Approaches to Design an Efficient, Predictable Global Post-approval Change Management System that Facilitates Continual Improvement and Drug Product Availability.

The complexity and inter-connectedness of operating in a global world for drug product supply has become an undeniable reality, further underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic. For Post-Approval Changes (PACs) that are an inevitable part of a product's commercial life, the impact of the growing global regulatory complexity and related drug shortages has brought the Global PAC Management System to an inflection point in particular for companies that have their products marketed in many countries.This paper illustrates through data analyzed for the first time from 145,000 + PACs for 156 countries, collected by 18 global pharma companies over a 3-year period (2019-2021), how severe the problem of global regulatory complexity is. Only PACs requiring national regulatory agency (NRA) approval prior to implementation were included in the data set. 1 of the 156 country NRAs approved all submitted PACs within a period of 6 months. The 6-month timeline was chosen because it is the recommended review timeline for major changes in the WHO guidance for vaccines and biotherapeutic products. 10 out of the 156 (6%) countries had no more than 10% of the PACs reviewed and approved in > 6 months. In 33 (22%) countries more than half of the PACs took > 6 months for approval. It is rare that the same PAC is approved globally within 6 months as individual NRAs take from a few months to years (in some cases > 5 years) for their review.The global PAC management complexity has steadily grown over the past 20 years. Attempts thus far to solve this problem have not made any meaningful difference. Senior leaders and decision-makers across the interdependent components of the complex Global PAC Management System (industry and regulators) must come together and collaboratively manage the problem holistically with the objective of ensuring global drug product availability instead of continuing with distinct stakeholder or country-focused solutions, which can tend to worsen the problem.In this paper, the Chief Quality Officers (CQOs) from 18 of the largest innovator pharma companies (see Acknowledgements) are speaking with One-Voice-of-Quality for PACs (1VQ for PACs Initiative). They are recommending a set of 8 approaches to activate a holistic transformation of the Global PAC Management System. This article presents their view on the problem of global regulatory complexity for managing PACs, it's impact on continual improvement and the risk to drug product supply, as well as approaches that can help alleviate the problem.

US FDA's Dose Optimization Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments of Oncology Approvals and the Impact on Product Labels from 2010 to 2022: An Emerging Landscape from Traditional to Novel Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Dose optimization is a focal point of many US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals. We sought to understand the impact of the FDA's Postmarketing Commitments/Postmarketing Requirements (PMCs/PMRs) on dose optimization and prescriber labeling for oncology drugs. METHODS: Publicly available information was aggregated for all FDA oncology drug approvals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2022. Study completion dates were compared to product labeling before and after PMC/PMR fulfillment dates to evaluate labeling changes associated with dose-related PMCs/PMRs. Data were analyzed individually (2010-2015 and 2016-2022) due to differences in available information. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 14 of 42 (33.3%) new molecular entities (NMEs) had dose-related PMCs/PMRs, with 6 of 14 (42.9%) resulting in a relevant label change. From 2016 to 2022, of the 314 new or supplemental applications approved, 21 had dose-related PMCs/PMRs (6.7%), which trended upward over time; 71.4% of dose-related PMCs/PMRs were NMEs. Kinase inhibitors (KIs) and antibody/peptide drug conjugates (ADCs/PDCs) were the most affected drug classes. Ten of the 21 approvals with dose-related PMCs/PMRs fulfilled their dosing PMCs/PMRs, and 3 of the 10 (30%) had relevant label changes. CONCLUSION: Most dose-related PMRs/PMCs were issued for NMEs. Of these, KIs and ADCs/PDCs were highly represented, reflecting their novelty and greater uncertainty around their safety profile. PMC/PMR issuance broadly increased over time. With the implementation of the FDA's Project Optimus in 2021, it remains to be seen whether fewer dose-related PMCs/PMRs emerge in future due to enhanced dose optimization in the premarketing setting.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

[Expert consensus on core indicators for lifecycle value assessment of Chinese patent medicine].

The establishment of core indicators for assessment plays an important role in carrying out the lifecycle value assessment of Chinese patent medicine, which are developed based on the concepts such as clinical value oriented, paying attention to the human use experience, and whole process quality control. To this end, the Specialty Committee of Data Monitoring and Decision Making of the World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies organized experts to draft the Expert Consensus on Core Indicators for Lifecycle Value Assessment of Chinese Patent Medicine based on the research including Chinese Medicine Registration Review Evidence System in Combination of Traditional Chinese Medicine Theory, Human Use Experience, and Clinical Trials(GZY-FJS-2022-206) by National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. This consensus proposed 92 core indicators from four stages, including new drug R&D project approval, pre-clinical research, new drug marketing authorization, and post-marketing, combining the assessment purposes and needs of different stakeholders from different dimensions such as clinical needs, clinical positioning, human use experience, effectiveness, safety, quality control, innovation, accessibility, and suitability. This consensus also interpreted the indicators to clearly elucidate the core elements of the value assessment of Chinese patent medicine in different R&D stages and guided the stakeholders to identify, analyze, and assess the value of Chinese patent medicine in the R&D and use process based on the core indicators in a scientific, objective, and standardized approach. This consensus is expected to play an important role in the high-quality new drug development, drug pricing and compensation of Chinese patent medicine, the development of clinical pathways, and rational clinical application.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval.

Importance: Many cancer drugs are approved under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval pathway based on preliminary evidence. It is unclear how this limited evidence is integrated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are common references for clinicians and are used by public and private payers to determine reimbursement for oncology treatments. Objective: To analyze the NCCN guidelines' assessments for cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval compared with cancer drug indications that received FDA regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzes FDA-approved indications for cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval from program inception in 1992 to June 30, 2022. For each drug, the FDA-approved labeling was reviewed to identify all indications. All analyses were performed at the drug-indication level. Exposure: The exposure was FDA regulatory status as of October 2022, including regular approval, accelerated approval, accelerated approval converted to regular approval, and withdrawn accelerated approval. Main Outcomes and Measures: The level of evidence and consensus (category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) and treatment preference (preferred, alternative preferred, other recommended, and useful in certain circumstances) ratings assigned by NCCN committees as of February 2023. Results: A total of 315 oncology indications for 100 drugs were analyzed. These indications included 156 (50%) with regular approval, 60 (38%) with accelerated approval, 78 (49%) with accelerated approval that was converted to regular approval, and 21 (13%) with withdrawn accelerated approvals. Among all indications, 105 (33%) were rated by the NCCN as having category 1 evidence, 185 (59%) with category 2A, 6 (2%) with category 2B, and 2 (1%) with category 3 evidence. Compared with indications with regular approval, those with accelerated approval were less frequently assigned category 1 evidence (47% vs 3%; P < .001) and were less often listed as preferred treatment options (58% vs 40%; P = .008). Among the 21 withdrawn accelerated approval indications, 8 (38%) remained in the NCCN guidelines, with most having level 2A evidence ratings. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that cancer drug indications with accelerated approval were less likely to be assigned high-level evidence ratings and preferred status in the NCCN guidelines compared with indications with regular approval; most accelerated and regular approval drugs had low-quality evidence ratings but high levels of consensus among oncologists on NCCN committees. Greater clarity on the thresholds and definitions of evidence levels would make the NCCN guidelines more useful to clinicians, patients, and payers.

Cancer Drug Approvals That Displaced Existing Standard-of-Care Therapies, 2016-2021.

Importance: Although several cancer drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval each month, it is unclear how many of these cancer drugs transform the treatment landscape significantly by tumor group. Specifically, it remains unclear how many of these newly approved cancer drugs displace the existing standard-of-care therapies for their indication vs being added to existing therapies. Objective: To examine how many cancer drugs displace the standard-of-care therapies vs being added to existing therapy or filling breaks in systemic treatments in the metastatic setting, adjuvant setting, or maintenance setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional study using landmark trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. The study evaluated all FDA approvals for cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, using the FDA Oncology (Cancer)/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications website. All clinical trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs during this period were examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: A drug was determined to have displaced the prior standard-of-care therapy by evaluating the comparator arm (or lack thereof) in the clinical trial leading to the drug's approval and also by reviewing National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. Cancer drug approvals were categorized as first-line displacing if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting and displaced the prior standard-of-care drug for an indication, first-line drug alternatives/new if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting but did not displace the standard of care at the time of approval or was a new drug that was first of its class for an approved indication, add on if a drug was approved in combination with a previously approved therapy for a disease or if a drug was approved for use in the adjuvant or maintenance settings, and later line if a drug was approved for use in the second-, third-, or later-line settings. Results: Between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, there were 207 FDA cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology. Of these 207 approvals, 28 drugs (14%) were first-line displacing therapies. A total of 32 drugs (15%) were first-line drug alternatives/new drugs. A total of 61 drugs (29%) were add-on therapies. Finally, 86 drugs (42%) were approved as later-line therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, most cancer drug approvals between 2016 and 2021 were in the later-line settings as opposed to displacing the current standard-of-care therapy for the approved indication. These later-line drugs may benefit patients with few alternatives but add to the cost of care because competition in the drug markets is a key factor in leading to lower drug prices.

FDA Approval Summary: Tivozanib for Relapsed or Refractory Renal Cell Carcinoma.

On March 10, 2021, the FDA granted regular approval to tivozanib for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following two or more prior systemic therapies. Approval was based on the TIVO-3 study, a randomized trial of tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with R/R advanced RCC. In TIVO-3, patients were randomized to receive either tivozanib 1.34 mg orally once daily for 21 consecutive days of every 28-day cycle or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. Tivozanib demonstrated efficacy compared with sorafenib with an improvement in PFS [HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.95; P = 0.016]. The estimated median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months in the tivozanib and sorafenib arms, respectively. There was no evidence of a detrimental effect on overall survival: HR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.75-1.24). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse reaction on the tivozanib arm was hypertension (24%). Compared with sorafenib, tivozanib was associated with lower rates of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea, rash, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Patients receiving tivozanib in TIVO-3 had lower rates of dose reduction, interruption, or permanent discontinuation than those receiving sorafenib.

The formulary process for biosimilar additions at a comprehensive cancer center.

Biological products may be used to diagnose, prevent, treat, and cure diseases and medical conditions, including cancer. Biosimilar agents, approved under an abbreviated 351(k) pathway, continue to increase in number and market share for biologic agents, especially for cancer care. Although biosimilars offer the potential for improved access to care, their introduction to the marketplace has created significant disruption. It is imperative that health systems providing care to patients with cancer develop a well-defined process to address the challenges associated with biosimilars. This descriptive article outlines pharmacy considerations for biosimilars and describes the current practices at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University. Biosimilars have and will continue to significantly impact oncology care. Organizations must understand the clinical, operational, and financial challenges associated with the use of these products.

The current use and evolving landscape of nutraceuticals.

The nutraceutical market is currently a high-impact multi-billion-dollar industry, and it is anticipated to grow rapidly over the next decade. Nutraceuticals comprise diverse food-derived product categories that have become widespread due to increased consumer awareness of potential health benefits and the need for improved wellness. This targeted review is designed to identify the current global trends, market opportunities, and regulations that drive the nutraceutical industry. Safety and efficacy concerns are also explored with a view to highlighting areas that necessitate further research and oversight. Key drivers of the nutraceutical market include aging populations, consumer awareness, consumer lifestyle, increasing cost of healthcare, and marketing channels. Although some nutraceuticals hold promising preventive and therapeutic opportunities, there is a lack of a universal definition and regulatory framework among countries. Moreover, there is a lack of adequate evidence for their efficacy, safety, and effectiveness, which was even further highlighted during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Future prospective epidemiological studies can delineate the health impact of nutraceuticals and help set the scientific basis and rationale foundation for clinical trials, reducing the time and cost of trials themselves. Together, an understanding of the key drivers of the nutraceutical market alongside a consistent and well-defined regulatory framework will provide further opportunities for growth, expansion, and segmentation of nutraceuticals applications.

Globally Approved EGFR Inhibitors: Insights into Their Syntheses, Target Kinases, Biological Activities, Receptor Interactions, and Metabolism.

Targeting the EGFR with small-molecule inhibitors is a confirmed valid strategy in cancer therapy. Since the FDA approval of the first EGFR-TKI, erlotinib, great efforts have been devoted to the discovery of new potent inhibitors. Until now, fourteen EGFR small-molecule inhibitors have been globally approved for the treatment of different types of cancers. Although these drugs showed high efficacy in cancer therapy, EGFR mutations have emerged as a big challenge for these drugs. In this review, we focus on the EGFR small-molecule inhibitors that have been approved for clinical uses in cancer therapy. These drugs are classified based on their chemical structures, target kinases, and pharmacological uses. The synthetic routes of these drugs are also discussed. The crystal structures of these drugs with their target kinases are also summarized and their bonding modes and interactions are visualized. Based on their binding interactions with the EGFR, these drugs are also classified into reversible and irreversible inhibitors. The cytotoxicity of these drugs against different types of cancer cell lines is also summarized. In addition, the proposed metabolic pathways and metabolites of the fourteen drugs are discussed, with a primary focus on the active and reactive metabolites. Taken together, this review highlights the syntheses, target kinases, crystal structures, binding interactions, cytotoxicity, and metabolism of the fourteen globally approved EGFR inhibitors. These data should greatly help in the design of new EGFR inhibitors.

Strategies to apply 3Rs in preclinical testing.

Animal experimentation has been fundamental in biological and biomedical research. To guarantee the maximum quality, efficacy and/or safety of products intended for the use in humans in vivo testing is necessary; however, for over 60 years, alternative methods have been developed in response to the necessity to reduce the number of animals used in experimentation, to guarantee their welfare; resorting to animal models only when strictly necessary. The three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement), seek to ensure the rational and respectful use of laboratory animals and maintain an adequate projection in terms of bioethical considerations. This article describes different approaches to apply 3Rs in preclinical experimentation for either research or regulatory purposes.

Regulatory and clinical consequences of negative confirmatory trials of accelerated approval cancer drugs: retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the regulatory handling of cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but failed to improve the primary endpoint in post-approval trials and to evaluate the extent to which negative post-approval trials changed the recommendations in treatment guidelines. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: FDA and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) reports. INCLUDED DRUGS: Cancer drugs that received accelerated approval from the FDA and had negative post-approval trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regulatory outcomes, including withdrawal, conversion to regular approval, and no action. RESULTS: 18 indications for 10 cancer drugs that received accelerated approval but failed to improve the primary endpoint in post-approval trials were identified. Of these, 11 (61%) were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer and one (bevacizumab for breast cancer) was revoked by the FDA. Of the 11 withdrawals, six occurred in 2021 alone. The remaining six (33%) indications remain on the label. The NCCN guidelines provide a high level of endorsement (category 1 endorsement for one and category 2A endorsement for seven) for accelerated approval drugs that have failed post-approval trials, sometimes even after the approval has been withdrawn or revoked. CONCLUSION: Cancer drug indications that received accelerated approval often remained on formal FDA approved drug labelling and continued to be recommended in clinical guidelines several years after statutorily required post-approval trials showed no improvement in the primary efficacy endpoint. Clinical guidelines should better align with the results of post-approval trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval.

Review: Insights on Current FDA-Approved Monoclonal Antibodies Against Ebola Virus Infection.

The unprecedented 2013-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak accelerated several medical countermeasures (MCMs) against Ebola virus disease (EVD). Several investigational products (IPs) were used throughout the outbreak but were not conclusive for efficacy results. Only the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) on ZMapp was promising but inconclusive. More recently, during the second-largest Ebola outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), four IPs, including one small molecule (Remdesivir), two monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails (ZMapp and REGN-EB3) and a single mAb (mAb114), were evaluated in an RCT, the Pamoja Tulinde Maisha (PALM) study. Two products (REGN-EB3 and mAb114) demonstrated efficacy as compared to the control arm, ZMapp. There were remarkably few side effects recorded in the trial. The FDA approved both medications in this scientifically sound study, marking a watershed moment in the field of EVD therapy. These products can be produced relatively inexpensively and can be stockpiled. The administration of mAbs in EVD patients appears to be safe and effective, while several critical knowledge gaps remain; the impact of early administration of Ebola-specific mAbs on developing a robust immune response for future Ebola virus exposure is unknown. The viral mutation escape, leading to resistance, presents a potential limitation for single mAb therapy; further improvements need to be explored. Understanding the contribution of Fc-mediated antibody functions such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) of those approved mAbs is still critical. The potential merit of combination therapy and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) need to be demonstrated. Furthermore, the PALM trial has accounted for 30% of mortality despite the administration of specific treatments. The putative role of EBOV soluble Glycoprotein (sGP) as a decoy to the immune system, the virus persistence, and relapses might be investigated for treatment failure. The development of pan-filovirus or pan-species mAbs remains essential for protection. The interaction between FDA-approved mAbs and vaccines remains unclear and needs to be investigated. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety results of the PALM study and review current research questions for the further development of mAbs in pre-exposure or emergency post-exposure use.

Considerations for Updates to ICH Q1 and Q5C Stability Guidelines: Embracing Current Technology and Risk Assessment Strategies.

In consideration of the recent ICH Quality Discussion Group (QDG) recommended revision to the ICH series of stability guidelines, the IQ Consortium (International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development) Science- and Risk-based Stability Working Group conducted a comprehensive review of ICH Q1A, Q1B, Q1C, Q1D, Q1E, and Q5C to identify areas where the guidelines could be clarified, updated, and amended to reflect the potential knowledge gained from current risk-based predictive stability tools and to consider other science- and risk-based stability strategies in accordance with ICH Q8-12. The recommendations propose a holistic approach to stability understanding, utilizing historical data, prior knowledge, modeling, and a risk assessment process to expand the concept of what could be included (or would be acceptable) in the core stability data package, including type and amount of stability evidence, assignment of retest period and shelf-life for a new product, and assessment of the impact of post-approval changes.

Novel agents for myelodysplastic syndromes.

REVIEW OBJECTIVE: There have been several advances in the field of myelodysplastic syndromes over the past year, yielding two new US Food and Drug Administration drug approvals. The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials, therapeutic use, adverse effects, clinical use controversies, product description, and upcoming trials for myelodysplastic syndromes novel agents luspatercept-aamt and decitabine/cedazuridine are reviewed. DATA SOURCES: This review article utilized primary information obtained from both the published studies involved in the approval of luspatercept-aamt and decitabine/cedazuridine and package inserts for the respective medications. This review article utilized secondary information obtained from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines using filters and keywords to sustain information relevancy as well as key studies using the keywords, "luspatercept-aamt, myelodysplastic syndromes, decitabine, cedazuridine, hypomethylating agent, ASTX727" from scholarly journal database PubMed. DATA SUMMARY: Myelodysplastic syndromes consist of myeloid clonal hemopathies with a diverse range of presentation. Until recently, there have been relatively few new therapies in the myelodysplastic syndromes treatment landscape. On April 3, 2020 the US Food and Drug Administration approved Reblozyl®(luspatercept-aamt), then on July 7, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved INQOVI® (decitabine and cedazuridine). Luspatercept-aamt acts as a erythroid maturation agent through differentiation of late-stage erythroid precursors. The safety and efficacy of luspatercept-aamt was demonstrated in the MEDALIST trial, a phase III trial in patients with very low-intermediate risk refractory myelodysplastic syndromes and ring sideroblasts. Luspatercept-aamt met both primary and secondary endpoints of transfusion independence of 8 weeks or longer and transfusion independence of 12 weeks or longer, respectively. Decitabine/cedazuridine has a unique mechanism of action in which decitabine acts as a nucleoside metabolic inhibitor promoting DNA hypomethylation and cedazuridine then prevents degradation of decitabine. The safety and efficacy of decitabine/cedazuridine was shown in the ASCERTAIN study, a phase III trial in patients with intermediate or high risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. The primary outcome evaluated was 5-day cumulative area under the curve between decitabine/cedazuridine and IV decitabine as well as additional outcomes including safety. Decitabine/cedazuridine met primary outcome and had a similar safety profile to IV decitabine. CONCLUSION: The novel myelodysplastic syndromes agents luspatercept-aamt and decitabine/cedazuridine provide a clinical benefit in the studied populations.

FDA-Approved Drug Screening for Compounds That Facilitate Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells (HSPCs) Expansion in Zebrafish.

Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are a specialized subset of cells with self-renewal and multilineage differentiation potency, which are essential for their function in bone marrow or umbilical cord blood transplantation to treat blood disorders. Expanding the hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) ex vivo is essential to understand the HSPCs-based therapies potency. Here, we established a screening system in zebrafish by adopting an FDA-approved drug library to identify candidates that could facilitate HSPC expansion. To date, we have screened 171 drugs of 7 categories, including antibacterial, antineoplastic, glucocorticoid, NSAIDS, vitamins, antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs. We found 21 drugs that contributed to HSPCs expansion, 32 drugs' administration caused HSPCs diminishment and 118 drugs' treatment elicited no effect on HSPCs amplification. Among these drugs, we further investigated the vitamin drugs ergocalciferol and panthenol, taking advantage of their acceptability, limited side-effects, and easy delivery. These two drugs, in particular, efficiently expanded the HSPCs pool in a dose-dependent manner. Their application even mitigated the compromised hematopoiesis in an ikzf1-/- mutant. Taken together, our study implied that the larval zebrafish is a suitable model for drug repurposing of effective molecules (especially those already approved for clinical use) that can facilitate HSPCs expansion.

Tozinameran (BNT162b2) Vaccine: The Journey from Preclinical Research to Clinical Trials and Authorization.

Vaccination development and production was an essential question for the prevention and global control of COVID-19. The strong support from governing authorities such as Operation Warp Speed and robust funding has led to the development and authorization of the tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine. The BNT162b2 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA that encodes for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the main site for neutralizing antibodies. Once it binds with the host cells, the lipid nanoparticles enable the transfer of the RNA, causing S antigens' expression of the SARS-CoV-2, conferring immunity. The vaccine is administered as a 2-dose regime 21 days apart for individuals 16 years and older. Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 vaccine was the first candidate to receive FDA-Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on December 11, 2020. During phase 2/3 clinical trials, 95% efficacy was reported among 37,706 participants over the age of 16 who received the BNT162b2 vaccination; additionally, 52% efficacy was noted 12 days following the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2, reflecting early protection of COVID-19. The BNT162b2 vaccine has exhibited 100% efficacy in clinical trials of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15. Clinical trials in pregnant women and children under the age of 12 are expected to also exhibit promising results. This review article encompasses tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine journey, summarizing the BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 vaccines from preclinical studies, clinical trial phases, dosages, immune response, adverse effects, and FDA-EUA.

siRNA Therapeutics for the Therapy of COVID-19 and Other Coronaviruses.

The ongoing pandemic of global concern has killed about three million humans and affected around 151 million people worldwide, as of April 30, 2021. Although recently approved vaccines for COVID-19 are engendering hope, finding new ways to cure the viral pandemic is still a quest for researchers worldwide. Major pandemics in history have been of viral origin, such as SARS, MERS, H1NI, Spanish flu, and so on. A larger emphasis has been on discovering potential vaccines, novel antiviral drugs, and agents that can mitigate the viral infection symptoms; however, a relatively new area, RNA interference (RNAi), has proven effective as an antiviral agent. The RNAi phenomenon has been largely exploited to cure cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and some rare diseases. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved three siRNA products for human use that garner significant hope in siRNA therapeutics for coronaviruses. There have been some commentaries and communications addressing this area. We have summarized and illustrated the significance and the potential of the siRNA therapeutics available as of April 30, 2021 to combat the ongoing viral pandemic and the emerging new variants such as B.1.1.7 and B.1.351. Numerous successful in vitro studies and several investigations to address the clinical application of siRNA therapeutics provide great hope in this field. This seminal Review describes the significance of siRNA-based therapy to treat diverse viral infections in addition to the current coronavirus challenge. In addition, we have thoroughly reviewed the patents approved for coronaviruses, the major challenges in siRNA therapy, and the potential approaches to address them, followed by innovation and prospects.