Adeno-associated virus, a common gene therapy vector. Source: http://bit.ly/1NR7tf4

On November 6, 2015, Cambridge Healthtech Institute (CHI) announced the publication of a new book-length report, Gene Therapy: Moving Toward Commercialization, by Allan B. Haberman, Ph.D.

As demonstrated by several late-breaking news items that appeared as our report was in the process of publication, gene therapy is a “hot”, fast-moving field. For example:

On October 5, 2015, Spark Therapeutics (Philadelphia, PA) announced positive top-line results from the Phase 3 pivotal trial of SPK-RPE65, a gene therapy for treatment of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) caused by mutations in the gene for RPE65. This trial met its primary endpoint, and there were no serious adverse events related to treatment with the therapy. In results presented at a scientific meeting later in October, SPK-RPE65 was found to give durable improvements in vision over a three-year period.

SPK-RPE65 is not only Spark’s most advanced gene therapy in development, but is the most advanced gene therapy for retinal disease of any company. It is covered in our report.

bluebird’s LentiGlobin BB305—including the company’s strategy for commercializing this product—is also discussed in our report. In bluebird’s November 5, 2015 presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting, it was revealed that in Phase 1/2 clinical trials, LentiGlobin BB305 rendered the few sickle-cell disease patients in the trials transfusion-free and hospitalization-free for at least six months. Among patients with severe beta-thalassemia, all except for those with the β0/β0 genotype were rendered transfusion-free for at least 90 days, with a median of 287 days transfusion-free. Two of the β0/β0 patients (who made no hemoglobin at baseline) received a single transfusion post-discharge, and the third β0/β0 patient remains transfusion-dependent.

The stock market had focused on the negative results with the β0/β0 patients, and thus bluebird stock lost over 20% of its value after the ASH abstracts were released. However, the β0/β0 patients represent only one-third of the beta-thalassemia market, and sickle-cell disease is a larger market than beta-thalassemia. Thus, provided further clinical trials are positive, LentiGlobin BB305 can still be a successful product. bluebird is increasing the number of patients who will be enrolled in the trial from eight to 20, so more data should be forthcoming in 2016.

In corporate gene therapy news, Spark Therapeutics recently opened a new satellite office in the Boston area, joining Boston-area gene therapy companies bluebird bio, Dimension Therapeutics, and Voyager Therapeutics. All are discussed in our report. Spark and bluebird are public companies, and Dimension and Voyager recently went public. In addition, uniQure, the company that developed the first approved gene therapy product, opened a Lexington MA office and manufacturing facility in 2013. Boston has thus become Gene Therapy Central. As discussed in our report, Boston is also the most important center for companies that focus on gene editing, based on CRISPR/Cas9 technology.

These and other recent news articles and scientific publications attest to the progress of gene therapy, which only a few years ago was considered to be a “premature technology”.

Our gene therapy report looks at how researchers have been working to overcome critical barriers to development of safe and efficacious gene therapy, from 1990 to 2015. It then focuses on clinical-stage gene therapy programs that are aimed at commercialization, and the companies that are carrying out these programs. A major theme of the report is whether gene therapy can attain near-term commercial success, and what hurdles still need to be overcome.

Topics covered in the report:

• Development of improved vectors (integrating and non-integrating vectors)
• Gene therapy for ophthalmological diseases
• Gene therapy for hemophilias and other rare diseases
• Gene therapy for more common diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis, and heart failure)
• Companies whose central technology platform involves ex vivo gene therapy
• Gene editing technology
• Outlook for gene therapy
• Outlook for eight gene therapy products expected to reach the market before 2020

The report also includes:

• An exclusive interview with Sam Wadsworth, Ph.D., the Chief Scientific Officer of Dimension Therapeutics and former Head of Gene Therapy R&D at Genzyme
• The results and an analysis of a survey of individuals working in gene therapy, conducted by Insight Pharma Reports in conjunction with this report.
• Companies profiled: uniQure, Spark Therapeutics, GenSight, Dimension Therapeutics, Voyager Therapeutics, Oxford BioMedica, bluebird, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Editas, and others.

Our report is designed to enable you to understand current and future developments in gene therapy. It is also designed to inform the decisions of leaders in companies and in academic groups that are working in gene therapy R&D and in development of gene therapy enabling technologies.

For more information on the report, or to order it, see the CHI Insight Pharma Reports website.

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to your company, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Happy New Year! Source: Roblespepe. http://bit.ly/1cpkyHX

As it does every year, Science published its “Breakthrough of the Year” for 2013 in the 20 December 2013 issue of the journal.

Science chose cancer immunotherapy as its Breakthrough of the Year 2013.

In its 20 December 2013 issue, Science published an editorial by its Editor-in-Chief, Marcia McNutt, Ph.D., entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy”. The same issue has a news article  by staff writer Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, also entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy”.

As usual, the 20 December 2013 issue of Science contains a Breakthrough of the Year 2013 news section, which in addition to the Breakthrough of the Year itself, also contains articles about several interesting runners-up, ranging from genetic microsurgery using CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat) technology to mini-organs to human cloning to vaccine design.

In the Science editorial and news article, the authors focus on the development and initial successes of two types of immunotherapy:

• Monoclonal antibody (MAb) drugs that target T-cell regulatory molecules, including the approved CTLA4-targeting MAb ipilimumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Yervoy), and the clinical-stage anti-PD-1 agents nivolumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb) and lambrolizumab (Merck).
• Therapy with genetically engineered autologous T cells, known as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapy, such as that being developed by a collaboration between the University of Pennsylvania and Novartis.

The rationale for Science’s selection of cancer immunotherapy as the breakthrough of the year is that after a decades-long process of basic biological research on T cells, immunotherapy products have emerged and–as of this year–have achieved impressive results in clinical trials. And–as pointed out by Dr. McNutt–immunotherapy would constitute a new, fourth modality for cancer treatment, together with the traditional surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

However, as pointed out by Dr. McNutt and Ms. Couzin-Frankel, these are still early days for cancer immunotherapy. Key needs include the discovery of biomarkers that can help predict who can benefit from a particular immunotherapy, development of combination therapies that are more potent than single-agent therapies, and that might help more patients, and means for mitigating adverse effects.

Moreover, it will take some time to determine how durable any remissions are, especially whether anti-PD1 agents give durable long-term survival. Finally, although several MAb-based immunotherapies are either approved (in the case of  ipilimumab) or well along in clinical trials, CAR T-cell therapies and other adoptive immunotherapies remain experimental.

In addition to the special Science “Breakthrough 2013” section, Nature published a Supplement on cancer immunotherapy in its 19/26 December 2013 issue. This further highlights the growing importance of this field.

Cancer immunotherapy on the Biopharmconsortium Blog

Readers of our Biopharmconsortium Blog are no strangers to recent breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy. In the case of MAb-based immunotherapies, we have published two summary articles, one in 2012 and the other in 2013. These articles noted that cancer immunotherapy was the “star” of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in both years.

Our blog also contains articles about CAR therapy, as being developed by the University of Pennsylvania and Novartis and by bluebird bio and Celgene. Moreover, the Biopharmconsortium Blog contains articles on other types of cancer immunotherapies not covered by the Science articles, such as cancer vaccines.

We look forward to further progress in the field of cancer immunotherapy, and to the improved treatments and even cures of cancer patients that may be made possible by these developments.

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Eastern Bluebird

The Biopharmconsortium Blog includes several articles that are–in whole or in part–about adoptive T-cell immunotherapy [or adoptive cell transfer (ACT)] for cancer. In particular, we have produced two blog articles that discuss the Novartis/University of Pennsylvania (Penn) collaboration, which is aimed at finally commercializing adoptive immunotherapy for cancer.

• “Is Novartis Building A Viable Business Model For Adoptive Immunotherapy For Cancer?” (September 28, 2012)
•  “Leukemia–Going For The Cure!” (July 29, 2013 )

The Novartis/Penn collaboration focuses on a particular technology for ACT, known as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) technology. In this technology, autologous T cells isolated from patient blood are engineered with retroviral vectors carrying a gene for a tumor antigen-specific CAR. The CAR enables the engineered cells to recognize specific surface proteins on tumor cells, and to go on to kill the cells.

Now we find out that at least one more company–one a lot closer to home (at least for us folks in Greater Boston)–is involved in a collaboration to develop and commercialize CAR technology for ACT. This company is bluebird bio (Cambridge, MA). As of June 24, 2012, bluebird successfully completed its initial public offering.

On March 21, 2013, bluebird announced in a press release that it had entered into a multi-year strategic collaboration with Celgene (Summit, NJ) to discover new disease-modifying gene therapies for cancer. The collaboration is to focus on applying bluebird’s gene therapy technology to the design and development of CAR T cells.

According to the news release, the bluebird/Celgene collaboration may lead to the development and commercialization of multiple CAR T-cell products. Celgene has an option to license products that result from the collaboration after the completion of a Phase 1 clinical trial for each product. bluebird bio will be responsible for R&D through Phase 1 clinical trials, and Celgene will be responsible for clinical studies beyond Phase 1 for any product that it licenses, as well as commercialization of any such product.

As also announced in the March 21, 2013 press release, Celgene has entered into a separate strategic collaboration that focuses on CAR T-cell technology with the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital and The Methodist Hospital (Houston, TX). The work on CAR T-cell technology in Houston is led by Malcolm Brenner, M.D., Ph.D. (Director, Center for Cell and Gene Therapy Baylor College of Medicine). Dr. Brenner and his colleagues, for example, showed that T cells expressing a CAR specific for the GD2 tumor antigen on neuroblastoma cells produced tumor responses in over half of 19 neuroblastoma patients with refractory or active disease. Three of 11 patients with active disease achieved complete remission.

According to the March 21, 2013 news release, bluebird bio, Celgene and Dr. Brenner’s team will work collaboratively to advance and develop existing and new CAR T-cell products and programs.

Our October 2012 discussion of bluebird bio and adoptive cell transfer in the Biopharmconsortium Blog

On  October 11, 2012, we published an article on this blog entitled “Is Gene Therapy Emerging From Technological Prematurity?” This article included a section on bluebird bio, which represented the very first time we mentioned bluebird on this blog.

In this section–over 5 months before bluebird announced its agreement with Celgene–we discussed the relationship between bluebird’s technology and ACT:

bluebird bio’s platform..represents both a gene therapy technology and an adoptive cellular transfer (ACT) technology. We have discussed ACT technologies (in this case, for immunotherapy for cancer) in a previous article on this blog.  Since some of these technologies involve genetically-engineered autologous T cells, they may also be thought of as representing both ACT and a kind of gene therapy.

We are happy to learn that bluebird also realized (independent from us) the potential utility of their “gene therapy” technology for adoptive immunotherapy/ACT for cancer. We are also happy that bluebird entered into an agreement with Celgene to develop and commercialize such therapies, with the potential to give at least some cancer patients the durable complete responses that they yearn for.

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or an initial one-to-one consultation on an issue that is key to your company’s success, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

NBD1 of human CFTR. Source: PDBbot http://bit.ly/11UmpkS

A major objective of research in genomics is to identify mutations that cause genetic diseases. However, doing so does not necessarily directly enable researchers to discover and develop drugs to treat these diseases.

Two examples of genetic diseases whose causes were identified decades ago, without directly enabling the development of any disease-modifying drug, are sickle cell disease (SCD) (also known as sickle cell anemia) and cystic fibrosis (CF).

Sickle cell disease

The causative mutation of SCD was identified by protein researchers, decades before the era of genomics. Vernon M. Ingram, Ph.D. showed in 1957 that a glutamic acid to valine mutation at position 6 of the β-chain of hemoglobin was the sole abnormality in SCD. For this discovery, Dr. Ingram has been called The Father of Molecular Medicine. Dr. Ingram’s work was made possible by a 1949 study by Linus Pauling and his colleagues, which showed that SCD hemoglobin had a different electrophoretic mobility than normal hemoglobin. Thus the sickle cell trait was likely to be due to a mutation in the β-hemoglobin gene that changed its amino acid composition, as confirmed by Dr. Ingram.

Yet to this day, although SCD (which occurs in individuals who are homozygous for the sickle-cell mutation) can be managed by various treatments (such as hydroxyurea and blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants) that can result in survival into one’s fifties, there is no mechanism-based therapy for this disease. Thus the identification of the causative mutation of SCD has not led to any treatments.

The reason why discovery and development of drugs for SCD has been so very difficult is that the mutation that causes this disease affects an intracellular protein, hemoglobin, which is neither a receptor nor an enzyme. Unlike secreted proteins such as insulin, it is not possible to develop protein drugs to replace missing or defective hemoglobin. It is also not possible to replace the missing function of normal hemoglobin by treatment with a small molecule drug.

Diseases such as SCD–in which the function of an essential intracellular protein is defective or missing–have often been cited as candidates for gene therapy.

However, as we discussed in our October 11, 2012 and our November 8, 2012 Biopharmconsortium Blog articles, it is only this past fall that the first gene therapy was approved for marketing in a regulated market. As we discussed in the first of these articles, gene therapy has a history going back to at least the early 1970s. However, gene therapy has displayed the characteristics of a premature technology. Several notable failures, including some that caused the deaths of patients, put a severe damper on the gene therapy field. Only recently–between around 2003 and 2012–have researchers been developing more advanced gene therapy technologies and conducting clinical studies, with some success. Entrepreneurs have also been building gene therapy specialty companies to commercialize this research.

As also we discussed in our October 11, 2012 article, among the many companies that are developing gene therapies, bluebird bio (Cambridge, MA) has been singled our for special attention lately. Among the diseases being targeted by bluebird bio are SCD, and beta-thalassemias, which are also genetic diseases that affect hemoglobin. bluebird bio is in Phase 1/2 trials for its beta-thalassemia therapy, and in Phase 1 for its SCD program.

Cystic fibrosis

CF causes a number of symptoms, which affect the skin, the lungs and sinuses, and the digestive, endocrine, and reproductive systems. Notably, people with CF accumulate thick, sticky mucus in the lungs, resulting in clogging of the airways due to mucus build-up. This leads to inflammation and bacterial infections. Ultimately, lung transplantation is often necessary as the disease worsens. With proper management, patients can live into their late 30s or 40s.

The affected gene in CF and the most common mutation that causes the disease (called ΔF508 or F508del) were identified by Francis S Collins, M.D., Ph.D. (then at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Departments of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) and his colleagues in 1989. Dr. Collins was subsequently the leader of the publicly-funded Human Genome Project and is now the Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

The gene that is affected in cystic fibrosis encodes a protein known as the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR).  CFTR regulates the movement of chloride and sodium ions across epithelial membranes, including the epithelia of lung alveoli. CF is an autosomal recessive disease, which is most common in Caucasians; one in 2000–3000 newborns in the European Union is found to be affected by CF. ΔF508 is a deletion of three nucleotides that causes the loss of the amino acid phenylalanine at position 508 of the CFTR protein. The ΔF508 mutation accounts for approximately two-thirds of CF cases worldwide and 90% of cases in the United States. However, there are over 1500 other mutations that can cause CF.

In the case of CF, the affected protein, CFTR, is an ion channel–specifically a chloride channel.

Ion channels constitute an important class of drug targets, which are targeted by numerous currently marketed drugs, e.g., calcium channel blockers such as amlodipine (Pfizer’s Norvasc; generics) and diltiazem (Valeant’s Cardizem; generics). These compounds were mainly developed empirically by traditional pharmacology before knowing anything about the molecular nature of their targets. However, discovery of novel ion channel modulators via modern molecular methods has proven to be challenging, mainly because of the difficulty in developing assays suitable for drug screening. In addition, development of suitable assays for assaying chloride channel function has lagged behind the development of assays for the function of cation channels (e.g., sodium and calcium channels).

Moreover the most common CFTR mutation that causes CF, ΔF508, results in defective cellular processing, and the mutant CTFR protein is retained in the endoplasmic reticulum. In the case of some other mutant forms of CTFR (accounting for perhaps 5% of CF patients), the mutant proteins reach the cell membrane, but are ineffective in chloride-channel function.

Given these difficulties, researchers first attempted to develop gene therapies for CF. Genzyme (a Sanofi company since 2011) has been a leader in developing gene therapy for CF, and has been conducting research in this area since the 1990s. However, as with most gene therapies, development of treatments capable of reaching the market has been elusive.

Genzyme is still researching gene therapies for CF, as are others. An academic group in the U.K., known as the U.K. Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Consortium is working to develop CF gene therapies, using Genzyme’s nonviral cationic lipid vector GL67 (Genzyme lipid 67) as the delivery vehicle. GL67 is the current “gold-standard” for in vivo lung gene transfer. Recently, the Consortium received funding from the U.K. Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research to continue its Phase 2B trial of its CF gene therapy product,GL67A/pGM169. This is a combination of GL67 and plasmid DNA expressing CFTR (pGM169).

Very recently, R&D on disease-modifying small-molecule drugs for CF has begun to bear fruit. In January 2012, the FDA approved the first such drug, ivacaftor (Vertex’ Kalydeco.) In July 2012, Vertex received European approval for this drug. Ivacaftor only works in patients with the G551D  (Gly551Asp) mutation in CFTR, which only accounts for around 4% of CF patients. Vertex and other companies–including Genzyme–are working on development of other small-molecule disease-modifying drugs with the potential to treat greater numbers of CF patients.

We shall discuss the new wave of disease-modifying CF drugs, including ivacaftor, in a later post on this blog.

Conclusions

SCD and CF are two examples of cases in which the identification of the genetic or molecular cause of a disease did not directly lead to new treatments. In the case of SCD, even though over 55 years have elapsed since the identification of the genetic cause of the disease, no therapy had yet emerged from this discovery. In the case of CF, it took over two decades from the identification of the molecular cause of the disease to the approval of the first disease-modifying drug.

Many other cases in which molecular targets involved in disease have been identified also lack disease-modifying treatments because the targets are “undruggable”. This especially applies to protein-protein interactions (PPIs). However, PPIs have assumed increasing strategic importance in drug discovery and development in recent years, and researchers and companies have been developing new technologies and strategies to discover  developable drugs that address PPIs.

Back in the early 2000s, researchers and commentators hailed the sequencing of the human genome as heralding a new era in drug discovery and development. However, the “industrialized biology” approach that grew out of the genomics of that era gave very few successes in terms of drug development. Now–a decade later–we have next-generation sequencing and  are approaching the “$1000 genome.” Once again, at least some commentators are expecting immediate breakthroughs in therapeutic development to come out of these breakthroughs in sequencing technology. Others, such as CFTR gene discoverer Francis Collins, believe that we can “speed the development of genetic advances into treatments” by more rapidly weeding out “what turn out to be..nonviable compounds.”

However, in the case of CF there were barriers to drug discovery, such as limited understanding of disease biology and difficulties in assay development, that were the true causes of lack of progress in developing disease-modifying genes. Moreover, once they had good assays, researchers needed to come up with effective strategies to develop small-molecule drugs for CF. In the case of SCD, because of the nature of the target, only gene therapy–with its manifold difficulties–had any hope of addressing the disease. In the case of PPIs, there was the need to discover new breakthrough strategies to address these “undruggable” targets.

Thus, despite breakthroughs in sequencing technologies, determining of disease-related sequences is likely to only be the first step in effective discovery of disease-modifying drugs. And there may continue to be a considerable time lag between sequence determination and drug development.

________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or an initial one-to-one consultation on an issue that is key to your company’s success, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Source: Madprime http://bit.ly/RLmMqL

On October 11, 2012 we published an article entitled “Is gene therapy emerging from technological prematurity?” on the Biopharmconsortium Blog. The centerpiece of that article was the July 20, 2012 ruling by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) that recommended marketing uniQure’s Glybera. Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec) is a gene therapy for the ultra-rare genetic disease lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD).

On November 2, 2012, the European Commission approved Glybera, which now becomes the first gene therapy approved in a regulated market. This was announced by uniQure, and covered by BioWorld Today and Reuters, among others.

Now that Glybera is approved in Europe, uniQure is exploring registration of Glybera in North America, and is developing its strategy for interaction with relevant regulators, especially the FDA. uniQure is aiming for a U.S. launch of Glybera in 2014.

According to uniQure, the commercial roll-out of Glybera will begin in the second half of 2013. uniQure estimates that there are 400 to 500 patients in Europe eligible to receive the therapy.

uniQure also says that the approval of Glybera validates the company’s  adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector-based gene therapy platform. In that connection, uniQure is planning to develop four other gene therapies that utilize its platform–treatments for hemophilia B, for acute intermittent porphyria, for Parkinson’s disease, and for Sanfilippo B, a rare liposomal storage disorder. These four gene therapy products have approval to enter clinical trials within the next nine months.

uniQure faces a short-term funding gap until revenues from Glybera start coming in. It is seeking to raise €20 million (US$26.7 million) in investment over the next five months.

uniQure’s ability to successfully commercialize Glybera depends on the pricing for the therapy allowed by payers. The company is now negotiating with payers to set prices. uniQure is basing its pricing for Glybera for the prices of enzyme replacement products for treating lysosomal storage disorders, such as those developed by Genzyme. For example, Genzyme’s Cerezyme (imiglucerase), a treatment for Gaucher’s disease, cost $200,000 per year in the United States in 2009. However, unlike Genzyme’s enzyme replacement therapies, Glybera, being a gene therapy, is a one-time treatment designed to restore a natural body function rather than providing short-term amelioration of a genetic disease.

According to the Reuters article, Glybera is expected to cost approximately €1.2 million ($1.6 million) per patient. This would be a new record for expensive modern therapeutics. Jörn Aldag, uniQure’s CEO, believes that the high price is justified by the long-term benefit provided by a gene therapy, as opposed to the classic protein replacement strategy in which the drug must be administered repeatedly for life.

Different European countries prefer different payment schemes for Glybera. Some favor charging an annual price for the therapy, while others prefer a single up-front charge, based on multiplying the annual cost of treating a similar disease (e.g., Gaucher’s disease) by the number of years Glybera is known to have an effect. Currently, that is five years.

For an in-depth discussion of the prospects for the gene therapy field, and the implications of the approval of Glybera for the future of gene therapy, see our October 11, 2012 article on this blog.

________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or an initial one-to-one consultation on an issue that is key to your company’s success, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.