sartorius Stedim Biotech

Satake Chemical Equipment Mfg. Ltd.

Solida Biotech GmbH

Stobbe Pharma GmbH

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/wfowv6

Read more from the original source:
Global Single-Use Bioreactors Market by Product, Molecule, Cell type, Application, End-user, and Region - Forecast to 2026 - Yahoo Finance UK

With soaring demand for meat, it’s time to fund animal-free protein research | TheHill – The Hill

Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaWith soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research Khanna advocates for 'honest and reflective patriotism' in America Democrats call on Education secretary to address 'stealthing' at federal level MORE (D-Calif.) recently wrote, Nearly 10 [percent] of the world's population today is experiencing hunger. He called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to invest in alternative proteins research to improve the sustainability and resiliency of our food systems and help put us on the path to ending hunger around the globe.

Khanna is hardly the only member of Congress interested in seeing more agriculture research and development (R&D) dollars flowing toward animal-free protein. House Appropriations Chairwoman Rosa DeLauroRosa DeLauroWith soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research Manchin undercuts Biden, leaving his agenda in limbo No, Senator Manchin Americans cannot wait for paid leave MORE (D-Conn.) has also embraced the need for the U.S. to be a leader in the clean protein space, recently telling USDA that we should pursue parity in research funding for alternative proteins as a means of combatting climate change and adding resiliency to our food system.

Its no longer a secret that raising billions of animals for food is at the heart of so many of humanitys most pressing problems, from environmental degradation to pandemic risk and more. With groups like the United Nations and World Health Organization touting the benefits of shifting toward plant-based foods, it seems like there must be a role for public policy to help nudge us in the right direction.

Case in point: The Netherlands, increasingly worried about the impact of its livestock sector on the Dutch environment, has hatched a 25 billion euro plan ($28 billion USD) simply to pay farmers to raise fewer animals. But without addressing the root of the concern increasing demand for animal protein such a policy is likely just to shift the environmental harms of animal agriculture from Holland to somewhere else, like the Amazon rainforest.

Congress members like Khanna and DeLauro are proposing a smarter and much more cost-effective way. Rather than spending tens of billions of dollars paying farmers to raise fewer animals, why not just spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fund R&D into creating meat-type experiences without animals? After all, were funding research into methods of producing energy without fossil fuels; its time to do the same with producing protein without factory farms.

While its still a drop in the bucket compared to what the USDA spends supporting animal agriculture (for example, half a billion dollars recently to increase U.S. slaughter capacity), this kind of federal support is starting to trickle toward the alt-protein sector. Nonprofits like the Good Food Institute have been instrumental in helping garner a $3.5 million National Science Foundation grant to UC-Davis to study cultivated meat (real meat grown from animal cells) and a $10 million USDA grant to Tufts to do the same.

Former USDA secretaries from both Republican and Democratic administrations seem enthusiastic about such promising new technology that could help satisfy humanitys meat-tooth in a far more efficient and sustainable way.

For example, former Trump administration Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue noted that weve got new technology with stem cell protein growth there. While some people may be anxious about taking their markets, shouldnt we in the United States be about how we can grow and feed people more efficiently and more effectively these techniques need to be embraced, not kept out of.

Similarly, former Clinton administration Ag Secretary Dan Glickman found common ground with his Republican counterpart when he observed that cellular agriculture may supplement conventional agriculture, and concluded about such technology that innovation offers a variety of additional ways to feed a hungry and growing world.

The United States has already fallen behind Asia in the production of clean energy technologies such as solar panels and lithium ion batteries. We can still be a leader when it comesto the clean protein that will be needed to sustainably feed humanity meat into the future. With the right kind of R&D incentives to those seeking to recreate the meat experience without such a heavy hoofprint on the planet, the federal government can help the U.S. maintain our leadership as a meat basket to the world.

Paul Shapiro is the CEO of The Better Meat Co. and the author of Clean Meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World.

View post:
With soaring demand for meat, it's time to fund animal-free protein research | TheHill - The Hill