Close

Forge Biologics receives US FDA approval to initiate phase 1/2 trial of AAV gene therapy, FBX-101 to treat Krabbe disease

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

Forge Biologics Inc., a gene therapy manufacturing and development company, announced that the company has received FDA clearance of the Investigational New Drug (IND) to initiate a phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating its novel, first-in-human AAV gene therapy, FBX-101, for patients with Krabbe disease. FBX-101 is the company’s first therapeutic program to receive an IND which also received Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals required prior to any patient enrollment. This marks a major step forward in building out the company’s hybrid model as a gene therapy manufacturing and development engine.

Krabbe disease is a rare and fatal pediatric leukodystrophy affecting about 1-2.6 in 100,000 people in the United States. Patients are born with mutations in the galactosylceramidase (GALC) gene, which encodes an enzyme that helps break down lipid molecules inside cells. This results in the toxic buildup of psychosine, a lipid molecule that can’t be degraded in cells, particularly in cells in the brain and peripheral nerves, and leads to toxic levels that cause cell death and myelin loss. The disease initially presents as physical delays in development, muscle tightness and irritability, and rapidly advances to difficulty swallowing and breathing, loss of vision and hearing, and increasing cognitive degeneration. Early onset, or “Infantile”, Krabbe disease cases usually results in death by age 2-4 years, while later onset or “Late Infantile” cases have a more variable course of progressive decline. There is currently no approved treatment for either form of Krabbe disease.

FBX-101 is an adeno-associated viral (AAV) gene therapy administered after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), that delivers a functioning copy of the GALC gene, the enzyme needed to prevent the buildup of psychosine in myelinated cells of both the central and peripheral nervous system. FBX-101 has been shown to correct the central and peripheral myelination deficits, significantly improve the behavioral impairments associated with Krabbe disease in animal models, and drastically improve the lifespan of treated animals. The use of transplant and intravenous AAV gene therapy infusion has the potential to overcome some of the immunological safety challenges of traditional AAV gene therapies.

“The ground-breaking treatment approach using HSCT and AAV gene therapy, initially developed by Dr. Escolar, has safely demonstrated superior benefits in preclinical animal studies of Krabbe disease than either treatment method alone,” said Timothy J. Miller, Ph.D., Forge’s CEO, president, and co-founder. “We are grateful for the FDA’s engaged review and allowance of the IND, and look forward to enrolling patients very soon.”

FBX-101 is the culmination of nearly 20 years of Krabbe disease research, led by Maria Escolar, M.D., M.S., chief medical officer at Forge Biologics and the pioneer for evaluating the natural history and new treatment approaches for patients with Krabbe disease. “This combination approach is extremely exciting because the preclinical data demonstrate significant correction of survival, behavior and neuromuscular function in animal models compared to either transplant or AAV treatment alone. This is a significant milestone for Krabbe disease families suffering from this deadly disease,” said Dr. Escolar.

The initiation of the RESKUE trial in Forge’s gene therapy pipeline continues Forge’s momentum within the biotechnology industry in Columbus, Ohio, bringing positive impact to both Ohio and the global rare disease community.

Krabbe disease is a rare, pediatric leukodystrophy affecting about 1-2.6 in 100,000 people in the U.S. and is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. Krabbe disease is caused by loss-of-function mutations in the galactosylceramidase (GALC) gene, a lysosomal enzyme responsible for the breakdown of certain types of lipids such as psychosine. Without functional GALC, psychosine accumulates to toxic levels in cells. The psychosine toxicity is most severe in the myelin cells surrounding the nerves in the brain and in the peripheral nervous system, eventually leading to the death of these cells. The disease initially manifests as physical delays in development, muscle weakness and irritability and advances rapidly to difficulty swallowing, breathing problems, cognitive, vision and hearing loss. Early onset or “Infantile”, Krabbe disease cases usually results in death by age 2-4 years, while later onset or “Late Infantile” cases have a more variable course of progressive decline. There is currently no approved treatment for Krabbe disease.

Forge is developing FBX-101 to treat patients with infantile Krabbe disease. FBX-101 is an adeno-associated viral (AAV) gene therapy that is delivered after a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. FBX-101 delivers a functional copy of the GALC gene to cells in both the central and peripheral nervous system. FBX-101 has been shown to functionally correct the central and peripheral neuropathy and correct the behavioral impairments associated with Krabbe disease in animal models, and to drastically improve the lifespan of treated animals. This approach has the potential to overcome some of the immunological safety challenges observed in traditional AAV gene therapies.

Forge Biologics is a hybrid gene therapy contract manufacturing and therapeutic development company.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »