BREAST CANCER DRUGS FUNDING AND TRIALS

August 1, 2017 | 159 views

This white paper arises out of the Pink Ribbon drugs funding & trials conference, held at the faculty of pharmaceutical medicine on 23 March 2017 (full programme provided on page 13-15). The general theme to emerge from the conference is that the UK would benefit from enhanced communication between:
• Pharma, regulators and NICE to expedite drug and pricing approval;
• Regulators, NICE and hospitals to allow hospitals time to prepare for new drugs, for example through horizon scanning, with transparency on costs, efficacy and safety profile;
• Pharma and trials database creators, for example, Cancer Research UK (CRUK), to ensure information on clinical trials is effectively disseminated to those patients who may wish to take part – for the benefit of the patients themselves, as well as the national health service (NHS) and pharma.

Spotlight

EPSA - European Pharmaceutical Students'​ Association

EPSA is the student association of European pharmaceutical students with headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Representing around 160 000 pharmaceutical students through 45 member associations in 37 European countries, EPSA provides a large network for future professionals to meet, share opinions and shape the pharmaceutical profession of Europe together.

OTHER ARTICLES
RESEARCH

Use of AI: Reshaping the Pharmaceutical Industry

Article | September 1, 2021

For decades, the pharmaceutical industry has counted on state-of-the-art technologies to ensure the market entry of safe and dependable medications. The recent pandemic has shown how important it is for drug companies to get new drugs and vaccines on the market as soon as possible. The incorporation of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies has greatly benefited the consumer healthcare business and the pharmaceutical industry. These technologies have been indispensable in the field of augmented intelligence, where they are used for applications such as disease detection and diagnosis, research and development, drug manufacturing, and others. How is AI Being Used Across the Pharmaceutical Sector? AI and ML are finding a plethora of applications across the pharmaceutical sector, starting from managing the process of clinical trial databases to drug discovery and disease diagnosis and treatment. These advanced technologies have further gained immense popularity with the advent of the COVID pandemic and the race to discover effective vaccines. The top-level uses of AI across the pharmaceutical sector are as follows Personalized Treatment/ Digital Therapeutics – AI is extensively being used to identify and assist drug developers to provide reliable and accurate insights for developing personalized therapeutics. Disease Identification/ Suggestive Treatment – With robust assessing abilities, AI is finding applications for the diagnosis of diseases ranging from Covid-19 to oncology to degeneration in the eyes. Drug Discovery and Manufacturing – AI assists in screening and comparing the predicted success rate of drug compounds based on biological factors with the results of the initial screening process such as rapid RNA and DNA quantification. Clinical Trials – The technology helps in identifying the most suitable candidate for the clinical trial on the basis of disease conditions, history, and additional attributes covering infection rates, ethnicity, and demographics to study the impact of the drug. The Way Ahead With growing applications in the development of novel therapeutic medications, shifting patient inclination toward personalized medicines, and the introduction of advanced medical fields such as gene therapy, AI is estimated to transform the pharmaceutical

Read More
PHARMA TECH

How Pharma Is Utilizing AI and Analytic Capabilities to Produce Positive Results

Article | July 15, 2022

Applications for AI are as diverse as the industries that employ them, and pharma has identified the particular varieties of AI that are most effective in attaining quicker, more fruitful results across a variety of business activities. In a world where every second counts, pharma and biotech businesses are under pressure to shorten the time to insight and deliver success. As a result, leading organizations quickly realize the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) as a crucial tool for advancing their operations. Leading pharma and biotech firms have realized the potential of AI and are utilizing it to boost productivity and innovation across the board, from production to drug discovery. Their procedures have significantly benefited from the application of machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP), and the results are only becoming better because AI gets stronger and "smarter" the more data it processes. Advantages Pharma Industry Can Leverage Increased effectiveness across the spectrum in the pharmaceutical industry Drug discovery accelerates Superior disease surveillance, detection, and prevention Clinical trials with lower risk Greater insight into the client NLP is used to turn clinical trial data that is text-intensive and highly categorized into the data utilized in machine learning (ML) models, allowing the computer system to apply patterns to the data and generate insights. Clinical trial data is structured and enriched, making it possible to analyze and visualize the data for use in successful plans and strategies for clinical trial design, manufacturing, marketing, and other areas. Faster time to insight and improved business outcomes are the end results. A particularly true principle of machine learning applications is that the outcomes from using AI applications are only as reliable as the data itself. The Pharma Intelligence offering, which combines high-quality, extensive data from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries with advanced analytics and AI applications, has assisted customers with high-value products in resolving some of their most difficult key problems, including target prioritization, modalities innovation, competitive benchmarking, clinical trial design and deployment, and more.

Read More
PHARMA TECH

Why Is Diversity of Thought Essential for Developing a Winning Strategy?

Article | July 7, 2022

In developing or evolving a strategy, there are key decision moments. Those are the moments where you are deciding where you need to focus, what you need to excel at to win there, and where and how to allocate resources to get to a point in the future. At these moments, it is the contest of ideas that matters. Having choices matters. Having a cross-functional team participating in the development of strategy is one way of ensuring that you are going to be more successful at generating choices before you start making choices. What Is a Cross-functional Team? A cross-functional team is a collection of individuals with varied skillsets from different areas of a business collaborating to achieve a common goal. Why Are Cross-functional Teams Essential for Business Success? Having this diverse set of minds analysing the situation, considering the big picture and the organisation’s capabilities, and the needs of all stakeholders, inspires teams to think about the choices they have differently and more creatively. For example, in a pharmaceutical setting, the medical affairs team brings knowledge of the data, unmet needs, and insight into clinical practice. Access and reimbursement teams identify the right data and take the lead in building that value story to accelerate market access and product uptake. It is incumbent upon commercial to hear their ideas, obtain their perspective and secure their alignment to all strategy decisions. Cross-functional collaboration can help break down silos. Research suggests that working in silos and not sharing data with team members from other departments can cost a company close to $8,000 per day in wasteful expenses. Time is widely recognised as a scarce resource: we need quick access to accurate and real-time insights to make effective business decisions. Real time insight will come from those closest to the customer, so it is important for cross-functional members from different geographies to participate in the development of strategy. Improved insight is a source of sustainable competitive advantage. One single version of the truth is what is required for the right narrative to take place. The right narrative will lead to the right decisions. One single version of the truth is more easily achieved by cross-functional team members working closely together. Better Innovation & Creativity: Individuals with diverse skillsets often explore a problem in different ways. When different people working in different capacities come together, they think outside the box to significantly improve outcomes. It is a great way to come up with concepts that distinguish companies from their competitors. Achieving alignment with strategy across functions and geographies: Today, businesses are moving faster than ever and organisations are seeing possible competitors in areas they never knew existed before. With so much choice about where to focus, you really want your workforce to align around one strategy. Underperformance is inevitable if everybody is off working in ten different directions. Improving the customer experience: Creating an effective customer experience is about more than just ensuring your customers receive the products and services they desire in a timely and efficient manner. It’s also about creating touchpoints with real people who can organically evangelise and grow your brand through their social media and offline interactions with friends and family. Your customers are engaging with multiple communication channels– official websites, social platforms, virtual platforms, medical science liaisons, sales reps, and more. Everyone needs to be aware of, and understand, the moments that matter to your customer and the business along that customer journey and how they contribute to delivering that positive experience. This is more likely to be achieved with a cross-functional approach to strategy development. Business Agility: Cross-functional teams are typically small, adaptable, and flexible. Such teams can move faster as they don’t have to wait and rely on other departments or external sources. They can help in tackling any silo mentality and bridge gaps between team members. They can come together to consider new information and/or changes to adapt the strategy if necessary and/or react to any setbacks immediately. They are better placed to make decisions when problem-solving amidst uncertainty. In summary, the rapidly changing environment and new information requires medical affairs, along with access and reimbursement and commercial, to work together, to ensure that patient’s benefit from the value of new innovative therapies. Companies stand a better chance of creating a winning strategy if it is created by a cross-functional and geographically diverse team. With every team member bringing their abilities and knowledge to the table, the strategy over time can only move from strength to strength. However, if not supported correctly, a cross-functional team working on strategy can be dysfunctional and chaotic, and result in a laborious and time-consuming approach to strategy development. Digital strategy platforms such as Nmblr offer an inclusive and structured process to facilitate a strategy discussion and allow people to bring forward ideas. They do this by: working against silos – the structure provided, levels the playing field. The guidance provided equips people from different disciplines to contribute to the conversation.

Read More
PHARMA TECH

Modern Phenotypic Drug Discovery

Article | June 2, 2022

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery makes these points well. It goes over historical and recent successes of the phenotypic approach, and discusses some areas that it's opening up for discussion and research. One of these is the long-vexed question of polypharmacology: what do you do when your active compound doesn't seem to have a single target, but rather hits a whole list of stuff at varying degrees of potency? Seen from a pure target-based viewpoint, this is a failure, and you'd better start working on something else. But to be honest, there are a lot of drugs out there (and not all of them ancient legacy compounds by any means) that work this way, even if their developers didn't think so at the time. So it's not to be disparaged on principle, but that said, it's still a difficult area to make progress in because of all the variables. A good enough phenotypic hit, though, makes its own case that it's worthy of further investigation and development, even if it's not "clean" by rigorous target-based standards. But as always, your phenotypic screen had better be a good one. That is, it had really better model the human disease in a useful way, and have a good signal/noise. The authors note that you're much better off with assays that involve a gain-of-function/gain-of-signal readout, as opposed to ones that could read out just through cellular stress or cytotoxicity, which is an invitation to chase your tail. Another area the paper brings up is searching lower-molecular-weight compounds than are usually screened, down to fragment-sized. There are quite a few useful drugs out there with really low molecular weights - ibuprofen, aspirin, metformin, dimethyl fumarate, lacosamide and more - and any screening program would be happy to have discovered something as useful as those. As the authors note, hits like these in phenotypic screens might be another case of polypharmacology, or they might be hitting pathways whose "tone" we have not understood well (and for which micromolar inhibitors might work out just fine). At any rate, there might be an opportunity for fragment phenotypic screening, and even of covalent fragments (which will call for even more attention to the validity of the underlying screening model, I'd say). The paper discusses the question of target ID, which for most phenotypic programs feels like a natural progression. Most of us are innately biased towards thinking in terms of drug targets, so when a phenotypic compound emerges we want to know what it's "really" doing. And most of the time, there is such a target in there somewhere, although finding it can be quite a haul. I know of several compounds that have been kicking around for years that are obviously doing something in the assays, but no one has ever been able to pin down quite what that is! This paper makes the case for getting out of a binary mindset for target identification. They point out, correctly, that target ID is a means to an end, and that you do not actually need to identify your target to go on to clinical trials and go to the FDA for approval. I always find it surprising to find how many people are surprised by that, but it's true. You also need to realize that knowing a target may not tell you nearly as much as you would want about a compound's mechanism of action, if your new target lands in the middle of a bunch of not-well-worked-out biology. There's a good case to be made that modern chemical biology and imaging techniques have made it easier to progress things, even if you're not quite sure how they're working. We can extract huge amounts of information about the cellular effects of a given compound, and if you do a good job of matching this against a closely related structure that's phenotypically inactive, you can make a lot of headway. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't bother trying to find the target - as mentioned, this is a great way to expand the knowledge of the underlying disease, and can lead to other new programs spinning off of the phenotypic effort. But it does mean that you shouldn't freeze in fear if you don't have a target to point to. The FDA wants to see safety and efficacy, and that's what we should want to see, too, for starters. But as the paper notes at the end, phenotypic screening is going to advance at the pace of good model development. Many of these same chem-bio tools can be brought to bear on this question as well, along with advances in cell culture, organoids, and other new assay technologies. You're not going to be able (realistically) to recapitulate all the features of a human disease, so you will probably find yourself concentrating on certain features that you can make the case for driving a project on. I was very happy to see this paper reference Jack Scannell's paper on translatability (blogged about here), because its point is crucial to the whole phenotypic screening endeavour. If your underlying assay is flawed, there is nothing you can do in any other part of the project to make up for it. A poorly translatable assay is a sign that you should spend your time trying to fix it, or to go do something entirely different instead. It is not a sign that you should just keep on going, because "it's the best thing we've got". If it isn't good enough, it isn't good enough. I don't get to quote A. E. Houseman much around here, but he's right: "The toil of all that be. Helps not the primal fault; It rains into the sea. And still the sea is salt." If you don't fix your assay up front, you are raining into the sea.

Read More

Spotlight

EPSA - European Pharmaceutical Students'​ Association

EPSA is the student association of European pharmaceutical students with headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Representing around 160 000 pharmaceutical students through 45 member associations in 37 European countries, EPSA provides a large network for future professionals to meet, share opinions and shape the pharmaceutical profession of Europe together.

Related News

Skin cancer rates rocket 45% in 10 years

Pharmatimes | July 29, 2019

Cancer Research UK has announced that incidences of melanoma have increased by 45% since 2004. Latest figures show that rates have increased by more than a third 35% for women and by almost three-fifths 55% for men, and that rates for 25-49 year-olds have increased by as much as 70% since the 1990s. Despite these rising figures, melanoma is still most prevalent in those over 65. The figures have been released to mark the launch of the charity’s Own Your Tone campaign which encourages people to embrace their natural skin tone and protect their skin from too much sun. Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK reminded he public that despite a tan often being seen as a sign of good health, “there is no such thing as a healthy tan, it’s actually your body trying to protect itself from harmful rays.” She continued to say that the statistics “highlight the importance of our Own Your Tone campaign, which encourages people to embrace their natural skin tone and adopt sun-safe behaviours.” Melanoma skin cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK and the second most common cancer in people aged 25-49, but Cancer Research UK says that almost 90% of melanoma cases could be prevented if people took better care of their skin in the sun both at home and abroad. Getting sunburnt, just once every two years, can triple the risk of melanoma skin cancer.

Read More

BMJ data suggests link between sugary drinks and cancer

Pharmatimes | July 11, 2019

A study published by The BMJ has reported a possible association between higher consumption of sugary drinks and and an increased risk of cancer. The data comes from a team of researchers based in France, who set out to assess the associations between the consumption of sugary drinks (sugar sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juices), artificially sweetened beverages, and risk of overall cancer, as well as breast, prostate, and bowel cancers. The results show that a 100 ml per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks was associated with an 18% increased risk of overall cancer and a 22% increased risk of breast cancer. In contrast, the consumption of artificially sweetened (diet) beverages was not associated with a risk of cancer, but the authors warn that caution is needed in interpreting this finding owing to a relatively low consumption level in this sample. Participants completed at least two 24 hour online validated dietary questionnaires, designed to measure usual intake of 3,300 different food and beverage items and were followed up for a maximum of nine years. Several well known risk factors for cancer, such as age, sex, educational level, family history of cancer, smoking status and physical activity levels, were taken into account.

Read More

Prostate cancer mutation found to triple risk of death

pharmatimes | May 07, 2019

The largest ever study of advanced prostate cancer genomics has revealed that men with mutations in the retinoblastoma gene in their tumours were more than three times as likely to die and nearly seven times as likely to relapse on standard treatments as those without the gene. Scientists identified the gene mutation in the tumours of men, which could help to pick out patients for more intensive treatment in the future. The gene in question – the retinoblastoma gene – is known as RB1 because mutations in it cause a rare children’s eye cancer of the same name and is known to play a central role in stopping healthy cells from dividing uncontrollably. Professor Johann de Bono, Regius Professor of cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation trust, said that the study “really got under the bonnet of prostate cancer to understand the ‘engine’ driving tumour growth and explore how a wide range of genes affect the disease and its response to treatment. "We identified one particular genetic mutation that seems to indicate that tumours are going to be very aggressive, and that the affected men need the most intensive treatment we have available. “Our research could also open up various new approaches to prostate cancer treatment, and offers the intriguing suggestion that some patients could benefit from immunotherapy alongside an existing breast cancer drug. That’s a great example of how genetic research can find the common links between cancers, and ensure research into one cancer type can also benefit patients with other tumours.”

Read More

Skin cancer rates rocket 45% in 10 years

Pharmatimes | July 29, 2019

Cancer Research UK has announced that incidences of melanoma have increased by 45% since 2004. Latest figures show that rates have increased by more than a third 35% for women and by almost three-fifths 55% for men, and that rates for 25-49 year-olds have increased by as much as 70% since the 1990s. Despite these rising figures, melanoma is still most prevalent in those over 65. The figures have been released to mark the launch of the charity’s Own Your Tone campaign which encourages people to embrace their natural skin tone and protect their skin from too much sun. Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK reminded he public that despite a tan often being seen as a sign of good health, “there is no such thing as a healthy tan, it’s actually your body trying to protect itself from harmful rays.” She continued to say that the statistics “highlight the importance of our Own Your Tone campaign, which encourages people to embrace their natural skin tone and adopt sun-safe behaviours.” Melanoma skin cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK and the second most common cancer in people aged 25-49, but Cancer Research UK says that almost 90% of melanoma cases could be prevented if people took better care of their skin in the sun both at home and abroad. Getting sunburnt, just once every two years, can triple the risk of melanoma skin cancer.

Read More

BMJ data suggests link between sugary drinks and cancer

Pharmatimes | July 11, 2019

A study published by The BMJ has reported a possible association between higher consumption of sugary drinks and and an increased risk of cancer. The data comes from a team of researchers based in France, who set out to assess the associations between the consumption of sugary drinks (sugar sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juices), artificially sweetened beverages, and risk of overall cancer, as well as breast, prostate, and bowel cancers. The results show that a 100 ml per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks was associated with an 18% increased risk of overall cancer and a 22% increased risk of breast cancer. In contrast, the consumption of artificially sweetened (diet) beverages was not associated with a risk of cancer, but the authors warn that caution is needed in interpreting this finding owing to a relatively low consumption level in this sample. Participants completed at least two 24 hour online validated dietary questionnaires, designed to measure usual intake of 3,300 different food and beverage items and were followed up for a maximum of nine years. Several well known risk factors for cancer, such as age, sex, educational level, family history of cancer, smoking status and physical activity levels, were taken into account.

Read More

Prostate cancer mutation found to triple risk of death

pharmatimes | May 07, 2019

The largest ever study of advanced prostate cancer genomics has revealed that men with mutations in the retinoblastoma gene in their tumours were more than three times as likely to die and nearly seven times as likely to relapse on standard treatments as those without the gene. Scientists identified the gene mutation in the tumours of men, which could help to pick out patients for more intensive treatment in the future. The gene in question – the retinoblastoma gene – is known as RB1 because mutations in it cause a rare children’s eye cancer of the same name and is known to play a central role in stopping healthy cells from dividing uncontrollably. Professor Johann de Bono, Regius Professor of cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation trust, said that the study “really got under the bonnet of prostate cancer to understand the ‘engine’ driving tumour growth and explore how a wide range of genes affect the disease and its response to treatment. "We identified one particular genetic mutation that seems to indicate that tumours are going to be very aggressive, and that the affected men need the most intensive treatment we have available. “Our research could also open up various new approaches to prostate cancer treatment, and offers the intriguing suggestion that some patients could benefit from immunotherapy alongside an existing breast cancer drug. That’s a great example of how genetic research can find the common links between cancers, and ensure research into one cancer type can also benefit patients with other tumours.”

Read More

Events