Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market By Type (Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Bone Marrow Transplant, Adipose Tissue Stem Cells) and By…

250 Pages Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market Survey by Fact MR, A Leading Business and Competitive Intelligence Provider

Rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy has been demonstrated to induce profound healing activity, halt arthritic conditions, and in many cases, reverse and regenerate joint tissue. Today, bone marrow transplant, adipose or fat-derived stem cells, and allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells (human umbilical cord tissue) are used for rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy.

The Market Research Survey by Fact.MR, highlights the key reasons behind increasing demand and sales of Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy.Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy market driversand constraints, threats and opportunities, regional segmentation and opportunity assessment, end-use/application prospects review are addressed in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy market survey report. The survey report provides a comprehensive analysis of Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy market key trends and insights on Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy market size and share.

To Get In-depth Insights Request for Brochure here https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=B&rep_id=1001

Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market: Segmentation

Tentatively, the global rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy market can be segmented on the basis of treatment type, application, end user and geography.

Based on treatment type, the global rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy market can be segmented into:

Based on application, the global rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy market can be segmented into:

Based on distribution channel, the global rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy market can be segmented into:

Key questions answered in Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market Survey Report:

Request Customized Report as Per Your Requirements https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=RC&rep_id=1001

Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market: Key Players

The global market for rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy is highly fragmented. Examples of some of the key players operating in the global rheumatoid arthritis stem cell therapy market include Mesoblast Ltd., Roslin Cells, Regeneus Ltd, ReNeuron Group plc, International Stem Cell Corporation, TiGenix and others.

The report is a compilation of first-hand information, qualitative and quantitative assessment by industry analysts, inputs from industry experts and industry participants across the value chain.

Essential Takeaways from the this Market Report

Enquire Before Buying Here https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=EB&rep_id=1001

The Report Covers Exhaustive Analysis On:

Explore Fact.MRs Coverage on theHealthcareDomain:

Hemostasis Valves MarketAccording to the latest research by Fact.MR, the Hemostasis Valves Market is set to witness steady growth during 2021-2031. The increasing advancement in the hemostasis valves industry will offer lucrative opportunities and an increasing number of interventional procedures is propelling the market growth.

Cosmetic Dentistry MarketThe global cosmetic dentistry market is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period of 2021-2031. This growth is factored in due to the rising consumer awareness and well-defined grooming interest in the aesthetical value of oral care.

Creatinine Testing MarketCreatinine testing involves the measurement of the level of creatinine, which is a product of muscle creatine catabolism and is thus a reliable indicator of kidney function by an indication that a rise in the level of creatinine may indicate Acute Kidney Injury or Chronic Kidney Disease.

About Fact.MR

Market research and consulting agency with a difference! Thats why 80% of Fortune 1,000 companies trust us for making their most critical decisions. We have offices in US and Dublin, whereas our global headquarter is in Dubai. While our experienced consultants employ the latest technologies to extract hard-to-find insights, we believe our USP is the trust clients have on our expertise. Spanning a wide range from automotive & industry 4.0 to healthcare & retail, our coverage is expansive, but we ensure even the most niche categories are analyzed. Reach out to us with your goals, and well be an able research partner.

Contact:US Sales Office: 11140 Rockville Pike Suite 400 Rockville, MD 20852 United States Tel: +1 (628) 251-1583 E-Mail:[emailprotected]

Corporate Headquarter:Unit No: AU-01-H Gold Tower (AU), Plot No: JLT-PH1-I3A, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

The post Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market By Type (Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Bone Marrow Transplant, Adipose Tissue Stem Cells) and By Application (Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy) Forecast to 2021-2031 appeared first on The Swiss Times.

Read the original:
Rheumatoid Arthritis Stem Cell Therapy Market By Type (Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Bone Marrow Transplant, Adipose Tissue Stem Cells) and By...

Dr. Kahl on the Potential Utility of Frontline CAR T-Cell Therapy in MCL – OncLive

Brad S. Kahl, MD, discusses the potential utility of frontline CAR T-cell therapy in mantle cell lymphoma.

Brad S. Kahl, MD, professor of medicine, Department of Medicine, Oncology Division, Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, discusses the potential utility of frontline CAR T-cell therapy in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

CAR T-cell therapy has the potential to move into earlier lines of treatment, including the frontline setting, in MCL; however, longer follow-up is needed with CAR T-cell therapy in the relapsed/refractory setting before frontline clinical trials can be explored, Kahl says. Currently, CAR T-cell therapy is demonstrating high response rates at 12 and 18 months of follow-up in the relapsed/refractory setting, but it is unknown whether these responses will remain durable at 3 or 5 years.

Positive 3-year data in the relapsed/refractory setting could provide the clinical rationale to evaluate CAR T-cell therapy in the frontline setting, Kahl says. Pending these results, CAR T-cell therapy could replace autologous stem cell transplant as consolidative therapy or offer a standard option for patients with high-risk biologic features, such as TP53 mutations, Kahl concludes.

More here:
Dr. Kahl on the Potential Utility of Frontline CAR T-Cell Therapy in MCL - OncLive

Orchard Therapeutics Outlines Comprehensive Presence at the European Society of Gene & Cell Therapy Congress – Yahoo Finance

Nine accepted abstracts demonstrate broad potential of the companys HSC gene therapy approach to treat severe neurodegenerative diseases and immunological disorders

BOSTON and LONDON, Oct. 13, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Orchard Therapeutics (Nasdaq: ORTX), a global gene therapy leader, today announced the acceptance of nine abstracts at the upcoming European Society of Gene & Cell Therapy Congress (ESGCT) taking place virtually from October 19-22.

Clinical and pre-clinical data from across the companys hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) gene therapy portfolio will be featured in two oral and seven poster presentations, including an update on the ongoing proof-of-concept study of OTL-201 for the treatment of Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA (MPS-IIIA, also known as Sanfilippo syndrome type A), pre-clinical data from OTL-204 in frontotemporal dementia (FTD), as well as proof-of-principle for longitudinal monitoring of vector integration sites using Liquid Biopsy Integration Site sequencing (LiBIS-seq).

Additionally, Orchards scientific advisory board member and clinical collaborator Alessandra Biffi, M.D., professor of pediatrics, University of Padua and chief of the Pediatric Onco-hematology Unit of Padua Hospital, will be giving an invited presentation on the HSC gene therapy landscape for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, which will include an overview of several of the companys investigational programs.

The presentations are listed below, and the full program is available online on the ESGCT website. All times are Central European Summer Time (CEST).

Oral Presentation Details:

Haematopoietic reconstitution dynamics of mobilized peripheral blood- and bone marrow-derived haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells after gene therapy Presenting Author: Andrea Calabria, Ph.D., San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy Abstract Number: OR049 Date/Time: Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:01 CEST

Longitudinal monitoring of vector integration sites in in vivo GT approaches by Liquid-Biopsy-Integration-Site-Sequencing Presenting Author: Daniela Cesana, Ph.D., San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy Abstract Number: OR058 Date/Time: Friday, October 22, 2021 at 12:46 CEST

Story continues

Poster Presentation Details:

All posters will be available on demand starting October 19, 2021 on the ESGCT website.

Development of an ex vivo Gene Therapy for Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) Presenting Author: Yuri Ciervo, Ph.D., division of pediatric Hematology,Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Womans and Child Health Department, University of Padova, Padova, Italy Abstract Number: P077

Optimized Lentiviral Transduction Process for ex vivo CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem Cell Gene Therapy Drug Product Manufacture Presenting Author: Saranya Elavazhagan, Orchard Therapeutics Abstract Number: P271

Clinical Trial Update: Ex-vivo autologous stem cell gene therapy in MPSIIIA Presenting Author: Brian Bigger, Ph.D., University of Manchester Abstract Number: P361

Dissecting bone remodelling mechanisms and hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy impact in Mucopolysaccharidosis type I Hurler bone defects Presenting Author: Ludovica Santi, Ph.D., San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy Abstract Number: P157

Hematopoietic reconstitution and lineage commitment in HSC GT patients are influenced by the disease background Presenting Author: Andrea Calabria, Ph.D., San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy Abstract Number: P181

Kinetics and composition of haematopoietic stem/progenitors mobilized cells upon G-CSF and Plerixafor administration in transplant donor or patients undergoing autologous gene therapy Presenting Author: Luca Basso-Ricci, San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy Abstract Number: P174

Role of peripheral blood circulating haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells during physiological haematopoietic maturation and after gene therapy Presenting Author: Pamela Quaranta, San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy Abstract Number: P186

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

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

Orchard has its global headquarters in London and U.S. headquarters in Boston. For more information, please visit http://www.orchard-tx.com, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

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

Contacts

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

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

See the original post here:
Orchard Therapeutics Outlines Comprehensive Presence at the European Society of Gene & Cell Therapy Congress - Yahoo Finance

Taking aim at the brain, Takeda strikes up cell therapy R&D alliance with Immusoft – MedCity News

The first cell therapies made from a patients own cells were cancer treatments T cells engineered to hit tumors. Immusoft is taking a similar approach with a different type of immune cell, aiming to deliver these cell therapies into the brain. The biotech startup is still preclinical, but Takeda Pharmaceutical sees enough promise to begin a research and development alliance that could yield new treatments for rare neurometabolic diseases.

Seattle-based Immusoft develops its treatments by reprogramming B cells, a type of white blood cell. The process for making this treatment is nearly identical to that of CAR T, the first autologous cancer cell therapies. Blood is collected from the patient and the desired immune cells are selected. Those cells are engineered, then multiplied in a lab. After the process produces enough cells, that treatment is infused into the patient.

Besides the type of cell that is used, the key difference between CAR T and Immusofts approach is the engineering step. In CAR T, this stage involves engineering T cells to recognize a particular antigen on tumors. For Immusoft, this step means programing B cells with DNA that enables them to produce large amounts of therapeutic protein. Immusoft calls its technology Immune System Programing, or ISP.

Takeda and Immusoft did not specify the diseases they aim to address under their new alliance, though the companies said the collaboration will focus on delivering therapies across the blood-brain barrier, the protective layer that keeps certain substances, including some drugs, from reaching the organ. By reaching the brain, these B cell therapies have the potential to address a range of neurological disorders.

We continue to build our internal capabilities as well as partner with innovative companies early on in the discovery process to advance our next-generation gene and cell therapy ambitions for rare genetic and hematologic diseases, Takeda Rare Diseases Drug Discovery Unit Head Madhu Natarajan said in a prepared statement. Working together with Immusoft, we hope to validate their ISP technology for [central nervous system] delivery of innovative therapeutics for rare neurometabolic diseases.

Rare neurometabolic disease is already one of the areas of focus for Immusoft. The rare enzyme deficiency Hurler syndrome is the target for its most advanced internal program, ISP-001. That cell therapy candidate is on track for an investigational new drug application filing by the end of this year, according to the companys website.

According to deal terms announced Wednesday, Takeda will pay Seattle-based Immusoft an upfront payment as well as research funding. The specific amounts were not disclosed. When the drug candidates covered under the partnership reach preclinical development, Takeda may elect to choose an unspecified number of them to continue their development. The Japanese pharma giant would owe option fees plus milestone payments tied to the progress of those programs. The companies gave no specific breakdown of those payments, other than to say the total value could top $900 million if all options are exercised and all milestones are achieved.

Working with B cells offer several advantages over other approaches to treating disease. Gene therapies delivered via engineered viruses cant be re-dosed because the antibodies that patients develop to the virus will render subsequent doses ineffective. By using a patients own cells, Immusoft aims to produce therapies that can be dosed multiple times. Also, gene therapies made by collecting a patients stem cells require a preconditioning step that knocks out the immune system to make room for the transplanted stem cells to grow. This step opens the door to a range of potential complications. Takedas recent dealmaking shows the pharma giants interest in avoiding therapies that employ viral delivery. In unveiling a multi-program alliance with Poseida Therapeutics on Tuesday, the pharma giant cited the biotechs non-viral technologies.

There are other companies developing ways to engineer B cells into new therapies. South San Francisco-based Walking Fish Therapeutics unveiled a $50 million Series A round of funding last month to support its research, still preclinical. Be Biopharma of Boston emerged nearly a year ago with a $52 million Series A financing.

Immusofts research so far has produced a preclinical drug pipeline spanning both rare and common diseases. Besides the Hurler syndrome candidate, the other rare disease programs include potential treatments for muscle-wasting disorders amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy; the metabolic disease Hunter syndrome; and Pompe and Gaucher diseases, both enzyme deficiency disorders. Immusofts common disease research is still in the discovery stage. For common diseases, Immusoft is developing treatments for cardiovascular disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, and Parkinsons disease.

Image by Jolygon via Getty Images

Originally posted here:
Taking aim at the brain, Takeda strikes up cell therapy R&D alliance with Immusoft - MedCity News

Dr. Erba on the Evolution of Treatment in MCL – OncLive

Harry Paul Erba, MD, PhD, discusses the evolution of treatment in mantle cell lymphoma.

Harry Paul Erba, MD, PhD, instructor, clinical investigator, Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, member, Duke Cancer Institute, director, Leukemia Program and Phase I Development in Hematologic Malignancies, Duke Health, discusses the evolution of treatment in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Similar to acute myeloid leukemia, the goal of therapy in MCL should be the key focus from treatment initiation. For example, a younger patient with limited comorbidities should be considered for curative-intent therapy or treatment with a time-limited regimen to elicit deep responses and prolonged progression-free survival, Erba says.

High-dose cytarabine-based therapies, such as the Nordic regimen known as maxi-CHOP, and autologous stem cell transplant could be considered for patients with MCL, Erba explains. Oral therapies, including BTK inhibitors, are also available options for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL or older patients who cannot tolerate intensive chemotherapy, Erba concludes.

Continued here:
Dr. Erba on the Evolution of Treatment in MCL - OncLive

Newer Agents for DLBCL Show Potential for Earlier Use in the Course of Treatment – Targeted Oncology

The most common frontline treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone (CHOP). However, approximately 1 in 3 patients relapse after CHOP, and alternative therapies are still needed.

According to Jason Westin, MD, the leader of the DLBCL research team at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, the strategies for DLBCL treatment have not changed drastically since the mid 1970s. Additionally, more information is needed as to why patients relapse after CHOP.

For patients who are CHOP resistant, the standard of care is strong chemotherapy followed by an autologous stem cell transplant. However, according to Westin, more personalized and targeted therapies are needed.

In an interview with Targeted OncologyTM, Westin discussed the future of DLBCL treatment in both the frontline and later-line settings, along with current unmet clinical needs.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: Can you give a background on current treatments in DLBCL?

WESTIN: DLBCL is the most common lymphoid cancer in adults, it's diagnosed in about 30,000 people each year in the US. And the treatments of that most common lymphoid cancer have been effectively stuck in the 1970s and the 1990s. We use a combination chemotherapy approach called CHOP, which was originally prescribed in 1976. We've changed a lot in life from 1976 to now, but we're still using this old combination chemotherapy in the curative setting for lymphoma. So obviously, new approaches are needed.

What does the current DLBCL treatment landscape?

Most patients are treated with the combination chemotherapy CHOP, and that cures approximately 2/3 of patients. It's a fairly effective standard therapy. However, at least 1 out of 3 people need additional treatments, and we don't do as well in the relapse setting as we'd like. So, we're constantly trying to innovate and improve that frontline setting and get beyond the 2/3 cure rate with initial treatments, and that will take a better understanding of why those 1/3 don't respond to CHOP, and a better understanding of the biology of what makes them resistant to treatments.

Do we know anything right now about the mechanisms of resistance to CHOP?

We know some, but I argue that we don't nearly know as much as we think we do. We understand the biology in the sense of understanding which mutation is present, or what type of gene signature. But often, the actual reason as to why a given patient doesn't respond to CHOP is very poorly understood. Patients that have the same biopsy, same genetic signature, some of those patients are cured and some of those patients are resistant. And it's difficult to predict prior to therapy which of those patients are resistant.

For patients that are resistant to CHOP, what options exist for them?

The standard of care for the past 20 years for those resistant to CHOP has been strong chemotherapy followed by an autologous stem cell transplant. Beyond the second line setting right now, there are a number of FDA approved agents for patients with relapsed BLBCL, and many of those FDA approved agents are being studied in combination CHOP and rituximab [Rituxan; R-CHOP].

What clinical needs are still unmet in this patient population?

The needs that are still unmet are finding more personalized therapies, specifically for those patients who are not cured with R-CHOP. But I would argue even in those patients who are currently cured with R-CHOP, that we don't want to use 1970s, chemotherapy in 2050. We want to be able to have personalized approaches and be able to move beyond effectively sledgehammer kind of blunt force instruments and use more precision medicine. So, we clearly need to do better urgently for the folks who are currently resistant or not responsive to chemotherapy. But I'd argue in the long run we need to do better across the board.

Do you see more aggressive approaches like autologous stem cell transplant and targeted therapies moving to the frontline setting in the future? Or do you think they'll remain a second- and third-line option?

I think that CAR T cells have the potential to move to the frontline for a subset of patients, for those that are not going to be responsive to our standard treatments. I think that's an approach that has merit, to try and use a powerful weapon at an earlier time point. I don't think stem cell transplant will do that. But I do think some of the other targeted therapies, the antibody drug conjugates, the bispecific antibodies, antibodies in combination with other immune therapies do potentially have a role to play in the frontline setting.

Where do you see the DLBCL space going in the next 5 to 10 years?

Well, I'd love to say things will be dramatically different. But we could have said that at any point over the last 20 years and would have been wrong. There are multiple ongoing studies looking at ways to improve the frontline setting. But innovation is more likely in the relapse space, which then filters up to the frontline space. And I think that the CAR T-cell studies showing potential advantages in the second line will change the landscape for patients who have relapsed after R-CHOP in the next 5 to 10 years to favor using CAR T-cell therapy. I think based on having that better cure fraction in the relapse space, more innovation may be possible in the frontline space. And so therefore doing studies that are not handcuffed to the 1970s chemotherapy for fear of not giving a patient the old curative therapy and missing a potential window for cure, I think that will allow us to do more innovative studies. I've done a handful of clinical trials using targeted therapy combinations prior to chemotherapy. And what we've shown in those studies is the response rates are very high. And patients tolerate it very well. And so that's still on a clinical trial stage. But it does show the potential that these targeted treatments can work better in newly diagnosed patients and potentially forego the need for chemotherapy.

I think the R-CHOP plus combination trial designs a failure. And I think that more innovative trial designs are needed. But clinical research still remains the best weapon we have to fight cancer in general and specifically DLBCL.

Go here to read the rest:
Newer Agents for DLBCL Show Potential for Earlier Use in the Course of Treatment - Targeted Oncology

Worldwide Cell Therapy Consumables Industry to 2031 – Featuring Bio-Techne, Irvine Scientific and Sartorius Among Others – PRNewswire

DUBLIN, Oct. 12, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Cell Therapy Consumables Market by Type of Consumable, Type of Cell Therapy, Scale of Operation, Type of End-User and Key Geographical Regions: Industry Trends and Global Forecasts, 2021 - 2031" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This report features an extensive study on the consumable providers within the cell therapy industry. The study also includes an elaborate discussion on the future potential of this evolving market.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there has been an evident increase in the number of cell and gene therapy products being evaluated in early phases of development. This can further be validated by the observed upsurge in the number of investigational new drug (IND) applications. In fact, more than 800 IND applications have been filed for ongoing clinical studies, indicating remarkable scientific progress and therapeutic promise of these breakthrough drug candidates. However, manufacturing of cell therapies is a complex and capital-intensive process fraught with a wide range of challenges. Some of the key concerns of contemporary innovators include raw material supply constraints, current facility limitations, high cost of ancillary materials (buffers, growth factors and media) used in upstream processes, regulatory and compliance-related issues, and inconsistencies related to quality attributes of the final product. Further, the onset of recent COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for therapy developers, in terms of procuring the required raw materials, by disrupting well-established supply chains.

Recent reports indicate that the global demand for human serum albumin (a key component of cell culture media for use in a multitude of therapeutic and emerging biotech areas) has increased at an annual rate of 10%-15%. On the contrary, the use of animal components is highly disregarded by the US FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), and other regulatory bodies on the grounds that they pose an undesirable risk of transmitting infectious agents, such as prions (mad cow disease) and virus (HIV), as well as enable high batch-to-batch variation. Consequently, serum-free and xeno-free media have proven to be a promising alternative to serum derived components. In order to produce quality cellular therapies, several drug developers prefer to rely on third-party service providers for the supply of raw materials, such as cell culture medium, cell isolation kits and cell separation reagents.

Presently, over 60 service providers are actively engaged in providing consumable/raw material products for the production of cell therapies. The current consolidated market landscape is primarily dominated by the presence of large players, capturing a substantial proportion of the market share. In the recent past, many of the aforementioned service providers have also forged strategic alliances and/or acquired other players, in order to further enhance their respective service offerings. Given that the demand for cell therapies is indubitably rising, the corresponding opportunity for cell therapy consumable service providers is expected to witness steady growth, over the next decade.

Amongst other elements, the report features:

Key Questions Answered

Key Topics Covered:

1. PREFACE

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. INTRODUCTION

4. MARKET LANDSCAPE 4.1. Chapter Overview 4.2. Cell Therapy Kit Providers: List of Players 4.3. Cell Therapy Media Providers: List of Players 4.4. Cell Therapy Reagent Providers: List of Players 4.5. Analysis by Type of Consumable, Type of Cell Therapy and Application Area (Grid Representation)

5. COMPANY COMPETITIVENESS ANALYSIS 5.1. Chapter Overview 5.2. Key Assumptions and Parameters 5.3. Methodology 5.4. Company Competitiveness: Kit Providers 5.5. Company Competitiveness: Media Providers 5.6. Company Competitiveness: Reagent Providers

6. BRAND POSITIONING OF KEY INDUSTRY PLAYERS 6.1. Chapter Overview 6.2. Scope and Methodology 6.3. Bio-Techne 6.4. Miltenyi Biotec 6.5. Sartorius 6.6. STEMCELL Technologies 6.7. Thermo Fisher Scientific

7. COMPANY PROFILES 7.1. Chapter Overview 7.2. Miltenyi Biotec 7.2.1. Company Overview 7.2.2. Product Portfolio 7.2.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.3. STEMCELL Technologies 7.3.1. Company Overview 7.3.2. Product Portfolio 7.3.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.4. Bio-Techne 7.4.1. Company Overview 7.4.2. Product Portfolio 7.4.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.5. Irvine Scientific 7.5.1. Company Overview 7.5.2. Product Portfolio 7.5.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.6. Thermo Fisher Scientific 7.6.1. Company Overview 7.6.2. Product Portfolio 7.6.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.7. Sartorius 7.7.1. Company Overview 7.7.2. Product Portfolio 7.7.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.8. BD Biosciences 7.8.1. Company Overview 7.8.2. Product Portfolio 7.8.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.9. Lonza 7.9.1. Company Overview 7.9.2. Product Portfolio 7.9.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.10. CellGenix 7.10.1. Company Overview 7.10.2. Product Portfolio 7.10.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook 7.11. Corning 7.11.1. Company Overview 7.11.2. Product Portfolio 7.11.3. Recent Developments and Future Outlook

8. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND INITIATIVES 8.1. Chapter Overview 8.2. Partnership Models 8.3. Cell Therapy Consumables: Recent Partnerships and Collaborations 8.4. Cell Therapy Consumables: Recent Expansions

9. LIKELY PARTNER ANALYSIS FOR CELL THERAPY CONSUMABLE PROVIDERS 9.1. Chapter Overview 9.2. Scoring Criteria and Key Assumptions 9.3. Scope and Methodology 9.4. Key Potential Strategic Partners for Cell Therapy Consumable Providers 9.3.1. Likely Partner Opportunities for Dendritic Cell Therapy Consumable Providers 9.3.2. Likely Partner Opportunities for NK Cell Therapy Consumable Providers 9.3.3. Likely Partner Opportunities for Stem Cell Therapy Consumable Providers 9.3.4. Likely Partner Opportunities for T-Cell Therapy Consumable Providers

10. DEMAND ANALYSIS 10.1. Chapter Overview 10.2. Scope and Methodology 10.3. Global Demand for Cell Therapy Consumables 10.4. Global Demand for Cell Therapy Consumables for Planar Processes 10.5. Global Demand for Cell Therapy Consumables for Suspension Processes 10.6. Analysis by Scale of Operation 10.7. Analysis by Region

11. MARKET FORECAST AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS 11.1. Chapter Overview 11.2. Forecast Methodology 11.3. Global Outsourced Cell Therapy Consumables Market, 2021-2031 11.4. Outsourced Cell Therapy Consumables Market, 2021-2031: Distribution by Type of Consumable 11.5. Outsourced Cell Therapy Consumables Market, 2021-2031: Distribution by Type of Cell Therapy 11.6. Outsourced Cell Therapy Consumables Market, 2021-2031: Distribution by Scale of Operation 11.7. Outsourced Cell Therapy Consumables Market, 2021-2031: Distribution by Type of End-User 11.8. Outsourced Cell Therapy Consumables Market, 2021-2031: Distribution by Geography

12. UPCOMING TRENDS AND FUTURE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES 12.1. Chapter Overview 12.2. Emerging Trends Related to Cell Culture Media 12.3. Automation of Cell Therapy Manufacturing Processes 12.4. Single Use Systems and Technologies in Cell Therapy Manufacturing

13. IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON CELL THERAPY CONSUMABLES MARKET 13.1. Chapter Overview 13.2. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cell Therapy Consumables Market 13.3. Impact on Future Market Opportunities for Cell Therapy Consumable Providers 13.4. Current Opinions and Key Initiatives of Key Players 13.5. Recuperative Strategies for Developer Businesses 13.5.1. Strategies for Implementation in the Short / Mid Term 13.5.2. Strategies for Implementation in the Long Term

14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 14.1. Chapter Overview

15. INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 15.1. Chapter Overview 15.2. Anant Kamath, Chief Operating Officer, Cellular Engineering Technologies 15.2.1. Cellular Engineering Technologies: Key Highlights 15.2.2. Interview Transcript 15.3. Vishal G. Warke, Director R&D, Cell Culture and Immunology, HiMedia Laboratories and Gauri W. Page, Assistant R&D Manager, Animal Cell Culture, Himedia Laboratories 15.3.1. HiMedia Laboratories: Key Highlights 15.3.2. Interview Transcript

16. APPENDIX I: TABULATED DATA

17. APPENDIX II: LIST OF COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/2t5jj1

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

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

Read more here:
Worldwide Cell Therapy Consumables Industry to 2031 - Featuring Bio-Techne, Irvine Scientific and Sartorius Among Others - PRNewswire

FDA Approves Genentech’s Tecentriq as Adjuvant Treatment for Certain People With Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer – Business Wire

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Genentech, a member of the Roche Group (SIX: RO, ROG; OTCQX: RHHBY), today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Tecentriq (atezolizumab) as adjuvant treatment following surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy for adults with Stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L11%, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

Tecentriq is now the first and only cancer immunotherapy available for adjuvant treatment of NSCLC, introducing a new era where people diagnosed with early lung cancer may have the opportunity to receive immunotherapy to increase their chances for cure, said Levi Garraway, M.D., Ph.D., chief medical officer and head of Global Product Development. Todays landmark approval gives physicians and patients a new way to treat early lung cancer that has the potential to significantly reduce risk of cancer recurrence, after more than a decade with limited treatment advances in this setting.

Too many patients with early-stage lung cancer experience disease recurrence following surgery. Now, the availability of immunotherapy following surgery and chemotherapy offers many patients new hope and a powerful new tool to reduce their risk of cancer relapse, said Bonnie Addario, Co-founder and Chair, GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer. With this approval, it is more important than ever to screen for lung cancer early and test for PD-L1 at diagnosis to help bring this advance to the people who can benefit.

The approval is based on results from an interim analysis of the Phase III IMpower010 study that showed treatment with Tecentriq following surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 34% (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66, 95% CI: 0.50-0.88) in people with Stage II-IIIA (UICC/AJCC 7th edition) NSCLC whose tumors express PD-L11%, compared with best supportive care (BSC). Safety data for Tecentriq were consistent with its known safety profile and no new safety signals were identified. Fatal and serious adverse reactions occurred in 1.8% and 18%, respectively, of patients receiving Tecentriq. The most frequent serious adverse reactions (>1%) were pneumonia (1.8%), pneumonitis (1.6%), and pyrexia (1.2%).

The review of this application was conducted under the FDAs Project Orbis initiative, which provides a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology medicines among international partners. According to the FDA, collaboration among international regulators may allow patients with cancer to receive earlier access to products in other countries where there may be significant delays in regulatory submissions. Simultaneous applications were submitted to regulators in the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil and Australia under Project Orbis. Additionally, the FDA reviewed and approved the supplemental application under its Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which aims to explore a more efficient review process to ensure safe and effective treatments are available to patients as early as possible.

Tecentriq has previously shown clinically meaningful benefit in various types of lung cancer, with six currently approved indications in the U.S. In addition to becoming the first approved cancer immunotherapy for adjuvant NSCLC, Tecentriq was also the first approved cancer immunotherapy for front-line treatment of adults with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in combination with carboplatin and etoposide (chemotherapy). Tecentriq also has four approved indications in advanced NSCLC as either a single agent or in combination with targeted therapies and/or chemotherapies. Tecentriq is available in three dosing options, providing the flexibility to choose administration every two, three or four weeks.

Genentech has an extensive development program for Tecentriq, including multiple ongoing and planned Phase III studies across different lung, genitourinary, skin, breast, gastrointestinal, gynecological, and head and neck cancers. This includes studies evaluating Tecentriq both alone and in combination with other medicines, as well as studies in metastatic, adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings across various tumor types.

About the IMpower010 study

IMpower010 is a Phase III, global, multicenter, open-label, randomized study evaluating the efficacy and safety of Tecentriq compared with BSC, in participants with Stage IB-IIIA NSCLC (UICC/AJCC 7th edition), following surgical resection and up to 4 cycles of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study randomized 1,005 people with a ratio of 1:1 to receive either Tecentriq for 1 year (16 cycles), unless disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity occurred, or BSC. The primary endpoint is investigator-determined DFS in the PD-L1-positive Stage II-IIIA, all randomized Stage II-IIIA and intent-to-treat (ITT) Stage IB-IIIA populations. Key secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS) in the overall study population, ITT Stage IB-IIIA NSCLC.

About lung cancer

According to the American Cancer Society, it is estimated that more than 235,000 Americans will be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2021. NSCLC accounts for 80-85% of all lung cancers and approximately 50% of patients diagnosed with NSCLC are diagnosed with early-stage (Stages I and II) or locally advanced (Stage III) disease. Today, about half of all people with early lung cancer still experience a cancer recurrence following surgery. Treating lung cancer early, before it has spread, may help prevent the disease from returning and provide people with the best opportunity for a cure.

About Tecentriq (atezolizumab)

Tecentriq is a monoclonal antibody designed to bind with a protein called PD-L1. Tecentriq is designed to bind to PD-L1 expressed on tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells, blocking its interactions with both PD-1 and B7.1 receptors. By inhibiting PD-L1, Tecentriq may enable the re-activation of T cells. Tecentriq may also affect normal cells.

Tecentriq U.S. Indications

Tecentriq is a prescription medicine used to treat adults with:

A type of lung cancer called non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

A type of lung cancer called small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

It is not known if Tecentriq is safe and effective in children.

Important Safety Information

What is the most important information about Tecentriq?

Tecentriq can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in any area of the body and can affect the way they work. These problems can sometimes become severe or life threatening and can lead to death. Patients can have more than one of these problems at the same time. These problems may happen anytime during their treatment or even after their treatment has ended.

Patients should call or see their healthcare provider right away if they develop any new or worse signs or symptoms, including:

Lung problems

Intestinal problems

Liver problems

Hormone gland problems

Kidney problems

Skin problems

Problems can also happen in other organs.

These are not all of the signs and symptoms of immune system problems that can happen with Tecentriq. Patients should call or see their healthcare provider right away for any new or worse signs or symptoms, including:

Infusion reactions that can sometimes be severe or life-threatening. Signs and symptoms of infusion reactions may include:

Complications, including graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), in people who have received a bone marrow (stem cell) transplant that uses donor stem cells (allogeneic). These complications can be serious and can lead to death. These complications may happen if patients undergo transplantation either before or after being treated with Tecentriq. A healthcare provider will monitor for these complications.

Getting medical treatment right away may help keep these problems from becoming more serious. A healthcare provider will check patients for these problems during their treatment with Tecentriq. A healthcare provider may treat patients with corticosteroid or hormone replacement medicines. A healthcare provider may also need to delay or completely stop treatment with Tecentriq if patients have severe side effects.

Before receiving Tecentriq, patients should tell their healthcare provider about all of their medical conditions, including if they:

Patients should tell their healthcare provider about all the medicines they take, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines, vitamins, and herbal supplements.

The most common side effects of Tecentriq when used alone include:

The most common side effects of Tecentriq when used in lung cancer with other anti-cancer medicines include:

Tecentriq may cause fertility problems in females, which may affect the ability to have children. Patients should talk to their healthcare provider if they have concerns about fertility.

These are not all the possible side effects of Tecentriq. Patients should ask their healthcare provider or pharmacist for more information about the benefits and side effects of Tecentriq.

Report side effects to the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.

Report side effects to Genentech at 1-888-835-2555.

Please see http://www.Tecentriq.com for full Prescribing Information and additional Important Safety Information.

About Genentech in cancer immunotherapy

Genentech has been developing medicines to redefine treatment in oncology for more than 35 years, and today, realizing the full potential of cancer immunotherapy is a major area of focus. With more than 20 immunotherapy molecules in development, Genentech is investigating the potential benefits of immunotherapy alone, and in combination with various chemotherapies, targeted therapies and other immunotherapies with the goal of providing each person with a treatment tailored to harness their own unique immune system.

In addition to Genentechs approved PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor, the companys broad cancer immunotherapy pipeline includes other checkpoint inhibitors, individualized neoantigen therapies and T cell bispecific antibodies. For more information visit http://www.gene.com/cancer-immunotherapy.

About Genentech in lung cancer

Lung cancer is a major area of focus and investment for Genentech, and we are committed to developing new approaches, medicines and tests that can help people with this deadly disease. Our goal is to provide an effective treatment option for every person diagnosed with lung cancer. We currently have five approved medicines to treat certain kinds of lung cancer and more than 10 medicines being developed to target the most common genetic drivers of lung cancer or to boost the immune system to combat the disease.

About Genentech

Founded more than 40 years ago, Genentech is a leading biotechnology company that discovers, develops, manufactures and commercializes medicines to treat patients with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The company, a member of the Roche Group, has headquarters in South San Francisco, California. For additional information about the company, please visit http://www.gene.com.

Read the original here:
FDA Approves Genentech's Tecentriq as Adjuvant Treatment for Certain People With Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer - Business Wire

International ZIM Network: SmartMed – Regenerative Solutions for the Therapies of Tomorrow – Business Wire

DUESSELDORF, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The kick-off for the first SmartMed network meeting (digital) took place on Thursday, October 14th. Almost all network partners were able to attend the 2.5-hour event and exchanged ideas on current and potential projects. The focus here was on getting to know each other as well as targeted networking. With the help of a modern network platform, the participants were encouraged to exchange ideas in virtual chat rooms about the topics of digitization and artificial intelligence, new materials for restoring or healing tissue and organs and new approaches to stem cell therapy.

The next network meeting is planned for the beginning of December 2021. The network partners largely determine the focus of the next meeting themselves; Depending on requirements, either a cross-network workshop or a lecture on a specific topic from the field of regenerative medicine is prepared.

About SmartMed: The international ZIM cooperation network "Regenerative Solutions for Tomorrow's Therapy" is funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy as part of the ZIM program (Central Innovation Program for SMEs). The network management of Silversky LifeSciences GmbH launched the association with technological competencies from blockchain to the regulation of medical devices at the beginning of July 2021. Networking is coordinated by Silversky LifeSciences with its business start-up experts with a technology focus in LifeSciences and with extensive experience in the financing, operation, and development of innovative small and medium-sized companies in this sector. "Each partner brings a certain specialist knowledge and thus a unique contribution to the value chain into the network", describes Dr. Mirko Stange, founder, and CEO of Silversky LifeSciences, the win-win situation for everyone involved.

The international focus is on UK, which also offers German network partners a good opportunity to react to the new framework conditions, especially after Brexit and the associated reorganization of international cooperation. The project is supported by the international network management team Maria Fenner, Lena Ehrenpreis and Jessica Stolzenberg. "The aim of the network is to network companies with R&D institutions in order to initiate a lively innovation policy, to promote startups and to promote the exchange and cooperation of regenerative medicine with related industries", says Jessica Stolzenberg. We want to give all SMEs and startups in the industry the opportunity to expand their network and find new cooperation partners. If there is still funding for my own research activities, I don't know who would turn it down, says Lena Ehrenpreis. Maria Fenner adds: Our focus is on the entire field of regenerative medicine and the development of innovative, regenerative therapies, which are based on the latest scientific findings and use the most modern technologies. The focus is on restoring the healthy and functional original state of the affected tissue / organ by linking modern therapeutic approaches, new and functional materials, as well as the use of digital and intelligent systems in the form of algorithms, deep learning and AI. "

The support provided by the network includes advice and practical help with the market launch, applying for grants, close collaboration between experts in order to research or optimize new therapy methods and to bring products to market maturity. All interested parties are cordially invited to contact the network managers to join the discussion, make contacts and start exciting projects.

Originally posted here:
International ZIM Network: SmartMed - Regenerative Solutions for the Therapies of Tomorrow - Business Wire

BioLineRx Announces Positive Results from Pharmacoeconomic Study Positioning Motixafortide as Potential Standard of Care in Stem Cell Mobilization -…

TEL AVIV, Israel, Oct. 13, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --BioLineRx Ltd. (NASDAQ: BLRX) (TASE: BLRX), a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on oncology, today announced positive results from a pharmacoeconomic study evaluating the cost-effectiveness of using investigational drug Motixafortide as a primary stem cell mobilization (SCM) agent on top of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), versus G-CSF alone, in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The study was performed by the Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) team of IQVIA, and was a pre-planned study conducted in parallel with the GENESIS Phase 3 trial. These results, together with the highly significant and clinically meaningful data from the GENESIS trial, strongly support the potential use of Motixafortide, on top of G-CSF, as the standard of care in SCM for ASCT.

The study concluded that the addition of Motixafortide to G-CSF (the current standard of care) is associated with a statistically significant decrease in health resource utilization (HRU) during the ASCT process, compared to G-CSF alone. Based on the significantly higher number of mobilized cells and the lower number of apheresis sessions, lifetime estimates show quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) benefits and net cost savings of ~$17,000 (not including the cost of Motixafortide), versus G-CSF alone. The study findings, combined with model estimates, suggest that the use of Motixafortide, on top of G-CSF, as the standard of care in mobilization for ASCT, could be a cost-effective option in the US, based on accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for healthcare payers.

"The compelling cost savings identified by this rigorously designed study strongly support the Company's view that Motixafortide, in combination with G-CSF, can become the new standard of care as an upfront, or primary, therapy for all multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation," stated Philip Serlin, Chief Executive Officer of BioLineRx. "Based on data from the GENESIS trial showing that nearly 90% of patients collected an optimal number of cells for transplantation following a single administration of Motixafortide and in only one apheresis session, versus less than 10% for G-CSF alone, the pharmacoeconomic study demonstrates that use of Motixafortide on top of G-CSF can save $17,000 per patient, not including the cost of Motixafortide. These cost savings should leave substantial room in the future to optimize our pricing strategy for Motixafortide at product launch and thereafter, if approved.

"It is also important to note that fewer administrations and apheresis sessions confer meaningful safety and time benefits to patients. In addition, the significantly higher median number of cells collected in one apheresis session ~11 million using Motixafortide on top of G-CSF versus ~2 million for G-CSF alone not only enables transplantation of an optimal number of cells, with the potential to significantly save on time to engraftment, it also permits the retention of enough cells for cryopreservation in the event that an additional transplantation is required in the future. Lastly, higher levels of certainty regarding the number of apheresis sessions required for mobilization could enable more efficient utilization of apheresis units at transplantation institutions, where there is often a shortage of available machines.

"We believe the data from the GENESIS study, together with the results from this pharmacoeconomic study, set Motixafortide apart from all other mobilization agents either currently available or in development. If approved, Motixafortide represents a significant advancement in SCM to the benefit of patients and payers alike, and, to that end, we remain on track to submit a New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA in the first half of next year," Mr. Serlin concluded.

About the Pharmacoeconomic Study

The pharmacoeconomic study analyzed healthcare resource utilization (HRU) observed during the Phase 3 GENESIS trial, which randomized 122 patients into two arms: Motixafortide plus G-CSF (n=80) or placebo plus G-CSF (n=42). HRU data points collected include: (1) the number of Motixafortide and G-CSF doses, as well as the number of apheresis sessions performed, in primary mobilization; (2) the percentage of patients needing rescue mobilization due to poor primary mobilization, including the number of apheresis sessions needed and the number of G-CSF and plerixafor doses required; and (3) hospitalization costs related to conditioning and transplantation, including length of stay. Quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY) from published literature were also incorporated into the model. Motixafortide plus G-CSF was associated with a statistically significant HRU decrease during the autologous stem cell transplantation process compared to standard-of-care G-CSF alone. Given the higher number of mobilized cells and lower number of apheresis sessions, lifetime estimates show quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) benefits and net cost savings of ~$17,000 (not including the cost of Motixafortide), versus the current standard of care.

About the GENESIS Phase 3 Trial

The GENESIS Phase 3 trial (NCT03246529) was initiated in December 2017. GENESIS was a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Motixafortide and G-CSF, compared to placebo and G-CSF, for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma patients. The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate that only one dose of Motixafortide on top of G-CSF is superior to G-CSF alone in the ability to mobilize 6 million CD34+ cells in up to two apheresis sessions. Additional objectives included time to engraftment of neutrophils and platelets and durability of engraftment, as well as other efficacy and safety parameters. The study successfully met all primary and secondary endpoints with an exceptionally high level of statistical significance (p<0.0001), including approximately 90% of patients who mobilized the target number of cells for transplantation with only one administration of Motixafortide and in only one apheresis session.

About Stem Cell Mobilization for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is part of the standard treatment paradigm for a number of blood cancers, including multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other lymphomas. In eligible patients, ASCT is performed after initial (induction) therapy, and, in most cases, requires consecutive-day clinic visits for the mobilization and apheresis (harvesting) phases, and full hospitalization for the conditioning chemotherapy and transplantation phases until engraftment. The associated burden is therefore significant patients experience clinically relevant deteriorations in their quality of life during ASCT, and healthcare resource use throughout the ASCT phases is particularly intense. Therefore, new interventions impacting the ASCT process have the potential for relieving some of the clinical burden for transplanted patients, the logistical burden for the apheresis units, and the financial burden for healthcare providers and payers.

Described simply, ASCT consists of: (1) mobilizing the patient's own stem cells from his/ her bone marrow to the peripheral blood for removing (harvesting) via an apheresis procedure; (2) freezing and storing the harvested cells until they are needed for transplantation; (3) providing a conditioning treatment, such as high-dose chemotherapy or radiation, to kill the remaining cancer cells the day before transplant; and (4) infusing the stored stem cells back to the patient intravenously via a catheter.

To mobilize the patient's stem cells from the bone marrow to the peripheral blood for harvesting, the current standard of care includes the administration of 5-8 daily doses of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), and the performance of 1-4 apheresis sessions. For patients unable to mobilize sufficient numbers of cells for harvesting during this primary mobilization phase, rescue therapy is carried out, consisting of 1-4 doses of plerixafor on top of G-CSF, and the performance of an additional number of apheresis sessions as necessary. In light of this, an agent with superior mobilization activity may significantly reduce the mobilization and harvesting burden and associated risks of the ASCT process and lead to significant clinical and resource benefits.

About BioLineRx

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

SOURCE BioLineRx Ltd.

Read the original here:
BioLineRx Announces Positive Results from Pharmacoeconomic Study Positioning Motixafortide as Potential Standard of Care in Stem Cell Mobilization -...