Clinical trials and beyond

peepsFor previous blogs on Australian biotech, go here, here and here.

Australia is well developed concerning clinical trials. The regulatory body, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), trusts the high ethical standards of the doctors and the ethics committees of the hospitals. Therefore, first-in-man trials do not require TGA approval, and can be done after notifying the regulators. Also, the protein for trials can be manufactured in a Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)-like facility that is not fully GMP. (A GMP facility needs to comply with the regulations and be registered with the TGA in order to obtain the label, but a GMP-like facility doesn’t.) This makes it easy to do clinical trials in Australia. Further, the data generated from clinical trials in Australia are considered to be at par with that from the US or Europe. Clinicians running the trials are also paid much less than their peers in the US.

The country is also fairly innovative. In a 2013 Innovation Survey, Australia was ranked 13th in the world, and between 2003–2013, the per capita and per GDP dollar IP filings from Australia were more than that of most developed countries.

Yet problems remain. Overall, while human resources in Australia are less of a challenge now than they used to be two decades ago, the pool of people with experience remains small. There is a whole series of missing skills related to IT and data mining, IP, commercialization and regulatory affairs. Once a company has grown it can easily hire people who are accustomed to revenue and know how to increase sales, but in the early stages one has to put together a story and make people believe in it, and this is not easy to do in Australia. The experienced managers, or advisers, are mainly returning Australians or foreigners with commercialization experience in the US or EU. Also, the advisers might be located overseas. Notably, sourcing and retaining Americans is a challenge.

Another problem: the country has not yet produced a first-in-class drug. The only notable commercialization story is that of the key patent behind the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. The technology was discovered at the public University of Queensland, and clinical trials were financed through the sale of some of the patents to an Australian medical company, CSL, and later Merck. Currently, Merck has the exclusive global license to sell Gardasil, except in New Zealand and Australia, where CSL owns the license. But generally, a successful company is one that developed a simple product, repositioned existing products or developed new delivery systems for existing molecules, and did not build upon cutting-edge science.

Yes, biotech in Australia has its challenges. However, the science is good, government programs are supportive and clinical trials are relatively easy to initiate. Also, pioneers of earlier years have shown what it takes to build a successful company. Keep in mind that it can be done, but do not expect to go the whole way alone.

Szymon Jarosławski and Gayatri Saberwal

Acknowledgments: This article is based on interviews with 14 senior people in, or associated with, companies in Australia, whose comments have been edited for clarity and brevity. We are extremely grateful to the interviewees, who gave freely of their time and their insights.  This work was supported by a grant to GS from the Institut Merieux, France. SJ was supported by France Volontaires, France. Neither organization played any specific role in this study.

Unlocking marine biotechnology

coral-reef

Coral reefs hold the key to a huge number of powerful pharmaceuticals. Image source: Markus Schmidt

Although marine organisms are known as a source of bioactive compounds with pharmaceutical properties such as antibiotic, antiviral, analgesic, immunomodulatory, antitumor, anti-inflammatory, and antiallergenic, their potential still remains largely unexplored. Synthetic biology, in combination with a better ecological understanding, has the potential to discover and design useful compounds not only for pharma but also for cosmetics, cosmeceuticals, nutriceuticals and pesticides.

Since the origin of life, the marine environment has been the cradle of a vast diversity of molecules, genes, species and ecosystems. Two-thirds of our planet’s surface is covered by the sea, which provides numerous ecosystem services such as food, minerals, climate regulation, recreation, genetic and medical resources. In terms of biodiversity, among the 34 phyla of life on earth, 32 occur in the oceans, enabling a complex and vibrant – and in many ways still not fully understood – ecological system.

Given the richness of marine biodiversity, it’s striking that the exploration of marine natural resources for biotechnology started relatively late, and only a few end products have hit the market (Table 1). In the 1950s, spongothymidine and spongouridine were discovered from the marine sponge Tectitethya crypta, which eventually led to the development of semi-synthetic compounds Ara-C (leukaemia) and Ara-A (viral infections).

Table 1. Overview of approved marine drugs on the market.

Original natural product Source organism Brand name Theurapautic area Company
Linear sulfated polysaccharides Rhodophyceae seaweeds Carragelose anti-viral Marinomed (Vienna, Austria)
Spongouridine sponge Tectitethya crypta Vira-A anti-viral King Pharmaceuticals (Tenafly, NJ, USA),
Spongothymidine sponge Tectitethya crypta Cytosar-U (Ara-C) cancer Bedford Laboratories (Bedford, OH, USA
Halichondrin B sponge Halichodria okadai Halaven cancer Eisai (Tokyo, Japan)
Ecteinascidin 743 tunicate Ecteinascidia turbinata Yondelis cancer PharmaMar (Colmenar Viejo, Madrid, Spain)
Dolastatin 10 sea hare Dolabella auricularia Adcetris cancer Seattle Genetics (Bothell, WA, USA)
ω-Conotoxin marine snail Conus magus Prialt neuropathic pain Perrigo, formerly Elan Corporation (Dublin, Ireland)
Omega-3-fatty acids fish Lovaza Hyper-trigyleridemia GlaxoSmithKline (Brentford, UK)

Table Source: Martins et al. 2014.  Marketed Marine Natural Products in the Pharmaceutical and Cosmeceutical Industries: Tips for Success.  Mar. Drugs 2014, 12, 1066-1101; doi:10.3390/md12021066

It then took another 30 years for the next marine natural product, Prialt (ziconotide), from cone snail to be approved in 2004, followed by Yondelis (trabectedin) in 2007. The case of trabectedin shows very well the challenges for the marine product pipeline. Already in the 1950s an anti-tumor activity was found in the extracts of the sea squirt Ecteinascidia turbinata. Given that enormous amounts of these small animals would have been needed for clinical trials (about 5 tons to produce 5 grams), the natural production of the extract was a huge problem. Collecting all these sea squirts was not an option, so developer Pharmamar tried – unsuccessfully – to set up underwater farms for the animal. In the end a synthetic chemist managed to develop a (semi)-synthetic production method to produce the compound in larger quantities, and it made its way through clinical trials. Trabectedin has now been approved for use in more than 60 countries.

Coral reefs hold the key to a huge number of powerful pharmaceuticals. Image source: Markus Schmidt

With the combined tools of genomics, systems and synthetic biology, together with a better understanding of the microbial ecologies, there are now hopes to better manage the production of these interesting compounds in-vivo, as well as speed up the time to the market. This can be seen in the case of the sponge Theonella swinhoei. Researchers found that extracts of this sponge contain an impressive number of unmatched and highly potent molecules. Further studies revealed that it was not the sponge itself but its vast microbiome, in particular a newly described bacteria named Entotheonella sp., that is responsible for a large and distinct metabolic repertoire, including the distinctive so-called proteusins (polytheonamides), cyclotheonamides, or onnamides. Since neither Theonella nor Entotheonella can be cultivated, researchers from Tel Aviv University are taking samples (see image below) trying to identify the metabolic pathways in order to engineer them into industrial microbial strains.

Collecting-sponges

Researchers from Tel Aviv University who collaborate with the European SYNPEPTIDE project collect sponge samples in Eilat, Israel. Image source: Markus Schmidt

A recent European Commission study on marine knowledge, “the marine biotechnology sector in Europe is still in its infancy, characterised by small companies principally focused on R&D,” which means improvements in detecting and harvesting marine natural products are already reflected in expectations of the global market. While in 2011 the global market for marine-derived drugs was $4.8 billion, it is forecasted to reach $8.6 billion in 2016 at a compound annual growth rate of 12.5% for the five-year period of 2011 to 2016. With the recent implementation of the UN Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing, some of the revenues might be shared with countries harbouring biodiverse coral reefs, which might give these countries a monetary incentive to safeguard their marine ecosystems.

But it is not only the expected financial benefit that drives the marine biotech innovation process. The global challenge of ever increasing antibiotic resistance in pathogens, for example, led the World Health Organization and several governments to call for targeted R&D efforts. Since entire classes of antibiotics (and powerful molecular machineries to produce them) could be found in just a few marine samples there are now serious efforts underway to identify, transfer and re-engineer interesting genetic circuits to other microbial production platforms.

(For further reading: Se-Kwon Kim (ed.) 2015. Handbook of Anticancer Drugs from Marine Origin. Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07145-9)

Markus Schmidt

 

The Aging of BIO International Convention

Brokaw_lunch

Jim Greenwood addresses attendees at Tuesday’s plenary luncheon.

Before BIO CEO Jim Greenwood interviewed broadcast journalist Tom Brokaw during Tuesday’s plenary lunch, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter took the podium. This is standard fare for a BIO convention: the hosting mayor gets a chance to brag a little bit about their city, and thank BIO for bringing all these people to local hotels and restaurants.

Buried in Nutter’s remarks was an interesting tidbit. Nutter pointed out that the BIO convention was last held in Philly in 2005, but he’d wanted it back well before 2015. The problem was that the number of attendees had swelled so much that Philly’s convention center could not contain it, he said. And so the conference cycled elsewhere over the years – Chicago, Boston, San Diego, Atlanta, Washington DC.

Philadelphia in 2011 increased the size of its convention center (a $786 million expansion), and Nutter told Tuesday’s audience this was done specifically to bring BIO back. That seemed like savvy flattery from the podium, rather than truth, but regardless he was happy to have BIO in his city.

As he finished his speech, I looked around the giant hall. I’d showed up a little late to lunch and had been directed to a table far to one side, where I sat with just one other occupant. What looked like hundreds of untouched meals cluttered the empty tables around me (picture above). I wondered if BIO really needed this larger space, because the traffic in the long, carpeted hallways so far had seemed awfully thin, and then I began to wonder if BIO had peaked as an industry event.

There are reasons to think it has. Raw numbers show the attendance record was 22,366 people in 2007, in Boston (Table 1). Partial blame for the drop since then can be placed on the growth of the industry. The initial convention in 1993 was a first-of-its-kind event, but there are significantly more biotech gatherings today, many of them launched by BIO itself – BIO Latin America, BIO Convention in China, BIO-Europe (in partnership with EBD Group) and BIO CEO, to name a few. The success of BIO’s ancillary meetings have probably cannibalized the main event. And there are many others in the meeting game now: the JP Morgan conference, considered the official kick-off to the biotech year in January, is so popular it has spawned side conferences (Biotech Showcase, Life Science Nation) around Union Square in San Francisco, for those not allowed into the bank’s event. These days, one could travel to a biotech-related event nearly any week of the year.

But the global recession also played a part. Somewhere amid the downsizing and cutbacks of 2008-2009, the collective biotech world realized that while it was necessary to attend BIO, it was possible to send smaller teams. That seems to have become permanent, and the conference has stayed in this lower range ever since.

Table 1. BIO International Convention locations, attendance data. 

Year

Location

Attendees

Partnering Meetings

Companies Involved

Countries

States

2005

Philadelphia Convention Center (Philadelphia, PA)

18,730

7,500

1,525

56

50

2006

McCormick Place Convention Center(Chicago, IL)

19,479

11,018

1,700+

62

43

2007

Boston Convention and Exhibition Center(Boston,MA)

22,366

12,103

1,900+

64

48

2008

San Diego Convention Center (San Diego, CA)

20,108

14,500

2,100+

70

48

2009

Georgia World Congress Center (Atlanta, GA)

14,352

14,040

1,800

58

48

2010

McCormick Place (Chicago, IL)

15,322

17,100

2,125

65

49

2011

Walter E. Washington Convention Center (Washington D.C)

15,626

21,183

2,410

65

48

2012

Boston Convention & Exhibition Center (Boston, MA)

16,505

25,291

2,900

65

49

2013

McCormick Place (Chicago, IL)

13,594

25,573

2,800

62

47

2014

San Diego Convention Center (San Diego, CA)

15,667

29,000+

3,100

70

50

Source: BIO

Yet the figures in Table 1 show how the meeting has gained importance in other ways: the number of partnering meetings has been on a near continuous incline, reflecting an uptick in activity, and set a new record this year at 29,279. The number of countries represented last year tied the record high, detailing biotech’s global growth, and this year came in just below, at 69.

That international aspect is on full display in the exhibit hall, dominated by country pavilions, each wanting to stake their claim as a biotech center/hub/partner/manufacturing base. It’s also seen in the panel discussions: on Tuesday, I met a tech transfer agent from the Netherlands, a key contact for me, and on Wednesday I sat in on a presentation by Mauritius representatives describing the country’s 25 biotech companies. It’s difficult to imagine where else I would have access to such a wide range of biotech participants, all under one (massive) roof.

By Wednesday’s reception at the Reading Terminal Market, nothing about the conference felt diluted to me. It seemed like every single one of this year’s 15,858 attendees had flowed into the smaller space. The pathways between market stalls were crammed with people wearing BIO badges, and in every corner registrants clustered.

The conference remains a ripe opportunity to network with colleagues and get face time with biotech personnel who otherwise would be difficult to meet. Certainly the convention is morphing as it ages, and it may never reach 22,000 attendees again. With the proliferation of biotech meetings worldwide now, it no longer needs to. Which, when you think about it, can be seen as a measurement of the Biotechnology Industry Innovation Organization’s success in fostering the growth of this industry.

Brady Huggett

A role reversal in biotech patenting

EU_backgroundThe difference in the patenting landscape between the United States and Europe used to be characterized as freewheeling versus cautionary; expansive versus patchwork. Think of Diamond v. Chakrabarty‘s “anything under the sun that is made by man” versus the long battle to finally allow the patenting of stem cells in Europe.

However, the conventional wisdom may be turning around in a big way. In the Tuesday IP track session Antibody Therapeutics: May I Have Them All, the four panelists ran through several theoretical scenarios involving the patentability of therapeutic antibody compounds and methods of use before both the US Patent & Trademark Office and the European Patent Office, as well as the courts who may eventually uphold or invalidate the patents.

The audience was invited to cast their vote on several questions using the MyBIO app, to no great success; we quickly reverted to the more low-tech but highly efficient ‘show-of-hands’ method. Two generally agreed-upon propositions were that: (1) the likelihood of getting a US application approved was dependent on the identity of the patent examiner (cue knowing laughter from the audience), and (2) Europe is starting to present a more streamlined application process, focusing more on the method of “using an antibody to antigen X for the treatment of disease Y” compared to the myriad structural and functional characteristics required by the USPTO.

Panelist Robin Silva, a partner at Morgan Lewis, summed up by advising the audience to continue to claim antibodies “six ways from Sunday and see what sticks.” That might be a harder slog, but in the long run may also be more profitable, both for drug developers and their patent attorneys.

Wednesday’s morning session, Inventions Patentable: Evaluating Proposed Amendments to Section 101 merely reinforced the theme, with panelists discussing how recent US court decisions such as Mayo, Myriad and Alice have in essence replaced the well-understood framework for a “patentable invention”- i.e., novelty, utility, inventiveness- with an “enoughness” test that the USPTO, courts and patent bar are struggling to understand and apply. This has left the US standing alone by excluding from patentability isolated natural products and basic diagnostic methods.

Whether the solution is a legislative fix, regulatory guidance or a change in judicial mindset, it cannot come soon enough to clear the atmosphere of confusion and unpredictability now present.

Michael Francisco

BIO2015 Day 1: Ethics

bubblesOn Monday I attended the panel “The BIOethics of drug development: you decide.”

In this session, everything was fake. A mock company, iCures, with BioCentury’s Steve Usdin as the pretend CEO, found itself mired in all sorts of bioethical dilemmas. The audience (myself included) acted as Agony Aunts by casting our votes on what the fledgling biotech ought to do when faced with various problems. In our fake case study, patients have been whipping up a social media frenzy over a pancreatic cancer drug in phase 2 that, it seems, has a welcome side-effect: it banishes wrinkles “better than Botox.”

If it were my company, I’d have been uncorking champagne — the serendipitous discovery of Viagra’s use springs to mind. But the panellists were cautious. They correctly explored how Twitter, chat rooms  and media hyperbole might threaten their drug’s success. This internet chatter, they said, not only unblinds the trial but also propagates false or possibly inflated information. The fake ompany discussed sanctions and how to penalize patients who cannot stop themselves from sharing their experiences.

IMG_3959

Yet I found the outcome of the voting rather shocking. All five panelists — even the patient advocate — and about 80% or the audience voted to ban participants from a trial if they communicated their experience through social media. I found this disappointing. Haven’t these people heard about Obama’s patient-empowered Precision Medicine Initiative, and the NCI’s Match trials that shake up clinical trials and bring them rushing into the 21st century? These and other innovative designs are incorporating next-generation sequencing, -omics of every kind, data algorithms, sensors and digital medicine. Social media is part of the picture, why not embrace it? Get everyone involved, including the FDA, to conjure up novel ways to harness its undoubted power.

After all, RCTs (randomized controlled trials) have been the gold standard for almost 60 years. Maybe it’s time for platinum?

Lisa Melton

BIO 2015 in Philly

LOVE_park

The iconic Love Park in Philadelphia.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) International Convention begins next week in Philadelphia. Running from June 15-18 this year, the conference is historically the industry’s largest gathering. The last time Philly played host (2005), the conference was slightly larger than today’s expected version, with more than 18,000 attendees. There were also more protesters than we see today – enough, in fact, for a group to clash with police, leading to, somewhat indirectly, the death of a cop.

Protester activity has declined since then, as has the number of attendees – BIO expects around 15,000 this year. But what about the host city? As we noted in our December 2014 feature on tech transfer, Philadelphia is a becoming a life science town. In 1970, the city had 190,000 manufacturing jobs, but by 2011 manufacturing had dwindled to just 45,000 positions. Jobs in healthcare, education and social services, meanwhile, had risen to 184,000. The three largest employers in Philadelphia now are the Jefferson Health System, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania Health System, and Temple University.

You could say Philadelphia overall is having something of a resurgence. The city is getting safer – thanks, in part, to a lauded mayor – and there are plans to revitalize more of the city’s downtrodden areas. It has a growing culinary reputation. Perhaps the nickname “Killadelphia” is no longer valid. (To hear former BIO CEO Carl Feldbaum discuss prosecuting corruption in Philadelphia when he was assistant district attorney, click here for our First Rounders podcast.)

And now BIO arrives, with its long list of events. We’ll be posting from the conference this year, and Nature Publishing Group will have a booth in the exhibit hall. Do stop by – ask for a copy of Nature Biotechnology, and grab a piece of whatever candy we’re offering.

Brady Huggett

Fueling Australian biotechs

fuelWe’ve blogged here and here on the Australian biotech scene. In this post, we’re going to look at collaborations and finance.

Australia is strong, scientifically. The quality of its research is well above the world average and just below the average European citation rate. The country has sharp science and international academic connections. Specifically, Australia has strong links with the UK and the US, due to a common language and also because of the tie with the Commonwealth. China is also a big collaborator.

A common language is not enough, however. Australia suffers from geographical isolation and some members of Australian biotech firms travel every three months.

Large multinational companies as partners (or investors) help bring validation to Australian biotechs, just as they do elsewhere in the world, but Australian companies often accept unfavorable terms because they need a global brand and wide distribution. While CEOs often realize they need to reach global markets, they sometimes do not appreciate which product is likely to succeed globally (though this has been somewhat alleviated in recent years by an influx of senior executives from the US or the UK, or from Australians returning from abroad). Collaborations are helpful for Australian biotechs to get drugs through the FDA, and many companies decide to open an office in the US to generate US-derived data for the FDA, as well as for access to the US capital markets.

Financing

Finance is, of course, of critical importance to young companies, and there are interesting facets of the Australian financial ecosystem.

Angel investors. In Australia, biotech angels tend to be people with backgrounds in the biosciences, and they guide and help the firms they invest in. The association of individual angels, BioAngels, tends not to invest in drug development due to the high cost, but to focus on devices and diagnostics. They invest around A$60,000-A$250,000 per company. In general, they select opportunities that can scale up 7–30 times in 5–7 years so that the few that succeed will provide good returns overall. As elsewhere, angels do not look kindly on VCs, who tend to bring in shareholding agreements that override the angels’ earlier agreements with the company, not to mention dilute initial investors down to small percentages of ownership.

Venture capital. Table 1 has a list of active Australian VCs. Australia also had the Pooled Development Fund, a venture capital fund that invested in enterprises valued at less than $50 million. Although new registrations under this program are no longer possible, income obtained by holding, or disposing of, shares in this fund is tax-exempt. Also, in recent years, Australian VCs have syndicated with US VCs to increase the size of their funds.

Earlier in the Australian industry’s history, a company might conduct an IPO, raise $10 million and have a valuation of $20-$30 million. Things have improved somewhat. In 2013, for example, stem cell company Regeneus raised A$10.5 million in its IPO, giving it a market cap of around A$46 million. It’s a sign of maturity that there are much fewer listings on the ASX today.

Table 1. Major VCs that have invested in the bio-medical sector in Australia.

Bioscience Managers
Brandon Capital Partners
GBS Venture Partners
Innovation Capital Associates
NBC Capital
OneVentures
QIC Bio Ventures
Starfish Ventures
Terra Rossa Capital
Uniseed
Yuuwa Capital

Source: Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Guide.

Up next: clinical trials and Australia’s unique skillset

Szymon Jarosławski and Gayatri Saberwal

Acknowledgments

This article is based on interviews with 14 senior people in, or associated with, companies in Australia, whose comments have been edited for clarity and brevity. We are extremely grateful to the interviewees, who gave freely of their time and their insights.  This work was supported by a grant to GS from the Institut Merieux, France. SJ was supported by France Volontaires, France. Neither organization played any specific role in this study.

MinION conference continues

London Calling Samples-121

Thomas Hoenen speaking on Ebola. Image source: Nigel Chapman

I wrote about the first day of the conference here.

The second day of the conference also had an infectious diseases focus, where we learned how the MinION was used to identify the two major Ebola lineages in West Africa. The MinION has environmental applications, too, as Brook Milligan showed that the MinION was used to trace illegally traded timber, which accounts for $100 billion annually in lost revenue, he said.

Non-infectious clinical applications were less frequent at London Calling. However, the MinION’s long reads have an advantage that was reflected in Ron Ammar‘s pharmacogenomics talk.

Ron showed that Haplotyping the Thiopurine S-Methyltransferase (TPMT) gene at two SNPs (rs1142345 and rs1800460) influenced the immunosuppressive Thiopurine drug dosage more precisely than having the SNPs information separately.

After the two pleasantly exhaustive days, I returned to Kuwait with a personalized Fahd Al-Mulla MinION that dazzled staff at my University and Genatak. I am planning to use it, ASAP, and present my personalized vision for the MinION conference next year. However, while at the conference a colleague and I cautioned Oxford Nanopore staff about the need to validate each MinION before use in the clinic. This will be difficult to do if they keep changing the models so frequently. Perhaps clinical validation will be done on the more accurate and enhanced models soon, and I would be glad to be part of the process.

Before the conference, I had heard competitors project a gloomy picture for the MinION, and I wanted to understand why. After the conference, I formed a theory: When Oxford Nanopore management decided to partner directly with scientists to test and enhance their products, these busy scientists did not act quickly and ended up delaying the progress of MinION. More importantly, the first generation MinION’s flow cells, which worked perfectly well at the source, did not work very well after shipment! It turns out that microbubbles were forming in the not-so-well degassed and shipped reagents and flow cells.

This reminded me of my first trip to Kuwait from Glasgow, where I took my engineered cell lines in a flask half-filled with growth media. It appears that the constant shaking and formed bubbles dislodged my attached cells, and they died. I learned, as did Oxford Nanopore Technologies, to de-gas the media well and fill the flask to the rim with media. I’ve now had the cells for many years in Kuwait, living happily ever after, and I am glad to say that the new flow cells appear green on the computer screen indicating that almost all the nanopores are working to full capacity.

The meeting created a tight bond between researchers and Oxford Nanopore, because this time scientists were offered a product that they then can sculpt into their own scientific achievements. One can only imagine the joy we shared when we were handed the keys to a futuristic technology, and we were asked to assist perfecting it!

It made me think how other companies and entrepreneurs should learn from the sharing business model adopted by Oxford Nanopore Technologies.

Fahd Al-Mulla