Register      Login
Microbiology Australia Microbiology Australia Society
Microbiology Australia, bringing Microbiologists together
RESEARCH ARTICLE

The future of phage clinical trials in Australia

Keith Potent
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Griffith University
PO Box 214
Qld 4222, Australia
Tel: +61 7 5536 1133
Fax: +61 7 5594 0185
Email: k.potent@griffith.edu.au

Microbiology Australia 40(1) 16-19 https://doi.org/10.1071/MA19004
Published: 4 March 2019

Abstract

Australia is well positioned to conduct clinical trials in phage-based technology. Despite challenges with translating phage therapy to mainstream medicine, our regulations are designed for safe and innovative development. Recent success indicates that Australia is ideal for conducting further phage clinical trials. There are also expert clinical research organisations and generous tax incentives.


References

[1]  Henein, A. (2013) What are the limitations on the wider therapeutic use of phage? Bacteriophage 3, e24872.
What are the limitations on the wider therapeutic use of phage?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24228220PubMed |

[2]  Sybesma, W. et al. (2018) Silk route to the acceptance and re-implementation of bacteriophage therapy—part II. Antibiotics (Basel) 7, 1–23.

[3]  Furfaro, L.L. et al. (2018) Bacteriophage therapy: clinical trials and regulatory hurdles. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 8, 376.
| 30406049PubMed |

[4]  Pires, D.P. et al. (2016) Bacteriophage-encoded depolymerases: their diversity and biotechnological applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 100, 2141–2151.
Bacteriophage-encoded depolymerases: their diversity and biotechnological applications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26767986PubMed |

[5]  Cooper, C.J. et al. (2016) Adapting drug approval pathways for bacteriophage-based therapeutics. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1209.
Adapting drug approval pathways for bacteriophage-based therapeutics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27536293PubMed |

[6]  Verbeken, G. et al. (2014) Call for a dedicated European Legal Framework for bacteriophage therapy. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. (Warsz.) 62, 117–129.
Call for a dedicated European Legal Framework for bacteriophage therapy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24500660PubMed |

[7]  Fong, S.A. et al. (2017) Activity of bacteriophages in removing biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 7, 418.
Activity of bacteriophages in removing biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from chronic rhinosinusitis patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29018773PubMed |

[8]  Abedon, S.T. (2017) Information phage therapy research should report. Pharmaceuticals 10, 43.
Information phage therapy research should report.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[9]  Rihtman, B. et al. (2016) Assessing Illumina technology for the high-throughput sequencing of bacteriophage genomes. PeerJ 4, e2055.
Assessing Illumina technology for the high-throughput sequencing of bacteriophage genomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27280068PubMed |

[10]  Parracho, H.M. et al. (2012) The role of regulated clinical trials in the development of bacteriophage therapeutics. J. Mol. Genet. Med. 6, 279–286.
The role of regulated clinical trials in the development of bacteriophage therapeutics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22872803PubMed |

[11]  Cooper, C.J. et al. (2018) Enhancing whole phage therapy and their derived antimicrobial enzymes through complex formulation. Pharmaceuticals 11, 34.

[12]  Lemire, S. et al. (2018) Phage-based applications in synthetic biology. Annu. Rev. Virol. 5, 453–476.
| 30001182PubMed |

[13]  Nicastro, J. et al. (2016) Bacteriophage Applications – Historical Perspective and Future Potential. Springer International Publishing.

[14]  Nobrega, F.L. et al. (2015) Revisiting phage therapy: new applications for old resources. Trends Microbiol. 23, 185–191.
Revisiting phage therapy: new applications for old resources.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25708933PubMed |

[15]  Pires, D.P. et al. (2016) Genetically engineered phages: a review of advances over the last decade. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 80, 523.
Genetically engineered phages: a review of advances over the last decade.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27250768PubMed |

[16]  Roquet, N. et al. (2016) Synthetic recombinase-based state machines in living cells. Science 353, aad8559.
| 27463678PubMed |

[17]  McCafferty, J. et al. (1990) Phage antibodies: filamentous phage displaying antibody variable domains. Nature 348, 552–554.
Phage antibodies: filamentous phage displaying antibody variable domains.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 2247164PubMed |

[18]  Smith, G.P. (1985) Filamentous fusion phage: novel expression vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface. Science 228, 1315–1317.
Filamentous fusion phage: novel expression vectors that display cloned antigens on the virion surface.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 4001944PubMed |

[19]  Arnold, F.H. and Volkov, A. (1999) Directed evolution of biocatalysts. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 3, 54–59.
Directed evolution of biocatalysts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10021399PubMed |

[20]  Sagona, A.P. et al. (2016) Genetically modified bacteriophages. Integr. Biol. (Camb) 8, 465–474.
Genetically modified bacteriophages.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26906932PubMed |

[21]  Wright, A. et al. (2009) A controlled clinical trial of a therapeutic bacteriophage preparation in chronic otitis due to antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; a preliminary report of efficacy. Clin. Otolaryngol. 34, 349–357.
A controlled clinical trial of a therapeutic bacteriophage preparation in chronic otitis due to antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; a preliminary report of efficacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19673983PubMed |

[22]  Lehman, S.M. et al. (2019) Design and preclinical development of a phage product for the treatment of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. 11, 88.

[23]  Ooi, M. and Wormald, P.-J. (2017) A Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and prelimnary effectiveness of AB-SA01 in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis associated with Staphylococcus aureus infection, ASOHNS ASM 2017 67th Annual Scientific Meeting, The Australian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Adelaide Convention Centre, Adelaide, South Australia.

[24]  Jault, P. et al. (2019) Efficacy and tolerability of a cocktail of bacteriophages to treat burn wounds infected by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PhagoBurn): a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, 35–45.
Efficacy and tolerability of a cocktail of bacteriophages to treat burn wounds infected by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PhagoBurn): a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 1/2 trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30292481PubMed |

[25]  Zang, Y. and Lee, J.J. (2017) A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials. Stat. Med. 36, 27–42.
A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27538818PubMed |

[26]  Gatsonis, C. and Greenhouse, J.B. (1992) Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials. Stat. Med. 11, 1377–1389.
Bayesian methods for phase I clinical trials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1518998PubMed |

[27]  Bauer, P. et al. (2016) Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat. Med. 35, 325–347.
Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25778935PubMed |

[28]  Pennisi, M. (2017) 2017 Life Sciences Queensland Limited Member Directory.

[29]  (2000) Gene Technology Act 2000, Commonwealth of Australia.

[30]  Australian Government (2016) Gene Technology Regulations 2001, Federal Register of Legislation.

[31]  Wieschowski, S. et al. (2018) Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: do they enable risk–benefit assessment? PLoS Biol. 16, e2004879.
Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: do they enable risk–benefit assessment?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29621228PubMed |

[32]  European Medicines Agency (2009) ICH Considerations: General Principles to Address Virus and Vector Shedding. European Medicines Agency, London.

[33]  (2018) The Third Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme. Department of Health, Commonwealth of Australia.

[34]  Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018) BICON: Australian biosecurity import conditions. https://bicon.agriculture.gov.au/BiconWeb4.0/ (accessed 15 December 2018).

[35]  TGA (2018) Clinical trials. https://www.tga.gov.au/node/4125 (accessed 1 January 2019).

[36]  TGA (2018) Australian Clinical Trial Handbook: Importing and Exporting .

[37]  Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2018) Australian clinical trials. https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/ (accessed 2 January 2019).