Speaker 1: Welcome to Farmer Talk Radio. This podcast is focused on
Speaker 1: sustained release innovations to reduce patient burden from the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four pod Partnership Opportunities in Drug Delivery Conference. For
Speaker 1: more information on the pod conference, editorials, podcasts, or webcasts,
Speaker 1: please visit Drug desh Delivery dot org. Thank you and
Speaker 1: enjoy the podcast.
Speaker 2: We have a pretty exciting topic to walk through and
Speaker 2: also a great panel to guide us through that discussion,
Speaker 2: and that's on sustained release innovations to reduce patient burden.
Speaker 2: And maybe just to kick off a little bit on
Speaker 2: sort of why this topic, and I think that really
Speaker 2: is around what we would call patient centricity conversations we've
Speaker 2: had during the past two days. I think that's a
Speaker 2: topic that has emerged and popped up recurrently, and at
Speaker 2: least from my perspective, when we talk about patient centricity,
Speaker 2: that's really about us as pharmaceutical scientists drug delivery scientists,
Speaker 2: putting the patient first and actually recognizing the patient. And
Speaker 2: in that context, you know technologies that provide sustained release,
Speaker 2: long acting injectables, implantable based systems, these are technologies which
Speaker 2: definitely strive to put the patient in the center by
Speaker 2: hopefully elevating the convenience experience for that patient also ultimately
Speaker 2: hopefully achieving improved compliance and as the title of this
Speaker 2: panel discussion also alludes to significantly hopefully reducing the burden
Speaker 2: that a patient can experience in taking their medication and
Speaker 2: also ultimately improving the therapeutic outcomes. And I think what
Speaker 2: will dive into today is different facets of the world
Speaker 2: of sustained release technologies, looking into you know, considerations around
Speaker 2: the technology space, but also other elements such as you know,
Speaker 2: considerations around the payer et cetera. So, without further ado,
Speaker 2: I think we'll start out with some self introductions of
Speaker 2: the panel that is sitting next to me. So, Adam,
Speaker 2: do you want to kick us off.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you Steven, and thank you for having me
Speaker 3: as part of this panel. My name is Adam Mendelssohn.
Speaker 3: I am one of the co founders and the CEO
Speaker 3: of Vivani Medical. At Vivani Medical, we are aiming to
Speaker 3: address some of the challenges that Stephen just mentioned with
Speaker 3: very long acting subdermal drug implants that can provide steady,
Speaker 3: minimally fluctuating levels of medicine over many months.
Speaker 4: At a time.
Speaker 3: We're utilizing a novel drug delivery technology that's based on
Speaker 3: a nanoporus membrane, which is going to be advanced very
Speaker 3: soon into a first clinical study with a GLP one
Speaker 3: agonist as our lead program. I've been working in this
Speaker 3: space drug delivery for many years. In my PhD, I
Speaker 3: did work with drug delivery and even before that work
Speaker 3: worked on implantable drug delivery systems for interthecled delivery for
Speaker 3: pain management. And it's really a pleasure to be here
Speaker 3: and participate on this panel with everyone today.
Speaker 4: Excellent.
Speaker 5: Hi everyone, my name is Manishcripta. This is my first
Speaker 5: part meeting, enjoying it absolutely. I work at gsk SO
Speaker 5: I lead the injectable struct product design and development team.
Speaker 5: I team goes across small molecules and biologics. We add
Speaker 5: polysorbate to both of those teams. That keeps the interfacial
Speaker 5: tension low, keeps us all together. So one of the
Speaker 5: things that motivates me in terms of patient centricity is
Speaker 5: the work that we've done in terms of HIV and
Speaker 5: how we've developed and launched some projects which are long
Speaker 5: acting injecticles, more small molecules, but a significant trund position
Speaker 5: from multiple tablets a day to six injections per year,
Speaker 5: and that makes a huge difference, not just the efficacy,
Speaker 5: but safety and the patient adherence aspect of brings one
Speaker 5: hundred percent compliance when a person actually goes to the
Speaker 5: doctor and gets their injections.
Speaker 4: So very glad to be here today.
Speaker 6: Ahi, everyone, My name has been I'm the founder of
Speaker 6: fast Trax. Fastrax is truct delivery based the CDMO. Over
Speaker 6: the last twenty years, fastas has developed various microsphere formulations
Speaker 6: for since their release for our partners. So we leveraged formulation,
Speaker 6: modify the formulations microsphere formulations to achieve you know, different
Speaker 6: type of release profiles ranging from like a week to
Speaker 6: as many as six months. And you know, we've developed
Speaker 6: these formulations to different stages preclinical and clinical stage is.
Speaker 4: Perfect.
Speaker 2: But I think we have an eminent panel and certainly
Speaker 2: excited to to get the discussion underway. Maybe starting out
Speaker 2: rather diverting a bit away from technologies from a starting point,
Speaker 2: but maybe zooming out and considering sort of the bigger
Speaker 2: picture and ultimately kind of the value proposition that we
Speaker 2: perceive with you know, sustained release technologies, things that can
Speaker 2: extend the release of our of our drugs. I think,
Speaker 2: you know, that's maybe something that intuitively to drug delivery
Speaker 2: scientists is very obvious. But you know, we heard, I
Speaker 2: think quite compelling, an interesting panel discussion earlier this morning
Speaker 2: from a kind of payers perspective and how they perceive,
Speaker 2: you know, value proposition of new drug delivery technologies, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Curious to hear the panel's perspective on, you know, what
Speaker 2: is the value proposition that we're trying to realize with
Speaker 2: the types of technologies that each of you are working with.
Speaker 3: We'll take a start on that. I think that this
Speaker 3: is a very important topic because although there are definitely
Speaker 3: people that would prefer the convenience as being the main
Speaker 3: reason that they would go with sustained release technologies, there
Speaker 3: are also very compelling reasons on health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics
Speaker 3: why sustained release technologies can be useful. We heard yesterday
Speaker 3: morning our chair Ali Jackson mentioned one hundred and twenty
Speaker 3: five thousand patient deaths attributable to non adherence per year,
Speaker 3: which is more than correctal different breast and breast cancer combined.
Speaker 3: It's really a tremendous figure. But in addition, to that
Speaker 3: there are about five hundred billion dollars in avoidable healthcare
Speaker 3: costs in the US per year attributable to adherents. There
Speaker 3: have been studies that have looked at the difference in
Speaker 3: as an example, clinical trial results where patients are more
Speaker 3: likely to take their medicine and real world outcomes. One
Speaker 3: study in the GLP one space a number of years
Speaker 3: ago showed that a very big delta between clinical trial
Speaker 3: and real world results that three quarters of that could
Speaker 3: be attributed specifically to medication adherents. There have been other
Speaker 3: studies that have shown in the diabetes field that five
Speaker 3: hundred dollars per non adherent patient per year can be
Speaker 3: attributed to non adherence because of hospitalization visits that could
Speaker 3: have been avoided, acute care visits which could have been avoided.
Speaker 3: So having options that all of the people in the
Speaker 3: ecosystem of a patient's care can feel assured that that
Speaker 3: patient is getting the medicine that their physician prescribes can
Speaker 3: have tremendous health outcomes from economic, etc. Advantages, and I
Speaker 3: think provides real motivation for all of us to do
Speaker 3: what we can to improve that outcome.
Speaker 5: Maybe the other thing I'll add is sometimes it's treatment
Speaker 5: and it's prevention as well. So if there are aspects
Speaker 5: of adherence that come into play for patients, they may
Speaker 5: still take a medicine for treatment, but if it's for prevention,
Speaker 5: they may not unless some of these options become available,
Speaker 5: which is a huge factor as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, over the twenty last twenty twenty five years, I
Speaker 6: think there have been suscetainay release products commune to the market, right,
Speaker 6: like a lupront depot respital conster, right, and they are
Speaker 6: about twenty close to twenty sustain release products in the marketplace.
Speaker 6: So I think, you know, these these products products proven,
Speaker 6: have proven their their safety safety, good safety profile, and
Speaker 6: also they're really helping patients in terms of the compliance
Speaker 6: right in a use so you don't have to take
Speaker 6: paills like you know, three times a day, but you
Speaker 6: can just get it when you know, subke injection every
Speaker 6: every month or every three months. So so I think
Speaker 6: that's really valuable. I think we will continue I see
Speaker 6: the continuation in that direction developing sustainiy release, but over
Speaker 6: the you know, again over the last twenty five years,
Speaker 6: but most efforts have been focused on developing sustained release
Speaker 6: formulations for small molecules, peptides made to some degree proteins.
Speaker 6: But nowadays we are in a nuclear nuclear asset, you know, error,
Speaker 6: So how do we I think there's a I think
Speaker 6: the new direction is, uh, at least it's one of
Speaker 6: the directions is to develop sustainary release formulations for m
Speaker 6: r n as s r n AS.
Speaker 2: I think that's a that's a good segue to maybe
Speaker 2: the natural next topic. We're mostly scientists or a lot
Speaker 2: of scientists in the in the audience, and of course
Speaker 2: also the panel members themselves. You know, from a technology perspective,
Speaker 2: there are different technology possibilities and domains within sort of
Speaker 2: sustained release and also implantable systems. Curious just to hear
Speaker 2: the panel's perspectives on how they see the technology landscape
Speaker 2: today and also recognizing that, you know, some of the
Speaker 2: mainstays of this space, you know, such as PLGA, have
Speaker 2: been around for actually quite some decades, and maybe there
Speaker 2: is you know, an opportunity and also a need for
Speaker 2: introducing you know, new materials and bringing those to the
Speaker 2: four in terms of realizing you know, potential or possibilities
Speaker 2: that we can currently achieve with those formulation concepts that
Speaker 2: we find in marketed products.
Speaker 4: Thoughts.
Speaker 5: Maybe I can start so the one that, yeah, you're right.
Speaker 5: I mean, when you look at the history of say,
Speaker 5: long acting injectibles, there's all kinds of formulations plg is, microspheres,
Speaker 5: We had injectables which were designed in oil vehicles. The
Speaker 5: ones that comes to mind is just simple long acting
Speaker 5: injectibles which don't have much in terms of polymers, but
Speaker 5: they rely on the drug substance itself makes our jobs
Speaker 5: much easier in terms of unlike oral drug delivery, where
Speaker 5: you want the solubility of the compound to be really high,
Speaker 5: you now try to design and optimal solubility such that
Speaker 5: the release is to keep the concentration below the cmax,
Speaker 5: avoid the side effects but.
Speaker 4: Above the CEMN, which.
Speaker 5: Then goes back to design for developability and trying to
Speaker 5: get the right solubility built.
Speaker 4: Into the compound itself.
Speaker 5: I think that, combined with the fact that if you
Speaker 5: can understand the immunogenicity of some of those compounds because
Speaker 5: the way the deeper forms, there's all kinds of fascinating
Speaker 5: biology that happens underlying. So I think combining those two
Speaker 5: into the drug substance itself, you can then design long
Speaker 5: acting inspectable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think to bring in the patient centricity aspect
Speaker 3: to this, I think it will also be important to
Speaker 3: see how is the patient going to interface with the
Speaker 3: delivery mechanism for the compound. As an example PLGA who
Speaker 3: can often require a larger payload and a larger needle gauge.
Speaker 3: And in the history of GLP ones by Durian, which
Speaker 3: was the once weekly exenotide, suffered in part by a
Speaker 3: larger needle gauge. And when Trulicity came on the market,
Speaker 3: which was the first easy to use version, it quickly,
Speaker 3: you know, outpaced the adoption. So I think it's not
Speaker 3: just the technical considerations that need to be achieved, but
Speaker 3: also yeah, challenges and how we couple those with delivery
Speaker 3: technologies that will make it easier for people.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and maybe just an extension maniche of what you
Speaker 2: were talking about in terms of, of course, you know,
Speaker 2: we cannot look at these drug delivery technologies in isolation.
Speaker 2: There's kind of an intimate relationship between the formulation and
Speaker 2: the drug, and just also maybe people's panel members thoughts
Speaker 2: reflections in terms of you know what and to what
Speaker 2: extent we can achieve with you know, innovation on the
Speaker 2: molecule versus what we can actually do with a formulation
Speaker 2: and delivery innovation. I mean, I'm thinking, you know, of course,
Speaker 2: we have established chemistry principles that can actually extend the
Speaker 2: half life of you know, many of our compounds for
Speaker 2: you know, multiple days, maybe up.
Speaker 4: To a week.
Speaker 2: Do we believe drug delivery technologies can can win the
Speaker 2: battle of how far you can extend half life or
Speaker 2: is that something that our friends in chemistry are better
Speaker 2: or best equipped to achieve.
Speaker 5: I think it's a combination absolutely, because I mean people
Speaker 5: now for oral delivery design molecules to maximize the solubility
Speaker 5: and simulated intestinal fluid. Now, I think we need to
Speaker 5: start to look at interstitial fluids for subcutaneous intramuscular delivery
Speaker 5: and then design the sweet spot in terms of solubility.
Speaker 4: And then to your points, see if if you can.
Speaker 5: Start to build in vitro and then in silico tools
Speaker 5: to be able to build these in vitro in vivo
Speaker 5: relationships and then design the right molecules, then it will
Speaker 5: become much easier to get to the right drug substance
Speaker 5: and then the right product.
Speaker 6: I think I agree with the manage it it's an atom.
Speaker 6: It's a combination, right, you know, it's a combination. And
Speaker 6: there's a device side, there's a formulation side, and there's
Speaker 6: also you know, different technology modalities where we noticed that
Speaker 6: have evolved and also emerging. Right, So like for example,
Speaker 6: in addition to PHG in micro sladers, there's also you
Speaker 6: know in situ forming jails, right, you know technology, and ah,
Speaker 6: there's a also implants, right, there's a so so all
Speaker 6: these these technologies can provide a different release profile and
Speaker 6: and uh and so that that's good. But but another
Speaker 6: thing I want to mention is from the formulation stamp
Speaker 6: on a side, I noticed the people numerous companies are developing, uh,
Speaker 6: synthesizing more new polymers, new barty gradeable materials. They can facilitate,
Speaker 6: can you know, create like a precise uh you know
Speaker 6: release profile like very you know, precisely desired to release
Speaker 6: profile like a reduced further reduced you know burst release
Speaker 6: and and and and maintain a very yeah flat release
Speaker 6: release file.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'll just add I think that once the molecule
Speaker 3: is in systemic circulation, then its circulation half life plays
Speaker 3: a role in how long it's going to last. But
Speaker 3: where delivery technologies can play a role is in delaying
Speaker 3: when that molecule gets into systemic circulation after administration of
Speaker 3: the product. So whether that's kind of an intuchu forming
Speaker 3: gel or an implant, you know, as an example, with
Speaker 3: our implant, our lead program is delivering a jug with
Speaker 3: a very very short half life, but the plasma levels
Speaker 3: are maintained at therapeutic levels because as it gets cleared,
Speaker 3: it's continuously being replenished by the device. So as we
Speaker 3: think about a product profile that's going to be attractive,
Speaker 3: having a long half life may not be necessary as
Speaker 3: long as it's coupled with the right delivery technology, But
Speaker 3: either way can achieve a similar outcome.
Speaker 4: Absolutely absolutely.
Speaker 2: And maybe another topic that you know, I think many
Speaker 2: of you were scratching the surface of in some of
Speaker 2: your comments just a moment ago. That's the kind of
Speaker 2: the development and the optimization process of you know, whatever
Speaker 2: drug delivery or drug every system one is developing. In
Speaker 2: my experience, there still remains a lot to be done
Speaker 2: in terms of providing a suite of tools that can
Speaker 2: actually guide the scientists in you know, refining and improving
Speaker 2: be it release profile or whatnot. And that's something where
Speaker 2: we still haven't got as far as I believe we
Speaker 2: need to in terms of having robust in vitro tools
Speaker 2: to be predictive of what we can then anticipate to
Speaker 2: see in vivo curious to hear the perspectives of the
Speaker 2: of the panel on that and and sort.
Speaker 4: Of where where where are we moving and are we moving?
Speaker 2: And is it forward?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: The one thing that comes to mind, I think is
Speaker 5: the understanding that we've built with tools like the artificial
Speaker 5: cut for oral delivery, where we have those tools in
Speaker 5: the place, and I think that's mostly because we have
Speaker 5: good mechanistic understanding of what really happens in the human gut.
Speaker 5: If we understand what happens upon injection to the implant
Speaker 5: or the microsphere or the long acting injectable, and I
Speaker 5: think that kind of an understanding we can build based
Speaker 5: on imaging studies, So if you can actually image the material,
Speaker 5: then you can understand what's really going on in terms
Speaker 5: of release. And that is one of the things that
Speaker 5: we're working on to build a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model
Speaker 5: to then predict what the release of the material.
Speaker 4: Will be from a depot.
Speaker 5: But that I think goes back to the point of
Speaker 5: cross functional partnerships and collaborations to actually now work with
Speaker 5: imaging scientists to understand what's really going on.
Speaker 2: And in that regard to you, I mean, are there
Speaker 2: are tools out there and there are publications where people
Speaker 2: are suggesting and claiming that you know, this is a
Speaker 2: tool which can predict forecasts. You know what we expect
Speaker 2: to see in vivo you mentioned Maniche, you know what
Speaker 2: is available in the world of oral drug delivery. Is
Speaker 2: it realistic for us to you know, advance the science
Speaker 2: in the sub Q space so that we actually can
Speaker 2: reach a level of you know, predictivity that our colleagues
Speaker 2: doing oral small molecule drug delivery can can do today?
Speaker 5: Or what I think with the cross functional collaboration, I
Speaker 5: think we can. I hear subcutaneous consortium, I hear the
Speaker 5: Innovation and Quality Consortium, and how Caesar is being used
Speaker 5: successfully for the biologics in terms of absorption. So I think, yes,
Speaker 5: we can get there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, excellent, but that's good to be optimistic. Maybe Another consideration,
Speaker 2: of course, as it relates to long acting or sustained
Speaker 2: release is of course, when you then do get in vivo,
Speaker 2: you have to be very patient because these studies are
Speaker 2: running for typically a very long time, and that I
Speaker 2: think complicates the drug development process at every stage. Curious
Speaker 2: to hear the panels sort of thoughts reflections on are
Speaker 2: there smart ways where we can you know, cut corners?
Speaker 2: And by cutting corners, I mean that in a in
Speaker 2: a in a positive way that we can actually be
Speaker 2: more efficient in performing conducting in vivo studies. Is that
Speaker 2: is there a way to do that? Better be good?
Speaker 6: So I remember, we we we we created some some
Speaker 6: systems that where we just uh, you know, we we
Speaker 6: we we can divide the study, the entire we study
Speaker 6: into stages right and and and fusted and so we
Speaker 6: if it's a city day release and then we would
Speaker 6: this is in virtual if we were started with the
Speaker 6: mutual and then we and look at that. We we
Speaker 6: look at the first you know stage maybe first ten days,
Speaker 6: and then we see we can see a trend, right
Speaker 6: and and after many if we do this repeatedly, you know,
Speaker 6: we create we can kind of predict, right, you know
Speaker 6: that the system you know what's gonna, what's gonna what's
Speaker 6: the second phase and the third phase is going to
Speaker 6: look like? Right, and and then we can apply this
Speaker 6: in vivo and and maybe in the first to seven
Speaker 6: days you can have a very good idea whether your
Speaker 6: your formination is going to be it's going to work,
Speaker 6: you know, it's going to give you the profile you need.
Speaker 6: So that's just the one that approaches we we adapted.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, we try to be very strategic with
Speaker 3: how we intertwine in vitro and in vivo studies to
Speaker 3: try to get the most useful information as a total
Speaker 3: as quickly as possible, recognizing the costs of proceeding in
Speaker 3: each way. And we've definitely found having early in vivo
Speaker 3: studies to make sure there isn't something very surprising that
Speaker 3: we're going to find it can be helpful in the development.
Speaker 3: And we definitely see there are things that in vitro
Speaker 3: kind of assays or are not predictive of you know.
Speaker 3: So it's I hope you're right that we're going to
Speaker 3: have very predictive in vitro tools that we can use,
Speaker 3: but for now we can't completely rely on that. So
Speaker 3: it has to just based on what it is that
Speaker 3: you're developing, makes good strategic choices as you proceed.
Speaker 5: Yeah, the other thing that comes to mind is if
Speaker 5: it's not in vitrol, can you then translate from pre
Speaker 5: clinical to clinical? And I think that's another way to
Speaker 5: look at it is you introduce a few variables into
Speaker 5: the pre clinical study, then you can start to deconvolute
Speaker 5: stuff into clinical translation, and then the third variable that
Speaker 5: you then introduce, you can actually predict what the clinical
Speaker 5: impact would be.
Speaker 4: So that's another way to look at it. If the
Speaker 4: in vitrol part doesn't work out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so if we if we imagine we succeed in
Speaker 2: our early pre clinical research and are actually progressing something
Speaker 2: into the clinic and it's starting to look good, then
Speaker 2: of course we need to start thinking a bit more
Speaker 2: deeply on you know, scaling and manufacturing and of course
Speaker 2: you know the complexity of the formulation or the delivery
Speaker 2: system can have a profound effect or impact on you know,
Speaker 2: how scalable and easy it is to manufacture a final
Speaker 2: drug product for whatever therapeutic indication one might have in mind.
Speaker 2: I'm curious just to hear Panels reflection on you know,
Speaker 2: how we see with current and also emerging opportunities in
Speaker 2: this technology space, are they can we envisage them to
Speaker 2: be scalable and how can we achieve that perhaps also
Speaker 2: with the prospect of you know, treating even more prevalent diseases.
Speaker 2: I think today, you know, much of the technologies in
Speaker 2: this space are are you could say, focused in certain indications,
Speaker 2: whether it's within the kind of CNS antipsychotic, anti schizophrenia
Speaker 2: or anti virals as as you mentioned. Also, can we
Speaker 2: envisage into the future that these technologies being also scale
Speaker 2: to a level that could treat more prevalent diseases.
Speaker 6: I think you can have some benchmarks, right, you know,
Speaker 6: for example, the existing products they have a certain really
Speaker 6: profile and certainly establish the manufacturing.
Speaker 4: Processes, right.
Speaker 6: And then so when approach is that you can use
Speaker 6: like if it like it really depends on a compound,
Speaker 6: right it's a very hydrophobic or it's some of them
Speaker 6: maybe more hydrophilic. Right, So you know, if you you
Speaker 6: divide you have like an establish some kind of template
Speaker 6: for like a hydrophobic a compound, then you will see
Speaker 6: more like a consistency, right. And then for like a
Speaker 6: very hydrophilic or you know what a soluble compound, then
Speaker 6: there will be a different type of process processes and
Speaker 6: then enough formulation as well. And so based on our experience,
Speaker 6: and then we found that you know, if we have
Speaker 6: like a very too similar, like two compounds worth similar hydrophobicity,
Speaker 6: then they can be you know, the process can be
Speaker 6: very similar. So I think, yeah, you need to establish
Speaker 6: a model and and I do understand the complexity complexity
Speaker 6: of the of the manufacturing for for sucestinari lease formulations.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: One of the things that we've painfully found is because
Speaker 5: there's such an emphasis on speed and acceleration that we
Speaker 5: ended up using a process which was probably not the
Speaker 5: most optimal process from a scalability point of view, but
Speaker 5: it would have gotten us started in a clinical study.
Speaker 5: But to your point, sometimes it's useful to think through
Speaker 5: that and design a scalable unit operation such that you
Speaker 5: can then maintain that acceleration and not hit a pause.
Speaker 4: So that's definitely a consideration. Yeah.
Speaker 3: My only addition here is that I'm sure it depends
Speaker 3: on the specific sustained release technology of course, if it
Speaker 3: leverages existing manufacturing capacities, you know, like for us, you know,
Speaker 3: there are components that we look for. There is there
Speaker 3: a supplier that has a scalable process already with the
Speaker 3: DNF on file as an example, for scalable processes. Those
Speaker 3: are required before any registration trial would be conducted. Is
Speaker 3: there any value to data that would be generated principle
Speaker 3: proof of principle before that? And how do you organize
Speaker 3: those efforts in a way that's intelligent. But it depends,
Speaker 3: and some of them probably are scalable, and many of
Speaker 3: them we won't know they can get.
Speaker 4: No, absolutely, absolutely, I can see where. Just got a
Speaker 4: couple of minutes left.
Speaker 2: So I think maybe a nice way to round off
Speaker 2: what I think has been otherwise a very engaging discussion.
Speaker 2: That is, I'm curious to hear each panel members you
Speaker 2: could say, hopes into the coming years within this space
Speaker 2: and how you see the space evolving and maybe with
Speaker 2: some personal perspectives based on you know, your your interests
Speaker 2: and what you're doing and working in this space. So
Speaker 2: hopes for the future and where you see things moving.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think again, I just I think the Sustainable
Speaker 6: Release Formulations is a very good tour, right, you know,
Speaker 6: it's a very good tour for patient compliance, and it's
Speaker 6: really benefiting you know, the patients you know that exist
Speaker 6: in there. Again, twenty twenty products out there, So I
Speaker 6: hope really you will continue you know, we don't want to,
Speaker 6: you know, of course we have to develop new our
Speaker 6: mortalities in new formulations, new technologies. But I think we
Speaker 6: can still continue. There's still a lot of compounds that
Speaker 6: you know out there, I mean compounds drugs there that
Speaker 6: are off patterns for example, drugs, molecules out there that
Speaker 6: can be really useful, and I you know, we can
Speaker 6: hope we can continue to develop you know, those those
Speaker 6: those proving drug drugs into sustained release formulations.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think we started to have these modified release
Speaker 5: oral formulations now long acting injectable formulations. To me, I
Speaker 5: think a little bit of a healthy competition between the
Speaker 5: industry does a significant benefit. So we keep pushing each
Speaker 5: other in terms of enhancing that innovation.
Speaker 4: Further.
Speaker 5: I was quite interested to see how non equis solvents
Speaker 5: have started to make it into this space, not just
Speaker 5: for small molecules. I heard quite a few presentations in
Speaker 5: terms of the biologics as well. So I think just
Speaker 5: continuing to push boundaries and that healthy competition helps in
Speaker 5: terms of that next innovation.
Speaker 3: So my hope is that all of these molecules which
Speaker 3: have shown incredible promise in clinical studies, that these delivery technologies,
Speaker 3: can make them more accessible, can make them have similar
Speaker 3: real world impacts as what the clinical trials have shown,
Speaker 3: and thereby addressed that one hundred and twenty five thousand
Speaker 3: unnecessary patient deaths for five hundred billion dollars in avoidable costs.
Speaker 3: And anything that we can do to enable all of
Speaker 3: these compounds to maximize their potential effects in the real world,
Speaker 3: I think would be great. We're trying to do that
Speaker 3: have a body medical but I think there's opportunity across
Speaker 3: the board with a lot of different technologies to try
Speaker 3: to have.
Speaker 2: That impact absolutely, and I think that's perhaps a really
Speaker 2: nice way to round off this panel discussion in terms
Speaker 2: of I think looking into an aspiration that it probably
Speaker 2: all of us have, in terms of seeing and realizing
Speaker 2: how drug delivery can be truly enabling and ultimately realizing
Speaker 2: the desired patient outcomes and as you say, Adam, in
Speaker 2: the real world and that's where it matters.
Speaker 4: Awesome. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All panel members for a good discussion, and I think
Speaker 2: we're all here so if there are questions afterwards, please
Speaker 2: feel free to drop off to us.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: We hope you enjoyed the podcast. For more information about
Speaker 1: the pod conference, editorials, podcasts, or webcasts, please visit drug
Speaker 1: delivery dot org. Thanks for listening.