BR112020001838A2 - dispositivo e método para promover a rápida endotelização das hastes do stent e da parede do vaso. - Google Patents
dispositivo e método para promover a rápida endotelização das hastes do stent e da parede do vaso. Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- BR112020001838A2 BR112020001838A2 BR112020001838-4A BR112020001838A BR112020001838A2 BR 112020001838 A2 BR112020001838 A2 BR 112020001838A2 BR 112020001838 A BR112020001838 A BR 112020001838A BR 112020001838 A2 BR112020001838 A2 BR 112020001838A2
- Authority
- BR
- Brazil
- Prior art keywords
- sirna
- caldesmon
- gene
- gene silencer
- silencer
- Prior art date
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims description 29
- 102100033620 Calponin-1 Human genes 0.000 claims abstract description 122
- 101710092112 Calponin-1 Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 122
- 102000010825 Actinin Human genes 0.000 claims abstract description 88
- 108010063503 Actinin Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 88
- 102000005937 Tropomyosin Human genes 0.000 claims abstract description 87
- 108010030743 Tropomyosin Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 87
- 102100036639 Myosin-11 Human genes 0.000 claims abstract description 86
- 102100029937 Smoothelin Human genes 0.000 claims abstract description 85
- 101710151526 Smoothelin Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 85
- 101710115164 Myosin-11 Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 84
- 210000004509 vascular smooth muscle cell Anatomy 0.000 claims abstract description 63
- 102000007469 Actins Human genes 0.000 claims abstract description 56
- 108010085238 Actins Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 56
- 210000004027 cell Anatomy 0.000 claims abstract description 19
- 239000003814 drug Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 15
- 229940079593 drug Drugs 0.000 claims abstract description 13
- 230000001028 anti-proliverative effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 9
- 230000002401 inhibitory effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 8
- 230000001737 promoting effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 4
- 102000009156 Leiomodin-1 Human genes 0.000 claims abstract 8
- 108050000015 Leiomodin-1 Proteins 0.000 claims abstract 8
- 230000001413 cellular effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract 3
- 108090000623 proteins and genes Proteins 0.000 claims description 136
- 230000003584 silencer Effects 0.000 claims description 94
- 108020004459 Small interfering RNA Proteins 0.000 claims description 67
- 230000035755 proliferation Effects 0.000 claims description 53
- 230000002792 vascular Effects 0.000 claims description 19
- 210000004204 blood vessel Anatomy 0.000 claims description 13
- 238000012377 drug delivery Methods 0.000 claims description 12
- 241000713666 Lentivirus Species 0.000 claims description 9
- 210000002889 endothelial cell Anatomy 0.000 claims description 9
- 229920000642 polymer Polymers 0.000 claims description 9
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 230000003511 endothelial effect Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 241000899864 Cherry mottle leaf virus Species 0.000 claims 6
- 230000000144 pharmacologic effect Effects 0.000 claims 6
- 101001000104 Homo sapiens Myosin-11 Proteins 0.000 claims 2
- 229920002313 fluoropolymer Polymers 0.000 claims 2
- 239000004811 fluoropolymer Substances 0.000 claims 2
- 239000002105 nanoparticle Substances 0.000 claims 2
- 239000013612 plasmid Substances 0.000 claims 2
- 230000002452 interceptive effect Effects 0.000 claims 1
- 230000035515 penetration Effects 0.000 claims 1
- 229930012538 Paclitaxel Natural products 0.000 abstract 2
- 229960001592 paclitaxel Drugs 0.000 abstract 2
- ZAHRKKWIAAJSAO-UHFFFAOYSA-N rapamycin Natural products COCC(O)C(=C/C(C)C(=O)CC(OC(=O)C1CCCCN1C(=O)C(=O)C2(O)OC(CC(OC)C(=CC=CC=CC(C)CC(C)C(=O)C)C)CCC2C)C(C)CC3CCC(O)C(C3)OC)C ZAHRKKWIAAJSAO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 abstract 2
- QFJCIRLUMZQUOT-HPLJOQBZSA-N sirolimus Chemical compound C1C[C@@H](O)[C@H](OC)C[C@@H]1C[C@@H](C)[C@H]1OC(=O)[C@@H]2CCCCN2C(=O)C(=O)[C@](O)(O2)[C@H](C)CC[C@H]2C[C@H](OC)/C(C)=C/C=C/C=C/[C@@H](C)C[C@@H](C)C(=O)[C@H](OC)[C@H](O)/C(C)=C/[C@@H](C)C(=O)C1 QFJCIRLUMZQUOT-HPLJOQBZSA-N 0.000 abstract 2
- 229960002930 sirolimus Drugs 0.000 abstract 2
- RCINICONZNJXQF-MZXODVADSA-N taxol Chemical compound O([C@@H]1[C@@]2(C[C@@H](C(C)=C(C2(C)C)[C@H](C([C@]2(C)[C@@H](O)C[C@H]3OC[C@]3([C@H]21)OC(C)=O)=O)OC(=O)C)OC(=O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](NC(=O)C=1C=CC=CC=1)C=1C=CC=CC=1)O)C(=O)C1=CC=CC=C1 RCINICONZNJXQF-MZXODVADSA-N 0.000 abstract 2
- 102000018605 Caldesmon Human genes 0.000 description 172
- 108091000084 calmodulin binding Proteins 0.000 description 172
- 239000003112 inhibitor Substances 0.000 description 100
- 102100022900 Actin, cytoplasmic 1 Human genes 0.000 description 80
- 101000756632 Homo sapiens Actin, cytoplasmic 1 Proteins 0.000 description 80
- 210000001519 tissue Anatomy 0.000 description 60
- 230000008602 contraction Effects 0.000 description 56
- 102100039866 CTP synthase 1 Human genes 0.000 description 52
- 101001101919 Homo sapiens CTP synthase 1 Proteins 0.000 description 52
- 210000000329 smooth muscle myocyte Anatomy 0.000 description 50
- 102000006783 calponin Human genes 0.000 description 46
- 108010086826 calponin Proteins 0.000 description 46
- 238000004904 shortening Methods 0.000 description 43
- 206010020718 hyperplasia Diseases 0.000 description 28
- 208000037803 restenosis Diseases 0.000 description 28
- 230000005764 inhibitory process Effects 0.000 description 21
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 20
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 20
- 239000000203 mixture Substances 0.000 description 19
- 230000007423 decrease Effects 0.000 description 16
- 102000004169 proteins and genes Human genes 0.000 description 16
- 238000012384 transportation and delivery Methods 0.000 description 14
- 102000003505 Myosin Human genes 0.000 description 12
- 108060008487 Myosin Proteins 0.000 description 12
- 230000004913 activation Effects 0.000 description 12
- 230000003247 decreasing effect Effects 0.000 description 12
- 230000026731 phosphorylation Effects 0.000 description 12
- 238000006366 phosphorylation reaction Methods 0.000 description 12
- PCDQPRRSZKQHHS-CCXZUQQUSA-N Cytarabine Triphosphate Chemical compound O=C1N=C(N)C=CN1[C@H]1[C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](COP(O)(=O)OP(O)(=O)OP(O)(O)=O)O1 PCDQPRRSZKQHHS-CCXZUQQUSA-N 0.000 description 9
- 230000002950 deficient Effects 0.000 description 8
- 230000003828 downregulation Effects 0.000 description 8
- 230000025102 vascular smooth muscle contraction Effects 0.000 description 8
- 239000013603 viral vector Substances 0.000 description 8
- 238000010828 elution Methods 0.000 description 7
- 102000004190 Enzymes Human genes 0.000 description 6
- 108090000790 Enzymes Proteins 0.000 description 6
- 230000033228 biological regulation Effects 0.000 description 6
- 102000001708 Protein Isoforms Human genes 0.000 description 4
- 108010029485 Protein Isoforms Proteins 0.000 description 4
- PGAVKCOVUIYSFO-XVFCMESISA-N UTP Chemical compound O[C@@H]1[C@H](O)[C@@H](COP(O)(=O)OP(O)(=O)OP(O)(O)=O)O[C@H]1N1C(=O)NC(=O)C=C1 PGAVKCOVUIYSFO-XVFCMESISA-N 0.000 description 4
- 239000013543 active substance Substances 0.000 description 4
- 238000006243 chemical reaction Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000037011 constitutive activity Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000008094 contradictory effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000013270 controlled release Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000000994 depressogenic effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000001727 in vivo Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000011859 microparticle Substances 0.000 description 4
- 210000003205 muscle Anatomy 0.000 description 4
- 210000002464 muscle smooth vascular Anatomy 0.000 description 4
- 108020004707 nucleic acids Proteins 0.000 description 4
- 102000039446 nucleic acids Human genes 0.000 description 4
- 150000007523 nucleic acids Chemical class 0.000 description 4
- 210000000056 organ Anatomy 0.000 description 4
- 230000009467 reduction Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000001105 regulatory effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000000284 resting effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000004055 small Interfering RNA Substances 0.000 description 4
- 210000002460 smooth muscle Anatomy 0.000 description 4
- 229950010342 uridine triphosphate Drugs 0.000 description 4
- PGAVKCOVUIYSFO-UHFFFAOYSA-N uridine-triphosphate Natural products OC1C(O)C(COP(O)(=O)OP(O)(=O)OP(O)(O)=O)OC1N1C(=O)NC(=O)C=C1 PGAVKCOVUIYSFO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- 239000003795 chemical substances by application Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000002503 metabolic effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000037361 pathway Effects 0.000 description 3
- CZPWVGJYEJSRLH-UHFFFAOYSA-N Pyrimidine Chemical compound C1=CN=CN=C1 CZPWVGJYEJSRLH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000006696 biosynthetic metabolic pathway Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000015556 catabolic process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000003197 catalytic effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000004663 cell proliferation Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000006731 degradation reaction Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 2
- 210000003038 endothelium Anatomy 0.000 description 2
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 2
- 150000003904 phospholipids Chemical class 0.000 description 2
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000016487 regulation of smooth muscle contraction Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000016160 smooth muscle contraction Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000001954 sterilising effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000004659 sterilization and disinfection Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012385 systemic delivery Methods 0.000 description 2
- 229940124597 therapeutic agent Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 238000011287 therapeutic dose Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000001988 toxicity Effects 0.000 description 2
- 231100000419 toxicity Toxicity 0.000 description 2
- 241001430294 unidentified retrovirus Species 0.000 description 2
- 239000013598 vector Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000002747 voluntary effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 108010018956 CTP synthetase Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 208000034827 Neointima Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 210000004292 cytoskeleton Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 230000001086 cytosolic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000006698 induction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 210000004962 mammalian cell Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 230000008692 neointimal formation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229920006254 polymer film Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 239000007787 solid Substances 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L31/00—Materials for other surgical articles, e.g. stents, stent-grafts, shunts, surgical drapes, guide wires, materials for adhesion prevention, occluding devices, surgical gloves, tissue fixation devices
- A61L31/14—Materials characterised by their function or physical properties, e.g. injectable or lubricating compositions, shape-memory materials, surface modified materials
- A61L31/16—Biologically active materials, e.g. therapeutic substances
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L27/00—Materials for grafts or prostheses or for coating grafts or prostheses
- A61L27/50—Materials characterised by their function or physical properties, e.g. injectable or lubricating compositions, shape-memory materials, surface modified materials
- A61L27/54—Biologically active materials, e.g. therapeutic substances
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L29/00—Materials for catheters, medical tubing, cannulae, or endoscopes or for coating catheters
- A61L29/14—Materials characterised by their function or physical properties, e.g. lubricating compositions
- A61L29/16—Biologically active materials, e.g. therapeutic substances
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C12—BIOCHEMISTRY; BEER; SPIRITS; WINE; VINEGAR; MICROBIOLOGY; ENZYMOLOGY; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING
- C12N—MICROORGANISMS OR ENZYMES; COMPOSITIONS THEREOF; PROPAGATING, PRESERVING, OR MAINTAINING MICROORGANISMS; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING; CULTURE MEDIA
- C12N15/00—Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA concerning genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification; Use of hosts therefor
- C12N15/09—Recombinant DNA-technology
- C12N15/11—DNA or RNA fragments; Modified forms thereof; Non-coding nucleic acids having a biological activity
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C12—BIOCHEMISTRY; BEER; SPIRITS; WINE; VINEGAR; MICROBIOLOGY; ENZYMOLOGY; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING
- C12N—MICROORGANISMS OR ENZYMES; COMPOSITIONS THEREOF; PROPAGATING, PRESERVING, OR MAINTAINING MICROORGANISMS; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING; CULTURE MEDIA
- C12N15/00—Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA concerning genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification; Use of hosts therefor
- C12N15/09—Recombinant DNA-technology
- C12N15/11—DNA or RNA fragments; Modified forms thereof; Non-coding nucleic acids having a biological activity
- C12N15/113—Non-coding nucleic acids modulating the expression of genes, e.g. antisense oligonucleotides; Antisense DNA or RNA; Triplex- forming oligonucleotides; Catalytic nucleic acids, e.g. ribozymes; Nucleic acids used in co-suppression or gene silencing
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61F—FILTERS IMPLANTABLE INTO BLOOD VESSELS; PROSTHESES; DEVICES PROVIDING PATENCY TO, OR PREVENTING COLLAPSING OF, TUBULAR STRUCTURES OF THE BODY, e.g. STENTS; ORTHOPAEDIC, NURSING OR CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES; FOMENTATION; TREATMENT OR PROTECTION OF EYES OR EARS; BANDAGES, DRESSINGS OR ABSORBENT PADS; FIRST-AID KITS
- A61F2/00—Filters implantable into blood vessels; Prostheses, i.e. artificial substitutes or replacements for parts of the body; Appliances for connecting them with the body; Devices providing patency to, or preventing collapsing of, tubular structures of the body, e.g. stents
- A61F2/82—Devices providing patency to, or preventing collapsing of, tubular structures of the body, e.g. stents
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61F—FILTERS IMPLANTABLE INTO BLOOD VESSELS; PROSTHESES; DEVICES PROVIDING PATENCY TO, OR PREVENTING COLLAPSING OF, TUBULAR STRUCTURES OF THE BODY, e.g. STENTS; ORTHOPAEDIC, NURSING OR CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES; FOMENTATION; TREATMENT OR PROTECTION OF EYES OR EARS; BANDAGES, DRESSINGS OR ABSORBENT PADS; FIRST-AID KITS
- A61F2250/00—Special features of prostheses classified in groups A61F2/00 - A61F2/26 or A61F2/82 or A61F9/00 or A61F11/00 or subgroups thereof
- A61F2250/0058—Additional features; Implant or prostheses properties not otherwise provided for
- A61F2250/0067—Means for introducing or releasing pharmaceutical products into the body
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L2300/00—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices
- A61L2300/20—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices containing or releasing organic materials
- A61L2300/258—Genetic materials, DNA, RNA, genes, vectors, e.g. plasmids
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L2300/00—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices
- A61L2300/40—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices characterised by a specific therapeutic activity or mode of action
- A61L2300/416—Anti-neoplastic or anti-proliferative or anti-restenosis or anti-angiogenic agents, e.g. paclitaxel, sirolimus
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L2300/00—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices
- A61L2300/40—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices characterised by a specific therapeutic activity or mode of action
- A61L2300/432—Inhibitors, antagonists
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
- A61L—METHODS OR APPARATUS FOR STERILISING MATERIALS OR OBJECTS IN GENERAL; DISINFECTION, STERILISATION OR DEODORISATION OF AIR; CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES; MATERIALS FOR BANDAGES, DRESSINGS, ABSORBENT PADS OR SURGICAL ARTICLES
- A61L2300/00—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices
- A61L2300/40—Biologically active materials used in bandages, wound dressings, absorbent pads or medical devices characterised by a specific therapeutic activity or mode of action
- A61L2300/438—Antigens
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C12—BIOCHEMISTRY; BEER; SPIRITS; WINE; VINEGAR; MICROBIOLOGY; ENZYMOLOGY; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING
- C12N—MICROORGANISMS OR ENZYMES; COMPOSITIONS THEREOF; PROPAGATING, PRESERVING, OR MAINTAINING MICROORGANISMS; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING; CULTURE MEDIA
- C12N2310/00—Structure or type of the nucleic acid
- C12N2310/10—Type of nucleic acid
- C12N2310/14—Type of nucleic acid interfering N.A.
Landscapes
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Biomedical Technology (AREA)
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Genetics & Genomics (AREA)
- Molecular Biology (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Medicinal Chemistry (AREA)
- Organic Chemistry (AREA)
- Zoology (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Biotechnology (AREA)
- Bioinformatics & Cheminformatics (AREA)
- Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
- Epidemiology (AREA)
- Veterinary Medicine (AREA)
- Public Health (AREA)
- Animal Behavior & Ethology (AREA)
- Surgery (AREA)
- Heart & Thoracic Surgery (AREA)
- Biophysics (AREA)
- Microbiology (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Vascular Medicine (AREA)
- Biochemistry (AREA)
- Plant Pathology (AREA)
- Dermatology (AREA)
- Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (AREA)
- Transplantation (AREA)
- Materials For Medical Uses (AREA)
- Pharmaceuticals Containing Other Organic And Inorganic Compounds (AREA)
- Medicinal Preparation (AREA)
- Prostheses (AREA)
- Peptides Or Proteins (AREA)
Abstract
Um dispositivo medico eluidor de cadeia pesada de miosina 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponina 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leiomodina 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelina (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomiosina (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmona 1 (CALD)-siRNA, actinina (ACTN)-siRNA, alfa-actina (ACTA)-siRNA e beta-actina (ACTB)-siRNA capaz de inibir de forma seletiva e significativa as células do músculo liso vascular na mesma magnitude, ou até superior, do sirolimus ou seus análogos e do paclitaxel ou seus análogos, os quais são fármacos antiproliferativos celulares atualmente utilizados em stents farmacológicos (SF), promovendo os ditos dispositivos médicos eluidores de cadeia pesada de miosina 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponina 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leiomodina 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelina (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomiosina (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmona 1 (CALD)-siRNA, actinina (ACTN)-siRNA, alfa-actina (ACTA)-siRNA e beta-actina (ACTB)-siRNA a rápida endotelização das hastes do stent e/ou da parede do vaso em comparação com SF atuais que liberam fármacos antiproliferativos celulares como o sirolimus ou seus análogos e paclitaxel ou seus análogos.
Description
Porto Alegre, 28 November 2019 To Patent Cooperation Treaty International Search Authority for PCT I1B/2018/055566 15 Nov 2018 ZAGO2018 Applicant DO CANTO ZAGO, ALEXANDRE
COVERAGE Priority 62/539,956 — 31 JUL 2017
VOLUNTARY COMMENTS TO THE WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY, mailed on 15 Nov 2018 Dear Sirs In order to add further information to the examination to be performed by the national offices, at the moment of entering into respective National and Regional Patent Application Phases, we would like to present this voluntary comment to the search results and reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability where the IS was not given. We hereby comment each ISA statement with solid reasoning. We have, in order to provide a better view, paragraphed and add bibliographical references. Thanking for your attention. Best regards Marcelo de Freitas (IP Agent — marceioGapexip.com )
[01] Regarding claim 1
[02] University of Georgia discloses a device to promote rapid strut and vascular endothelial coverage where said device is a stent, for example a drug eluting stent that elutes a composition including a CTPS1 inhibitor.
[03] The cytidine triphosphate (CTP) synthase (CTPS), a critical metabolic enzyme in the de novo pyrimidine biosynthetic pathway, can also compartmentalize into filamentous structures in various organisms (1,2). This gene encodes an enzyme responsible for the catalytic conversion of UTP (uridine triphosphate) to CTP. This reaction is an important step in the biosynthesis of phospholipids and nucleic acids, including smooth muscle cells and endothelium cells. Therefore, the mechanism by which the CTPS1 inhibitor acts is completely different from that of gene silencers or gene inhibitors selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, which do not interfere with the cytidine triphosphate synthase (CTPS) pathway as the CTPS1 inhibitor does.
[04] Another important aspect is that the CTPS1 inhibitor is not a specific inhibitor for smooth muscle cells since it is a constitutive enzyme commonly found in several cell types, including endothelial cells, as the inventor himself cites in paragraph 0243. That is why the University of Georgia's concept that the CTPS1 inhibitor is a specific inhibitor does not apply here since the inventor himself recognizes that CTPS1 is also present in endothelial cells and the use of a CTPS1 inhibitor reduces proliferation in both cells and is more significant in SMC than in EC (University of Georgia says: “to reduce proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells, without substantially reducing the proliferation of endothelial cells' — paragraph 0009 and “preferably, the CTPS1 inhibitor reduces VSMC proliferation to a greater degree than the inhibitor reduces endothelial cell proliferation in the subject.” — paragraph 0010).
[05] Thus, the University of Georgia's patent recognizes that the CTPS1 inhibitor reduces significantly not only VSMC proliferation, but also interferes with EC inhibiting their proliferation; consequently, the CTPS1 inhibitor is not a VSMC specific inhibitor as the following inhibitors or gene silencers: myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1) SIiRNA), leomodin 1 (LMOD) — siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN) — siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA) — siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)- siRNA, subject matter of our patent application, are.
[06] Furthermore, the International Searching Authority (ISA) Examiner himself recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, actin beta (ACTB)- SIRNA.
[07] According to the ISA Examiner, Smolock is in the field of caldesmon as a potential protein regulating force production at the level of the contractile apparatus. Also, according to Smolock, caldesmon has been proposed to be an inhibitory protein that acts either as a brake to stop any increase in resting or basal tone, or as a modulatory protein during smooth muscle cell contraction. Therefore, Smolock studied the use of short interfering RNA technology - caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA - to decrease the levels of the smooth muscle-specific isoform of caldesmon in intact vascular smooth muscle tissue to determine more carefully what role(s) caldesmon plays in the regulation of the smooth muscle contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities (Smolock says: “we hypothesized that an h- caldesmon-deficient tissue would result in increased basal levels of tone, in addition to increased physiological contractile properties. Moreover, we were interested in determining whether the relationship between MLC phosphorylation and force would be altered in the h-caldesmon-deficient tissue in such a way as to either support or refute a role for caldesmon in cooperatíivity between cross bridges during a maintained contraction.”). All these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[08] When Smolock cites “after eight days of culture in the presence of siRNA, h-caldesmon levels were significantly decreased by 60% of the levels present in control, noncultured strips at daytOh", he reports that the CTPS1 inhibitor was only able to reduce by approximately 60% the h- caldesmon levels in his tissue culture, which has nothing to do with the number of VSMC in the tissue culture or VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Therefore, Smolock carried out a qualitative study on SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities aiming to examine the role of h-caldesmon in the physiological contractile properties of smooth muscle cells (SMC), which is completely different from a quantitative cell study involving VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis, that are the main targets of our patent application.
[09] Furthermore, at no time does Smolock claim that there was a decrease in the number of SMC or inhibition of SMC proliferation in his tissue culture, and at no point in his study does Smolock refer to a possible relationship between a decrease in h-caldesmon levels and inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Finally, at no time does Smolock refer to local delivery of caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA in the vessel wall.
[010] Asaresult, atno time does Smolock teach us that a gene silencer selected from caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA is able to promote inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis; therefore, we respectífully disagree with the Examiner that Smolock's study guided us in our patent application. One of the main points in support of the inventive step of our patent application was to find among the approximately 23,000 genes that comprise the whole human genome the 9 inhibitors or gene silencers able to promote selective and significant inhibition of VSMC proliferation. Thus, according to our thorough and extensive review of the literature and other patents, we were the first group to describe and demonstrate inhibition of VSMC proliferation using an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin
1 (CNN1) siRNA), leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)- siRNA, subject matter of our patent application.
[011] ThelSA Examiner says that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary Skill in the art to modify the eluting medical device University of Georgia to further comprise an elution of a gene silencer of calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA as taught by Smolock, in order to promote downregulation of calponin 1 (CNN1), thereby to regulate or modulate proximal surrounding vascular smooth muscle cells, by decreasing stress development and reducing shortening velocities during contraction (Smolock says: “h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction.”). First of all, Smolock did not study calponin (CNN1) but caldesmon (CALD), which is a different gene; therefore, all the concepts and results that the ISA Examiner mentions with respect to Smolock's study, refer to caldesmon (CALD) instead of calponin 1 (CNN1). Furthermore, Smolock himself says that the effect obtained by using caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA was a reduction in h-caldesmon levels that promoted significant decrease in SMC shortening velocities during VSMC contraction; however there was no significant effect neither on the maintenance of force during VSMC contraction nor on the activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges, which led Smolock to conclude that h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction. (Smolock says: “As shown in Fig. 7, h-caldesmon-depleted tissues had significantly slower shortening velocities (expressed as muscle lengths/s) at most time points of the contraction compared with control tissues. There were no significant differences in the length/tension relationship of tissues subjected to organ culture for 8 days in the presence of siRNA against h-caldesmon compared with control tissues cultured for 8 days (Fig. 5). Based on our results, h-caldesmon does not appear to be involved in maintenance of force supported by low levels of MLC phosphorylation and may not be involved in the cooperative activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges by phosphorylated cross bridges, although h-caldesmon may be important in thin-filament activation. On the other hand, knockdown of h-caldesmon by siRNA produces a vascular tissue with constitutive activity. The velocity of shortening of the constitutively active tissue and the high basal values of MLC phosphorylation suggest that h-caldesmon in vivo acts as a brake against unwanted contractions due to basally phosphorylated myosin.”). Again, all these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in- stent restenosis.
[012] If we have followed the same train of thought suggested by the ISA Examiner, we would have ended up proposing an eluting medical device for reducing shortening velocities during contraction of smooth muscle cells (SMC) which is only able to act on the vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, and with no effect on or interference with VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Moreover, such eluting medical device resulting from the combination of teachings by both University of Georgia's patent and Smolock's study would be detfinitively contradictory and nonsensical since the medical device itself would mechanically interfere with vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, which are the resulting effects of h- caldesmon downregulation caused by the (CALD)-siRNA as proposed by Smolock's study.
[013] Finally, Smolock neither studied nor referred to an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA as we can see in the only paragraph in the discussion of Smolock's study where the author barely remarks that calponin may be able to take over the role played by caldesmon in the maintenance of force of SMC contraction, although it is unknown whether this potential functional role for calponin can occur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain (Smolock says: “A second thin- filament-based protein, calponin, has also been suggested to be involved in the maintenance of force. Although calponin levels were not overexpressed in the h-caldesmon knockdown tissue (data not shown), it remains a possibility that calponin is important in the regulation of maintained force. Conversely, calponin may be able to assume the role played by caldesmon in tissues with depressed h-caldesmon expression levels. This hypothesis is based on the findings that h-caldesmon and calponin compete for the same binding sites on actin (18). If h-caldesmon levels are decreased and calponin is free to bind to actin and serve the same or similar role as h-caldesmon, then h-caldesmon depletion would be compensated for by calponin, resulting in no net difference in force maintenance. Whether this potential functional role for calponin can oceur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain remains unknown.”).
[014] Regarding claim 2
[015] University of Georgia discloses a medical device that comprises a loading CTPS1 inhibitor in a gene silencer vehicle to facilitate elution of the CTPS1 inhibitor and to allow such inhibitor/gene silencer to enter the blood vessel wall and VSMC. The current across-the-board recommendation is to have any gene silencer or inhibitor associated with a vehicle to facilitate elution of said gene silencer or inhibitor and allow them to enter the target tissue. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia which discloses specifically a CTPS1 inhibitor associated with any gene silencer vehicle and our patent application which discloses specifically myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA associated with any vehicle. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[016] Regarding claim 3
[017] University of Georgia and our patent application further disclose wherein the eluting medical device is selected from any implantable device and non-implantable local drug delivery device, which are the generic way to deliver locally any active agent into a vessel wall. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including a CTPS1 inhibitor and our patent application that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-sIiRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-sSiRNA. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicity disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[018] Regarding claim 4
[019] University of Georgia and our patent application further disclose wherein said eluting medical device is an implantable device selected from a metallic stent or a bioabsorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and that said implantable device can also be composed of and/or coated with one or more degradable materials and/or others, which are the generic way to design and to assemble any eluting medical device. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including a CTPS1 inhibitor and our patent application that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-sSiRNA. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicity disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)- siRNA.
[020] Regarding claim 5
[021] University of Georgia and our patent application further disclose wherein said non-implantable local drug delivery device is selected from drug eluting balloon (DEB), local drug delivery catheter and any other medical device capable of locally delivering and where compositions are delivered locally to the site of treatment, which reduces toxicity associated with systemic delivery. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses a non-implantable local delivery device for local delivery of a composition including specifically a CTPS1 inhibitor and our patent application that discloses a non-implantable local delivery device for local delivery of a composition including specifically an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- SIRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta
(ACTB)-sSiRNA. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[022] According to the ISA examiner, Smolock is in the field of caldesmon as a potential protein regulating force production at the level of the contractile apparatus. Also, according to Smolock, caldesmon has been proposed to be an inhibitory protein that acts either as a brake to stop any increase in resting or basal tone, or as a modulatory protein during smooth muscle cell contraction. Therefore, Smolock studied the use of short interfering RNA technology - caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA - to decrease the levels of the smooth muscle-specific isoform of caldesmon in intact vascular smooth muscle tissue to determine more carefully what role(s) caldesmon plays in the regulation of smooth muscle contraction, tone, force, and shortening velocities (Smolock says: “we hypothesized that an h- caldesmon-deficient tissue would result in increased basal levels of tone, in addition to increased physiological contractile properties. Moreover, we were interested in determining whether the relationship between MLC phosphorylation and force would be altered in the h-caldesmon-deficient tissue in such a way as to either support or refute a role for caldesmon in cooperatíivity between cross bridges during a maintained contraction.”). AII these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force, and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[023] When Smolock cites “after 8 days of culture in the presence of siRNA, h- caldesmon levels were significantly decreased by -60% of the levels present in control, noncultured strips at daytOh", he reports that the CTPS1 inhibitor was only able to reduce by approximately 60% the h- caldesmon levels in his tissue culture, which has nothing to do with the number of VSMC in the tissue culture or VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Therefore, Smolock carried out a qualitative study on SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, which is completely different from a quantitative cell study involving VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[024] —Furthermore, at no time does Smolock claims that there was a decrease in the number of SMC or inhibition of SMC proliferation in his tissue culture, and at no point in his study does Smolock refer to a possible relationship between a decrease in h-caldesmon levels and inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[025] Therefore, at no time does Smolock teach us that a gene silencer selected from caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA is able to promote inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis; thus, we respectfully disagree with the examiner that Smolock's study guided us in our patent application. One of the main points in support of the inventive step of our patent application was to find among the approximately 23,000 genes that comprise the whole human genome the 9 inhibitors or gene silencers able to promote selective and significant inhibition of VSMC proliferation. Therefore, according to our thorough and extensive review of the literature and other patents, we were the first group to describe and demonstrate inhibition of VSMC proliferation using an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, subject matter of our patent application.
[026] ThelSA Examiner says that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the eluting medical device of University of Georgia to further comprise a calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA local delivery as taught by Smolock, in order to promote downregulation of calponin 1 (CNN1), thereby to regulate or modulate proximal surrounding vascular smooth muscle cells, by decreasing stress development and reducing shortening velocities during contraction (Smolock says: “h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction.”). First of all, Smolock did not study calponin (CNN1) but caldesmon (CALD) which is a different gene, therefore all the concepts and results that the ISA Examiner mentions with respect to Smolock's study, refer to caldesmon (CALD) instead of calponin 1 (CNN1). Furthermore, Smolock himself says that the effect obtained by using caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA was a reduction in h- caldesmon levels that promoted significant decrease in SMC shortening velocities during VSMC contraction; however there was no significant effect neither on the maintenance of force during VSMC contraction nor on the activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges, which led Smolock to conclude that h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction. (Smolock says: “As shown in Fig. 7, h- caldesmon-depleted tissues had significantly slower shortening velocities (expressed as muscle lengths/s) at most time points of the contraction compared with control tissues. There were no significant differences in the length/tension relationship of tissues subjected to organ culture for 8 days in the presence of siRNA against h-caldesmon compared with control tissues cultured for 8 days (Fig. 5). Based on our results, h-caldesmon does not appear to be involved in maintenance of force supported by low levels of MLC phosphorylation and may not be involved in the cooperative activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges by phosphorylated cross bridges, although h-caldesmon may be important in thin-filament activation. On the other hand, knockdown of h-caldesmon by siRNA produces a vascular tissue with constitutive activity. The velocity of Shortening of the constitutively active tissue and the high basal values of MLC phosphorylation suggest that h-caldesmon in vivo acts as a brake against unwanted contractions due to basally phosphorylated myosin.”). Again, all these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in- stent restenosis.
[027] If we have followed the same train of thought suggested by the ISA Examiner, we would have ended up proposing an eluting medical device for reducing shortening velocities during contraction of smooth muscle cells (SMC) only able to act on vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, and with no effect on or interference with VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Moreover, such eluting medical device resulting from the combination of teachings by both University of Georgia's patent and Smolock's study would be definitively contradictory and nonsensical since the medical device itself would mechanically interfere with vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, which are the resulting effects of h-caldesmon downregulation caused by the (CALD)-siRNA as proposed by Smolock's study.
[028] Finally, Smolock neither studied nor referred to an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA as we can see in the only paragraph in the discussion of Smolock's study where the author barely remarks that calponin may be able to take over the role played by caldesmon in maintenance of force of SMC contraction, although it is unknown whether this potential functional role for calponin can occur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain (Smolock says: “A second thin- filament-based protein, calponin, has also been suggested to be involved in the maintenance of force. Although calponin levels were not overexpressed in the h-caldesmon knockdown tissue (data not shown), it remains a possibility that calponin is important in the regulation of maintained force. Conversely, calponin may be able to assume the role played by caldesmon in tissues with depressed h-caldesmon expression levels. This hypothesis is based on the findings that h-caldesmon and calponin compete for the same binding sites on actin. If h-caldesmon levels are decreased and calponin is free to bind to actin and serve the same or similar role as h-caldesmon, then h-caldesmon depletion would be compensated for by calponin, resulting in no net difference in force maintenance. Whether this potential functional role for calponin can oceur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain remains unknown.”).
[029] Regarding claim 6
[030] University of Georgia and our patent application disclose an eluting medical device wherein the gene silencer vehicle is chosen from a group consisting of lentiviruses. The current across-the-board recommendation is to have any gene silencer or inhibitor associated with a vehicle to facilitate elution of the gene silencer or inhibitor and to allow them to enter the target tissue. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely to use lentivirus or a viral vector as a vehicle in an eluting medical device due to both the high probability of the lentivirus or viral vector degradation during the medical device sterilization process and the lack of stability in environmental temperature for two years or more, which is the standard product expiration period.
[031] University of Georgia discloses an eluting medical device wherein the gene silencer vehicle is chosen from a group consisting of lentiviruses where a delivery vehicle can be a viral vector, for example a recombinant retrovirus that can be used to infect and thereby deliver to the infected cells nucleic acid encoding the CTPS1 inhibitor, an adeno-associated viral vectors or lentiviral vectors. Therefore, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses specifically a CTPS1 inhibitor associated with any gene silencer vehicle and our patent application that discloses specifically myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1
(CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-SIRNA associated with any vehicle. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[032] Regarding claim 7
[033] University of Georgia further discloses wherein said CTPS1 inhibitor is delivered alone or in combination with another gene silencer or with cell antiproliferative drugs and where said devices are also coated or impregnated with a CTPS1 inhibitor and one or more additional therapeutic agents, including, but not limited to, antiproliferative agents in a generic way, aiming to protect its patent application. However, there in an important difference between University of Georgia's patent that discloses specifically the presence of a CTPS1 inhibitor in said devices and our patent application that discloses specifically the presence of one or more inhibitors or gene silencers selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA alone or in combination with another inhibitor or gene silencer or with cell antiproliferative drugs in said devices. Moreover,
the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)- SiRNA, — smoothelih — (SMTN)-sSiRNA, — tropomyosin — (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)- SIRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[034] Regarding claim 8
[035] Concentrations are universal for any kind of drugs and/or inhibitors and/or gene silencers. In our patent application, we claimed an eluting medical device with a wide inhibitor or gene silencer concentration range as a way to protect intellectual property due to the possibility of polymer multi-layer films being used in a medical device with a view to reaching the desired therapeutic dose, that is to prevent a simple industrial process from hindering our inventive activities because of the lack of proper protection of the concentration range of an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA in the solution to be impregnated or used in the eluting medical device.
[036] Regarding claim 9
[037] University of Georgia further discloses wherein the device promotes both permanent patency of the blood vessel and early re-endothelialization of a treated blood vessel segment, which is the effect generally aimed at by any implantable and/or non-implantable medical device designed for the treatment of obstructed human vessels. University of Georgia also discloses that said composition comprising a CTPS1 inhibitor can be incorporated into a vehicle such as polymeric microparticles which provide controlled release of the CTPS1 inhibitor. The use of polymeric microparticles to provide controlled release of any active agent is well- known and not new, and the CTPS1 inhibitor is not included among the inhibitors or gene silencers selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, which are claimed in our patent application. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[038] Regarding claim 10
[039] University of Georgia discloses a method for promoting rapid strut coverage and vascular endothelial coverage comprising methods for reducing or preventing neointima formation; where the method comprising an eluting medical device and at least one gene silencer (a drug eluting stent device) that elutes a composition; wherein said medical device elutes a composition comprising a CTPS1 inhibitor.
[040] The cytidine triphosphate (CTP) synthase (CTPS), a critical metabolic enzyme in the de novo pyrimidine biosynthetic pathway, can also compartmentalize into filamentous structures in various organisms (1,2). This gene encodes an enzyme responsible for the catalytic conversion of UTP (uridine triphosphate) to CTP. This reaction is an important step in the biosynthesis of phospholipids and nucleic acids, including smooth muscle cells and endothelium cells. Threfore, the mechanism by which the CTPS1 inhibitor acts is completely different from that of gene silencers or gene inhibitors selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, which do not interfere with the cytidine triphosphate synthase (CTPS) pathway as the CTPS1 inhibitor does.
[041] Another important aspect is that the CTPS1 inhibitor is not a specific inhibitor for smooth muscle cells since it is a constitutive enzyme commoniy found in several cell types, including endothelial cells, as the inventor himself cites in paragraph 0243. That is why the University of Georgia's concept that the CTPS1 inhibitor is a specific inhibitor does not apply here since the inventor himself recognizes that CTPS1 is also present in endothelial cells and the use of a CTPS1 inhibitor reduces proliferation in both cells and is more significant in SMC than in EC (University of Georgia says: “to reduce proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells, without substantially reducing the proliferation of endothelial cells” — paragraph 0009 and “preferably, the CTPS1 inhibitor reduces
VSMC proliferation to a greater degree than the inhibitor reduces endothelial cell proliferation in the subject.” — paragraph 0010”).
[042] Thus, the University of Georgia's patent recognizes that the CTPS1 inhibitor reduces significantly not only VSMC proliferation, but also interferes with EC inhibiting their proliferation; consequently, the CTPS1 inhibitor is not a VSMC specific inhibitor as the following inhibitors or gene silencers myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)- SIiRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-sSiRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, subject matter of our patent application, are.
[043] Furthermore, the ISA examiner himself recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose selecting the gene silencer from the following gene silencers: myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-sIiRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[044] According to the examiner, Smolock is in the field of caldesmon as a potential protein regulating force production at the level of the contractile apparatus. Also, according to Smolock, caldesmon has been proposed to be an inhibitory protein that acts either as a brake to stop any increase in resting or basal tone, or as a modulatory protein during smooth muscle cell contraction. Therefore, Smolock studied the use of short interfering RNA technology - caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA - to decrease the levels of the smooth muscle-specific isoform of caldesmon in intact vascular smooth muscle tissue to determine more carefully what role(s) caldesmon plays in the regulation of smooth muscle contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities (Smolock says: “we hypothesized that an h- caldesmon-deficient tissue would result in increased basal levels of tone, in addition to increased physiological contractile properties. Moreover, we were interested in determining whether the relationship between MLC phosphorylation and force would be altered in the h-caldesmon-deficient tissue in such a way as to either support or refute a role for caldesmon in cooperativity between cross bridges during a maintained contraction.”). All these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[045] When Smolock cites “after eight days of culture in the presence of siRNA, h-caldesmon levels were significantly decreased by 60% of the levels present in control, noncultured strips at day tOh", he reports that that the CTPS1 inhibitor was only able to reduce by approximately 60% the h- caldesmon levels in his tissue culture, which has nothing to do with the number of VSMC in the tissue culture or VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Therefore, Smolock carried out a qualitative study on SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities aiming to examine the role of h-caldesmon in the physiological contractile properties of smooth muscle cells (SMC), which is completely different from a quantitative cell study involving VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis, that are the main targets of our patent application.
[046] Furthermore, at no time does Smolock claim that there was a decrease in the number of SMC or inhibition of SMC proliferation in his tissue culture, and at no point in his study does Smolock refer to a possible relationship between a decrease in h-caldesmon levels and inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Finally, at no time does Smolock refer to local delivery of caldesmon(CALD)-siRNA in the vessel wall.
[047] Asaresult, atno time does Smolock teach us that a gene silencer selected from caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA is able to promote inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis; therefore, we respectfully disagree with the Examiner that Smolock's study guided us in our patent application. One of the main points in support of the inventive step of our patent application was to find among the approximately 23,000 genes that comprise the whole human genome the 9 inhibitors or gene silencers able to promote selective and significant inhibition of VSMC proliferation. Thus, according to our thorough and extensive review of the literature and other patents, we were the first group to describe and demonstrate inhibition of VSMC proliferation using an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)- siRNA, subject matter of our patent application.
[048] The/SA Examinersays that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary Skill in the art to modify the method of University of Georgia to further comprise a gene silencer of calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA as taught by Smolock, in order to promote downregulation of calponin 1 (CNN1), thereby to regulate or modulate proximal surrounding vascular smooth muscle cells, by decreasing stress development and reducing shortening velocities during contraction (Smolock says: “h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction.”). First of all, Smolock did not study calponin (CNN1) but caldesmon (CALD) which is a different gene, therefore all the concepts and results that the ISA Examiner mentions with respect to Smolock's study, refer to caldesmon (CALD) instead of calponin 1 (CNN1). Furthermore, Smolock himself says that the effect obtained by using caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA was a reduction in h- caldesmon levels that promoted significant decrease in SMC shortening velocities during VSMC contraction; however there was no significant effect neither on the maintenance of force during VSMC contraction nor on the activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges, which led Smolock to conclude that h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction. (Smolock says: “As shown in Fig. 7, h- caldesmon-depleted tissues had significantly slower shortening velocities (expressed as muscle lengths/s) at most time points of the contraction compared with control tissues.
There were no significant differences in the length/tension relationship of tissues subjected to organ culture for 8 days in the presence of siRNA against h-caldesmon compared with control tissues cultured for 8 days (Fig. 5). Based on our results, h-caldesmon does not appear to be involved in maintenance of force supported by low levels of MLC phosphorylation and may not be involved in the cooperative activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges by phosphorylated cross bridges, although h-caldesmon may be important in thin-filament activation. On the other hand, knockdown of h-caldesmon by siRNA produces a vascular tissue with constitutive activity. The velocity of Shortening of the constitutively active tissue and the high basal values of MLC phosphorylation suggest that h-caldesmon in vivo acts as a brake against unwanted contractions due to basally phosphorylated myosin”.). Again, all these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in- stent restenosis.
[049] If we have followed the same train of thought suggested by the ISA Examiner, we would have ended up proposing an eluting medical device for reducing shortening velocities during contraction of smooth muscle cells (SMC) which is only able to act on the vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, and with no effect on or interference with VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Moreover, such eluting medical device resulting from the combination of teachings by both University of Georgia's patent and Smolock's study would be detfinitively contradictory and nonsensical since the medical device itself would mechanically interfere with vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, which are the resulting effects of h- caldesmon downregulation caused by the (CALD)-siRNA as proposed by
Smolock's study.
[050] Finally, Smolock neither studied nor referred to an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA as we can see in the only paragraph in the discussion of Smolock's study where the author barely remarks that calponin may be able to take over the role played by caldesmon in the maintenance of force of SMC contraction, although it is unknown whether this potential functional role for calponin can occur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain (Smolock says: “A second thin- filament-based protein, calponin, has also been suggested to be involved in the maintenance of force. Although calponin levels were not overexpressed in the h-caldesmon knockdown tissue (data not shown), it remains a possibility that calponin is important in the regulation of maintained force. Conversely, calponin may be able to assume the role played by caldesmon in tissues with depressed h-caldesmon expression levels. This hypothesis is based on the findings that h-caldesmon and calponin compete for the same binding sites on actin (18). If h-caldesmon levels are decreased and calponin is free to bind to actin and serve the same or similar role as h-caldesmon, then h-caldesmon depletion would be compensated for by calponin, resulting in no net difference in force maintenance. Whether this potential functional role for calponin can oceur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain remains unknown.”).
[051] Regarding claim 11
[052] University of Georgia discloses a method that comprises loading CTPS1 inhibitor in a gene silencer vehicle to facilitate elution of the CTPS1 inhibitor. The current across-the-board recommendation is to have any gene silencer or inhibitor associated with a vehicle to facilitate the elution of such gene silencer or inhibitor and to allow them to enter the target tissue. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses specifically a CTPS1 inhibitor associated with any gene silencer vehicle and our patent application that discloses specifically myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA associated with any vehicle. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[053] “Regarding claim 12
[054] University of Georgia and our patent application disclose the method wherein the eluting medical device is selected from any implantable device and non-implantable local drug delivery device, which are the generic way to deliver locally any active agent into a vessel wall. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including a CTPS1 inhibitor and our patent application that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA,
calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-sIiRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-sSiRNA. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[055] Regarding claim 13
[056] University of Georgia and our patent application disclose the method wherein the implantable device is selected from a metallic stent or a bioabsorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and that such implantable device can also be composed of and/or coated with one or more degradable materials and/or others, which are the generic way to design and to assemble any eluting medical device. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including a CTPS1 inhibitor and our patent application that discloses an eluting medical device that elutes specifically a composition including an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)- SIiRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-sSiRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)- siRNA.
[057] Regarding claim 14
[058] University of Georgia and our patent application disclose the method wherein the non-implantable local drug delivery device is selected from drug eluting balloon (DEB), local drug delivery catheter and any other medical device capable of locally delivering and where compositions are delivered locally to the site of treatment, which reduces toxicity associated with systemic delivery. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses the method of a non-implantable local delivery device for local delivery of a composition including specifically a CTPS1 inhibitor and our patent application that discloses a method of a non-implantable local delivery device for local delivery of a composition including specifically an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)- SIRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA,
actinin (ACTN)-sIiRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[059] According to the Examiner, Smolock is in the field of caldesmon as a potential protein regulating force production at the level of the contractile apparatus. Also, according to Smolock, caldesmon has been proposed to be an inhibitory protein that acts either as a brake to stop any increase in resting or basal tone, or as a modulatory protein during smooth muscle cell contraction. Therefore, Smolock studied the use of short interfering RNA technology caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA to decrease the levels of the smooth muscle-specific isoform of caldesmon in intact vascular smooth muscle tissue to determine more carefully what role(s) caldesmon plays in the regulation of the smooth muscle contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities (Smolock says: “we hypothesized that an h- caldesmon-deficient tissue would result in increased basal levels of tone, in addition to increased physiological contractile properties. Moreover, we were interested in determining whether the relationship between MLC phosphorylation and force would be altered in the h-caldesmon-deficient tissue in such a way as to either support or refute a role for caldesmon in cooperatíivity between cross bridges during a maintained contraction.”). AII these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[060] When Smolock cites “after eight days of culture in the presence of siRNA, h-caldesmon levels were significantly decreased by -60% of the levels present in control, noncultured strips at daytfOh”, he reports that the CTPS1 inhibitor was only able to reduce by approximately 60% the h- caldesmon levels in his tissue culture, which has nothing to do with the number of VSMC in the tissue culture or VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Therefore, Smolock carried out a qualitative study regarding SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, which is completely different from a quantitative cell study involving VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[061] Furthermore, at no time does Smolock claim that there was a decrease in the number of SMC or inhibition of SMC proliferation in his tissue culture, and at no point in his study does Smolock refer to a possible relationship between a decrease in h-caldesmon levels and inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis.
[062] Asaresult, at no time does Smolock teach us that a gene silencer selected from caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA is able to promote inhibition of VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis; therefore, we respectfully disagree with the Examiner that Smolock's study guided us in our patent application. One of the main points in support of the inventive step of our patent application was to find among the approximately 23,000 genes that comprise the whole human genome the 9 inhibitors or gene silencers able to promote selective and significant inhibition of VSMC proliferation. Thus, according to our thorough and extensive review of the literature and other patents, we were the first group to describe and demonstrate inhibition of VSMC proliferation using an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)- siRNA, calponin
1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, subject matter of our patent application.
[063] ThelSA Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of University of Georgia to further comprise a calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA local delivery as taught by Smolock, in order to promote downregulation of calponin 1 (CNN1), thereby to regulate or modulate proximal surrounding vascular smooth muscle cells, by decreasing stress development and reducing shortening velocities during contraction (Smolock says: “h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction.”). First of all, Smolock did not study calponin (CNN1) but caldesmon (CALD) which is a different gene, therefore all the concepts and results that the ISA Examiner mentions with respect to Smolock's study, refer to caldesmon (CALD) instead of calponin 1 (CNN1). Furthermore, Smolock himself says that the effect obtained by using caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA was a reduction in h- caldesmon levels that promoted significant decrease in SMC shortening velocities during VSMC contraction; however there was no significant effect neither on the maintenance of force during VSMC contraction nor on the activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges, which led Smolock to conclude that h-caldesmon may potentially regulate or modulate vascular smooth muscle contraction. (Smolock says: “As shown in Fig. 7, h- caldesmon-depleted tissues had significantly slower shortening velocities (expressed as muscle lengths/s) at most time points of the contraction compared with control tissues. There were no significant differences in the length/tension relationship of tissues subjected to organ culture for 8 days in the presence of siRNA against h-caldesmon compared with control tissues cultured for 8 days (Fig. 5). Based on our results, h-caldesmon does not appear to be involved in maintenance of force supported by low levels of MLC phosphorylation and may not be involved in the cooperative activation of unphosphorylated cross bridges by phosphorylated cross bridges, although h-caldesmon may be important in thin-filament activation. On the other hand, knockdown of h-caldesmon by siRNA produces a vascular tissue with constitutive activity. The velocity of Sshortening of the constitutively active tissue and the high basal values of MLC phosphorylation suggest that h-caldesmon in vivo acts as a brake against unwanted contractions due to basally phosphorylated myosin.”). Again, all these concepts and outcomes studied by Smolock, i.e. SMC contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, are not related to and in no way interfere with VSMC proliferation, neointimal hyperplasia or in- stent restenosis.
[064] If we have followed the same train of thought suggested by the ISA Examiner, we would have ended up proposing an eluting medical device for reducing shortening velocities during contraction of smooth muscle cells (SMC) which is only able to act on the vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, and with no effect on or interference with VSMC proliferation or neointimal hyperplasia or in-stent restenosis. Moreover, such eluting medical device resulting from the combination of teachings by both University of Georgia's patent and Smolock's study would be detfinitively contradictory and nonsensical since the medical device itself would mechanically interfere with vascular contraction, tone, force and shortening velocities, which are the resulting effects of h- caldesmon downregulation caused by the (CALD)-siRNA as proposed by Smolock's study.
[065] Finally, Smolock neither studied nor referred to an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA as we can see in the only paragraph in the discussion of Smolock's study where the author barely remarks that calponin may be able to take over the role played by caldesmon in the maintenance of force of SMC contraction, although it is unknown whether this potential functional role for calponin can occur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain (Smolock says: “A second thin- filament-based protein, calponin, has also been suggested to be involved in the maintenance of force. Although calponin levels were not overexpressed in the h-caldesmon knockdown tissue (data not shown), it remains a possibility that calponin is important in the regulation of maintained force. Conversely, calponin may be able to assume the role played by caldesmon in tissues with depressed h-caldesmon expression levels. This hypothesis is based on the findings that h-caldesmon and calponin compete for the same binding sites on actin. If h-caldesmon levels are decreased and calponin is free to bind to actin and serve the same or similar role as h-caldesmon, then h-caldesmon depletion would be compensated for by calponin, resulting in no net difference in force maintenance. Whether this potential functional role for calponin can oceur without the h-caldesmon myosin domain remains unknown.”).
[066] Regarding claim 15
[067] University of Georgia and our patent application disclose the method wherein the gene silencer vehicle is chosen from a group consisting of lentiviruses. The current across-the-board recommendation is to have any gene silencer or inhibitor associated with a vehicle to facilitate elution of the gene silencer or inhibitor and to allow them to enter the target tissue. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely to use lentivirus or a viral vector as a vehicle in an eluting medical device due to both the high probability of the lentivirus or viral vector degradation during the medical device sterilization process and the lack of stability in environmental temperature for two years or more, which is the standard product expiration period.
[068] University of Georgia discloses the method wherein the gene silencer vehicle is chosen from a group consisting of lentivirus where a delivery vehicle can be a viral vector, for example a recombinant retrovirus that can be used to infect and thereby deliver to the infected cells nucleic acid encoding the CTPS1 inhibitor, an adeno-associated viral vectors or lentiviral vectors. Therefore, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses specificaly a CTPS1 inhibitor associated with any gene silencer vehicle and our patent application that discloses specifically myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIiRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-SiRNA associated with any vehicle. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silenceris selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- SIRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[069] Regarding claim 16
[070] University of Georgia discloses the method wherein the CTPS1 inhibitoris delivered alone or in combination with another gene silencer or with cell antiproliferative drugs and wherein the medical devices are also coated or impregnated with a CTPS1 inhibitor and one or more additional therapeutic agents, including, but limited to, antiproliferative agents in a generic way, aiming to protect its patent application. However, there is an important difference between University of Georgia that discloses specifically the presence of a CTPS1 inhibitor in said devices and our patent application that discloses specifically the presence of one or more inhibitors or gene silencers selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)- siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA alone or in combination with another inhibitor or gene silencer or with cell antiproliferative drugs in said devices. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)- SiRNA, —smoothelih' (SMTN)-sSiRNA, tropomyosin — (TPM)-siRNA,
caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)- SIRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
[071] Regarding claim 17
[072] Concentrations are universal for any kind of drugs and/or inhibitors and/or silencers. In our patent application, we claimed an eluting medical device with a wide inhibitor or gene silencer concentration range as a way to protect intellectual property due to the possibility of multi-layer polymer films being used in a medical device with a view to reaching the desired therapeutic dose, that is to prevent a simple industrial process from hindering our inventive activities because of the lack of proper protection of the concentration range of an inhibitor or gene silencer selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA in the solution to be impregnated or used in the eluting medical device.
[073] Regarding claim 18
[074] University of Georgia further discloses wherein the method promotes both permanent patency of the blood vessel and early re-endothelialization of a treated blood vessel segment, which is the effect generally aimed at by any implantable and/or non-implantable medical device designed for the treatment of obstructed human vessels. University of Georgia also discloses that said composition comprising a CTPS1 inhibitor can be incorporated into a vehicle such as polymeric microparticles which provide controlled release of the CTPS1 inhibitor. The use of polymeric microparticles to provide controlled release of any active agent is well- known and not new, and the CTPS1 inhibitor is not included among the inhibitors or gene silencers selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA, which are claimed in our patent application. Moreover, the ISA Examiner also recognizes that University of Georgia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gene silencer is selected from myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11)-siRNA, calponin 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leomodin 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelin (SMTN)-siRNA, tropomyosin (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmon (CALD)-siRNA, actinin (ACTN)-siRNA, actin alpha (ACTA)-siRNA, and/or actin beta (ACTB)-siRNA.
References: Carcamo, W.C., Satoh, M., Kasahara, H., Terada, N., Hamazaki, T., Chan, J.Y. Yao, B., Tamayo, S., Covini, G., von M€uhlen, C.A., and Chan, E.K. (2011). Induction of cytoplasmic rods and rings structures by inhibition of the CTP and GTP synthetic pathway in mammalian cells. PLoS ONE 6, e29690.
Ingerson-Mahar, M., Briegel, A., Werner, J.N., Jensen, G.J., and Gitai, Z. (2010). The metabolic enzyme CTP synthase forms cytoskeletal filaments. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 739-—746.
Claims (18)
1. DISPOSITIVO E MÉTODO PARA PROMOVER A RÁPIDA
ENDOTELIZAÇÃO DAS HASTES DO STENT E DA PAREDE DO
VASO A RÁPIDA ENDOTELIZAÇÃO DAS HASTES DO STENT E DA PAREDE DO VASO caracterizada por compreender: a) um dispositivo farmacológico; e b) no mínimo, um silenciador gênico (siRNA) -sendo o dito dispositivo farmacológico revestido ou preenchido com, no mínimo, um silenciador gênico; -sendo o silenciador gênico selecionado dentre a cadeia pesada de miosina 11(MYH11)-siRNA, calponina 1 (CNN1)- SIRNA, leiomodina 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelina (SMTN)- SiRNA, tropomiosina (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmona 1 (CALD)- SIRNA, actinina (ACTN)-SiRNA, alfa actina (ACTA)-sSIiRNA, e beta actina (ACTB)-sSIRNA; - sendo o silenciador gênico liberado em um local do vaso sanguíneo a ser tratado para penetrar na parede do vaso e células do músculo liso vascular (CMLV) e inibir de forma seletiva a hiperproliferação de CMLV sem inibir a proliferação de células endoteliais (CE).
2. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 1 caracterizado por compreender um veículo de silenciador gênico, facilitando o dito veículo de silenciador gênico a liberação do silenciador gênico e permitindo a penetração do mesmo na parede do vaso e de CMLV.
3. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 1 caracterizado por ser selecionado dentre qualquer dispositivo de liberação local de fármaco implantável ou não implantável.
4, O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 3 caracterizado por ser o dispositivo implantável selecionado dentre stent metálico convencional e suporte vascular bioabsorvível (SVB).
5. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 3 caracterizado pelo dito dispositivo de liberação local de fármaco não implantável ser selecionado dentre balão farmacológico (BF), cateter de liberação local de fármaco e qualquer outro dispositivo médico capaz de liberar, em um local específico, MYH11-siRNA, CNN1L-sSiRNA, LMOD-sIRNA, SMTN-SiRNA, TPM-sSiRNA, CALD-siRNA, ACTN-siRNA, ACTA-siRNA, e ACTB-siRNA.
6. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 2 caracterizado pelo dito veículo de silenciador gênico ser selecionado de um grupo consistindo em lentivífus e plasmídeos, nanopartículas, fluoropolímeros, polímeros bioabsorvíveis, polímeros não absorvíveis ou mesmo livre de polímeros (sem nenhum tipo de polímero).
7. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 1 caracterizado pelo dito silenciador gênico ser liberado sozinho ou em combinação com outro silenciador gênico ou fármacos antiproliferativos celulares.
8. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 1 caracterizado pela concentração do silenciador gênico variar de 1 ug/ml a 1000 pg/ml, o que constitui uma ampla faixa de concentração, visto que o silenciador gênico pode ser espalhado sobre a superfície do dispositivo médico desde em uma única camada muito fina até em várias camadas grossas para atingir a quantidade desejada do silenciador gênico a ser liberado no local tratado.
9. O dispositivo de acordo com a reivindicação 1 caracterizado pelo dito dispositivo promover tanto a desobstrução permanente do vaso sanguíneo quanto a endotelização precoce de um segmento tratado do vaso sanguíneo.
10. Um método para promover a rápida cobertura das hastes do stent e a rápida cobertura endotelial vascular caracterizado por compreender as etapas de: a) um dispositivo farmacológico e, no mínimo, um silenciador gênico; b) revestir ou preencher o dito dispositivo farmacológico com, no mínimo, um silenciador gênico; Cc) liberar o silenciador gênico em um segmento alvo do vaso sanguíneo; e d) selecionar o silenciador gênico dos seguintes silenciadores gênicos: a cadeia pesada de miosina 11(MYH11)-siRNA, calponina 1 (CNN1)-siRNA, leiomodina 1 (LMOD)-siRNA, smoothelihna — (SMTN)-siRNA, —tropomiosina — (TPM)-siRNA, caldesmona 1 (CALD)-sSiRNA, actinina (ACTN)-siRNA, alfa actina (ACTA)-siRNA, e beta actina (ACTB)-SiRNA - sendo o dito silenciador gênico liberado no segmento alvo do vaso sanguíneo para penetrar na parede do vaso e de CMLV e inibir de forma seletiva a hiperproliferação de CMLV; - não interferindo o dito silenciador gênico de forma significativa na produção de CE ou mesmo podendo estimulá-la.
11. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 10 caracterizado por também compreender a etapa de carregar o dito silenciador gênico em um veículo de silenciador gênico: - facilitando o dito veículo do silenciador gênico liberação do silenciador gênico; - permitindo o dito veículo de silenciador gênico a penetração do silenciador gênico na parede do vaso sanguíneo alvo e CMLV.
12. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 10 caracterizado pelo dispositivo farmacológico ser selecionado dentre qualquer dispositivo de liberação local de fármaco implantável ou não implantável.
13. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 12 caracterizado pelo dito dispositivo implantável ser selecionado entre stent metálico convencional e SVB.
14. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 12 caracterizado pelo dito dispositivo de liberação local de fármaco não implantável ser selecionado dentre BF, cateter de liberação local de fármaco e qualquer outro dispositivo médico capaz de liberar, em um local específico, MYH11-siRNA, CNN1-siRNA, LMOD-siRNA, SMTN-siRNA,
TPM-SIiRNA, CALD-siRNA, ACTN-siIiRNA, ACTA-sSIRNA, e ACTB- SiRNA.
15. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 11 caracterizado pelo dito veículo de silenciador gênico ser selecionado de um grupo consistindo em lentivírus e plasmídeos, nanopartículas, fluoropolímeros, polímeros bioabsorvíveis, polímeros não absorvíveis ou mesmo livre de polímeros (sem nenhum tipo de polímero).
16. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 11 caracterizado pelo dito silenciador gênico ser liberado sozinho ou em combinação com outro silenciador gênico ou fármacos antiproliferativos celulares.
17. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 10 caracterizado pela concentração do silenciador gênico variar de 1 ug/ml a 1000 pg/ml, o que constitui uma ampla faixa de concentração, visto que o silenciador gênico pode ser espalhado sobre a superfície do dispositivo médico desde em uma única camada muito fina até em várias camadas grossas para atingir a quantidade desejada do silenciador gênico a ser liberado no local tratado.
18. O método de acordo com a reivindicação 10 caracterizado por promover tanto a desobstrução permanente do vaso sanguíneo quanto a endotelização precoce de um segmento tratado do vaso sanguíneo.
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US201762539356P | 2017-07-31 | 2017-07-31 | |
| US62/539,356 | 2017-07-31 | ||
| PCT/IB2018/055566 WO2019025908A1 (en) | 2017-07-31 | 2018-07-25 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROMOTING FAST VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL SUPPORT COVER AND COVERAGE |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| BR112020001838A2 true BR112020001838A2 (pt) | 2020-07-28 |
Family
ID=65232361
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| BR112020001838-4A BR112020001838A2 (pt) | 2017-07-31 | 2018-07-25 | dispositivo e método para promover a rápida endotelização das hastes do stent e da parede do vaso. |
Country Status (7)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| US (1) | US20200155731A1 (pt) |
| EP (1) | EP3661454B1 (pt) |
| JP (1) | JP2020529267A (pt) |
| CN (1) | CN111050697A (pt) |
| BR (1) | BR112020001838A2 (pt) |
| ES (1) | ES2938458T3 (pt) |
| WO (1) | WO2019025908A1 (pt) |
Family Cites Families (15)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US6663881B2 (en) * | 1993-01-28 | 2003-12-16 | Neorx Corporation | Therapeutic inhibitor of vascular smooth muscle cells |
| JPH0797328A (ja) * | 1993-09-29 | 1995-04-11 | Osaka Prefecture | 動脈硬化治療剤 |
| EP1726318A1 (en) * | 2004-03-18 | 2006-11-29 | Kensuke Egashira | Medicine/gene leaching type stent |
| WO2006062581A2 (en) * | 2004-10-15 | 2006-06-15 | Benitec, Inc. | Delivery of therapeutic rnai agents for treating restenosis |
| CN100358483C (zh) * | 2005-12-28 | 2008-01-02 | 中国医学科学院生物医学工程研究所 | 携带质粒dna纳米粒的植入装置及制备方法 |
| WO2008099396A1 (en) * | 2007-02-15 | 2008-08-21 | Yissum Research Development Company Of The Hebrew University Of Jerusalem | Use of h19-silencing nucleic acid agents for treating restenosis |
| US8586534B2 (en) * | 2007-05-08 | 2013-11-19 | Albert Einstein College Of Medicine Of Yeshiva University | Intracellular domain of a mammalian Fat1 (Fat1IC) |
| WO2009023770A1 (en) * | 2007-08-15 | 2009-02-19 | Avellanet Francisco J | Biologically engineered stent |
| KR101159406B1 (ko) * | 2008-03-17 | 2012-06-28 | 이화여자대학교 산학협력단 | 혈관 재협착방지 스텐트 코팅용 조성물 및 이를 이용해 제조된 스텐트 |
| EP2411065A2 (en) * | 2009-03-27 | 2012-02-01 | National University of Ireland Galway | Implantable medical devices coated with nucleic acid-encapsulating liposome |
| CN103249404A (zh) * | 2010-07-02 | 2013-08-14 | 北卡罗来纳-查佩尔山大学 | 生物基质支架 |
| WO2012156379A1 (en) * | 2011-05-13 | 2012-11-22 | Universität Zürich | PIK3/P110α INHIBITORS FOR PREVENTION OF RESTENOSIS BY APPLICATION AS AN IMPLANT COATING |
| WO2013152230A1 (en) * | 2012-04-04 | 2013-10-10 | The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York | Smooth muscle specific inhibition for anti-restenotic therapy |
| WO2014186435A2 (en) * | 2013-05-14 | 2014-11-20 | University Of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. | Compositions and methods for reducing neointima formation |
| US10441687B2 (en) * | 2013-11-13 | 2019-10-15 | Albert Einstein College Of Medicine | Wnt/beta-catenin inhibitor-eluting endovascular stent |
-
2018
- 2018-07-25 ES ES18841759T patent/ES2938458T3/es active Active
- 2018-07-25 BR BR112020001838-4A patent/BR112020001838A2/pt unknown
- 2018-07-25 WO PCT/IB2018/055566 patent/WO2019025908A1/en unknown
- 2018-07-25 EP EP18841759.6A patent/EP3661454B1/en active Active
- 2018-07-25 JP JP2020505781A patent/JP2020529267A/ja active Pending
- 2018-07-25 CN CN201880049656.9A patent/CN111050697A/zh active Pending
-
2020
- 2020-01-27 US US16/773,911 patent/US20200155731A1/en not_active Abandoned
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| JP2020529267A (ja) | 2020-10-08 |
| EP3661454A1 (en) | 2020-06-10 |
| EP3661454B1 (en) | 2022-09-14 |
| US20200155731A1 (en) | 2020-05-21 |
| EP3661454A4 (en) | 2021-04-28 |
| WO2019025908A1 (en) | 2019-02-07 |
| CN111050697A (zh) | 2020-04-21 |
| ES2938458T3 (es) | 2023-04-11 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Wang et al. | Vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation as a therapeutic target. Part 1: molecular targets and pathways | |
| Costa et al. | Molecular basis of restenosis and drug-eluting stents | |
| Indolfi et al. | Molecular mechanisms of in-stent restenosis and approach to therapy with eluting stents | |
| Wang et al. | Local microRNA modulation using a novel anti-miR-21–eluting stent effectively prevents experimental in-stent restenosis | |
| van Beusekom et al. | Long-term endothelial dysfunction is more pronounced after stenting than after balloon angioplasty in porcine coronary arteries | |
| Hårdhammar et al. | Reduction in thrombotic events with heparin-coated Palmaz-Schatz stents in normal porcine coronary arteries | |
| Sriram et al. | Cell cycle in vasculoproliferative diseases: potential interventions and routes of delivery | |
| Pendyala et al. | The first-generation drug-eluting stents and coronary endothelial dysfunction | |
| Topol et al. | Frontiers in interventional cardiology | |
| Curcio et al. | Mechanisms of Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation and Endothelial Regeneration After Vascular Injury and Stenting–Approach to Therapy– | |
| Jonas et al. | Vascular neointimal formation and signaling pathway activation in response to stent injury in insulin-resistant and diabetic animals | |
| JP5329435B2 (ja) | 非対称性の薬剤放出が制御されたコーティングを有する冠状動脈ステント | |
| Lee et al. | Comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-, sirolimus-, and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction | |
| Ohtani et al. | Stent-based local delivery of nuclear factor-κB decoy attenuates in-stent restenosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits | |
| Wang et al. | In vitro and in vivo assessment of the biocompatibility of an paclitaxel-eluting poly-l-lactide-coated Mg-Zn-Y-Nd alloy stent in the intestine | |
| Kural et al. | Fas ligand and nitric oxide combination to control smooth muscle growth while sparing endothelium | |
| Deng et al. | Nanoporous CREG-eluting stent attenuates in-stent neointimal formation in porcine coronary arteries | |
| Gil et al. | Long-term effectiveness and safety of the sirolimus-eluting BiOSS LIM (R) dedicated bifurcation stent in the treatment of distal left main stenosis: an international registry | |
| Lee et al. | Clinical safety of drug-eluting stents in the Korea acute myocardial infarction registry | |
| Smith et al. | Antiproliferative coatings for the treatment of coronary heart disease: what are the targets and which are the tools? | |
| BR112020001838A2 (pt) | dispositivo e método para promover a rápida endotelização das hastes do stent e da parede do vaso. | |
| Wong et al. | Drug-eluting stents: the end of restenosis? | |
| Escárcega et al. | Current application and bioavailability of drug-eluting stents | |
| Kawai et al. | Efficacy and Safety of Dual Paclitaxel and Sirolimus Nanoparticle-Coated Balloon | |
| Zhao et al. | Are impaired endothelial progenitor cells involved in the processes of late in-stent thrombosis and re-endothelialization of drug-eluting stents? |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| B350 | Update of information on the portal [chapter 15.35 patent gazette] | ||
| B06W | Patent application suspended after preliminary examination (for patents with searches from other patent authorities) chapter 6.23 patent gazette] | ||
| B15K | Others concerning applications: alteration of classification |
Free format text: AS CLASSIFICACOES ANTERIORES ERAM: A61F 2/07 , A61F 2/82 , A61L 31/16 , C12N 15/11 Ipc: A61L 27/54 (2006.01), A61F 2/82 (2013.01), A61L 31 |