Biopharmconsortium Blog

Expert commentary from Haberman Associates biotechnology and pharmaceutical consulting.

Agios Pharmaceuticals files for an IPO

Published by Allan Haberman on June 17, 2013 | Leave a response

Agios Nikolaos Orfanos, Thessaloniki, Greece

On June 11, 2013, Agios Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an Initial Public Offering (IPO). The company plans to raise up to $86 million through this IPO. This news was reported by Fierce Biotech, the Boston Business Journal, and Xconomy, among others.

The Biopharmconsortium Blog has been following Agios since December 31, 2009, and we have posted three additional articles since. Our newest article, posted on December 28, 2012, announced the publication of an article in the November 19, 2012 issue of Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) by senior editor Lisa M Jarvis, in which I was quoted. More recently, Agios posted a reprint of that article on its website, which it retitled “Built to Last”. I had used that phrase in my quote in Ms. Jarvis’ article.

Agios specializes in the field of cancer metabolism. The company is working on multiple potential targets, with the goal of dominating that field, using its strong proprietary technology platform. Its financing strategy is aimed at building a company with the potential to endure as an independent firm over a long period of time–hence “built to last”. This contrasts with the recent trend toward “virtual biotech companies”–lean companies with only a very few employees that outsource most of their functions, and that are designed for early acquisition by a Big Pharma or large biotech company.

Agios’ ambition to dominate the field of cancer metabolism requires a “built to last” strategy. As Agios’ CEO David Schenkein said in the C&EN article, “You’re never going to get that with a one-target deal”.

In support of that strategy, Agios has raised over a quarter of a billion dollars in funding. This has included two rounds of venture capital funding that raised a total of $111 million, and a partnership with Celgene that brought in a total of $141 million in upfront payments. According to the Fierce Biotech article, Celgene has committed to invest in Agios’ IPO.

As of yet, Agios has no drugs in clinical trials. However, the company has several drug candidates in early development. And according to the Fierce Biotech article, Agios intends to use the proceeds of the IPO to fund its first clinical trials. One of the company’s lead candidates, AG-221, which targets mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2), may reach the clinic soon, according to the Fierce Biotech article. Another Agios compound, AG-120, which targets mutant IDH1, is expected to enter the clinic in early 2014.

Recent developments in Agios’ research

The Biopharmconsortium Blog has been reporting on Agios’ research on mutant forms of IDH1 and IDH2, and their roles in human cancer, beginning with our December 31, 2009 article. Briefly, wild-type IDH1 and IDH2 catalyze the NADP+-dependent oxidative decarboxylation of isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate. However, mutant forms of IDH1and IDH2, which are found in certain human cancers, no longer catalyze this reaction, but instead catalyzes the NADPH-dependent reduction of α-ketoglutarate to R(-)-2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). The researchers have hypothesized that 2HG is an oncometabolite, and that developing mutant-specific small molecule inhibitors of IDH1 and IDH2 might inhibit the growth or reverse the oncogenic phenotype of cancer cells that carry the mutant enzymes.

As we reported in our December 28, 2012 article, Agios researchers and their collaborators reported a series of compounds that selectively inhibit the mutant form of IDH1. These compounds were found to lower tumor 2-HG in a xenograft model.

More recently, on May 3, 2013, Agios researchers and their collaborators published two research reports in the journal Science, and the company also announced the results of these studies in a May 4, 2013 press release. According to that press release, the two reports are the first publications to show the effects of inhibiting mutant IDH1 and IDH2 in patient-derived tumor samples. These results constitute preclinical support for the hypothesis that the two mutant enzymes are driving disease, and that drugs that target the mutant forms of the enzymes can reverse their oncogenic effects.

In the first of these papers (Wang et al.), the researchers reported the development of the small-molecule compound AGI-6780 (a tool compound, not a clinical candidate), which potently and selectively inhibits the tumor-associated mutant IDH2/R140Q. AGI-6780 is an allosteric inhibitor of this mutant enzyme. Treatment with AGI-6780 induced differentiation of two IDH2-bearing tumors in vitro: a TF-1 erythroleukemia genetically engineered to express IDH2, and primary human acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) carrying the IDH2 mutation. These data provide proof-of-principle that inhibitors targeting mutant IDH2/R140Q could have potential applications as a differentiation therapy for AML and other IDH2-driven cancers.

In the second paper (Rohle et al.), Agios researchers and their collaborators focused on a selective mutant IDH1 (R132H-IDH1) inhibitor, AGI-5198 (also a tool compound), which is one of the mutant IDH1 inhibitors that we referred to in our December 28, 2012 article. The researchers studied the effects of AGI-5198 on human glioma cells with endogenous IDH1 mutations. AGI-5198 inhibited, in a dose-dependent manner, the ability of the mutant IDH1 to produce 2-HG. Under conditions of near-complete inhibition of 2-HG production, AGI-5198 induced demethylation of histone H3K9me3 in chromatin, and also induced expression of genes associated with differentiation to glial cells (specifically astrocytes and oligodendrocytes). Blockade with AGI-5198 also impaired the growth of IDH1-mutant—but not IDH1–wild-type—glioma cells.

Oral administration of AGI-5198 to mice with established R132H-IDH1 glioma xenografts resulted in impaired growth of the tumors. Treatment of mice with AGI-5198 was well-tolerated, with no signs of toxicity during 3 weeks of daily treatment.

It is possible that Agios’ IDH1/2 inhibitors do not inhibit tumor growth by inducing differentiation, at least in the case of AGI-5198 in glioma. Rohle et al. noted that although high-dose (450 mg/kg) AGI-5198 induced demethylation of histone H3K9me3 and induced gliogenic differentiation markers, a lower dose of AGI-5198 (150 mg/kg) did not. Nevertheless, the lower dose of AGI-5198 resulted in a similar tumor growth inhibition as did the the higher dose. This suggests that in glioma cells, mutant IDH1 regulates cell proliferation and cell differentiation via distinct pathways. These pathways may have different sensitivities to levels of 2-HG, with the differentiation-related pathway requiring increased inhibition of levels of 2-HG than the proliferation-related program.

Is differentiation therapy with IDH1/2 inhibitors sufficient to provide efficacious treatment of AML and/or glioma?

A companion Perspective, authored by Jiyeon Kim and Ralph J. DeBerardinis (Children’s Medical Center Research Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX), was published in the same issue of Science as Wang et al and Rohle et al. Kim and DeBerardinis note that the selective mutant IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors produced cytostatic rather than cytotoxic effects. Specifically, they induced cancer cell differentiation rather than cell death. It is possible that inducing a permanent state of differentiation may be sufficient for therapeutic efficacy. However, the survival (in a differentiated, nontumor state) of viable cells still containing potentially oncogenic mutations may eventually give rise to cancer. Therefore, it is important to determine whether the therapeutic effects of these compounds will persist over long periods of time.

In discussing AGI-6780 as a differentiation therapy in hematopoietic malignancies, Wang et al. compared their results to the action of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) on acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). ATRA has be used to treat APL, and it apparently works via relieving a block in differentiation present in these leukemic cells. The use of ATRA in APL has thus been taken as a paradigm of differentiation therapy, and it is used as such a paradigm by Wang et al.

We discussed the case of ATRA treatment of APL in our April 15, 2010 article on this blog. APL patients whose leukemia is due to a PML-RARα translocation in their promyelocytes (who constitute the vast majority of APL patients) initially respond to differentiation therapy with ATRA, but eventually develop resistance to the drug. Combination therapy of ATRA and arsenic trioxide (As
2O
3) cures the majority of patients, rendering a cancer that was once uniformly fatal 90% curable. As discussed in our 2010 article, this was first modeled in transgenic mice, and then applied to human patients.

APL patients whose leukemia is due to a PLZF-RARα translocation in their promyelocytes are unresponsive to both ATRA and As
2O
3. However, as discussed in our 2010 article, the corresponding mouse model does respond to a combination of ATRA and a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor such as sodium phenylbutyrate. When this combination therapy was tested in one patient in 1998 (presumably the first patient in a clinical trial), she achieved a complete remission. Presumably, clinical trials of newer, approved HDAC inhibitors [e.g., suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA), Merck's Vorinostat] in combination with ATRA could be carried out. (The SAHA/ATRA combination has been tested in a mouse model of PLZF-RARα APL.)

As in the case of Agios’ AGI-5198, ATRA may work in part via a different mechanism than induction of differentiation in APL. This is despite this case being taken as a paradigm of differentiation therapy. We referred to this briefly in our April 19, 2010 blog post. ATRA appears to produce cancer cell growth arrest at least in part via inducing degradation of the PML-RARα fusion protein. Growth arrest and differentiation appear to be uncoupled in the case of the action of ATRA on PLZF-RARα-bearing cells.

[The issue of the uncoupling of RARα transcriptional activation (which induces differentiation) and RARα degradation was investigated further in a study published in April 2013.]

Is it possible–as in the case of ATRA in APL–that Agios’ therapies for targeting mutant forms of IDH1/2 will require combination with another agent to achieve long-term therapeutic efficacy? Only clinical trials can answer this question. However, perhaps it might be possible to design animal models to test this issue, and to use these models to identify agents that may be productively used in combination with the IDH1/2 inhibitors.

Conclusions

Agios IPO comes amidst a boom in biotech IPOs–especially Boston biotech IPOs. In addition to Agios, recent Boston-area IPOs include Epizyme (Cambridge, MA), TetraPhase Pharmaceuticals (Watertown, MA) and Enanta Pharmaceuticals (Watertown, MA). According to a June 14 2013 article in the Boston Business Journal, bluebird bio (Cambridge, MA) is also expected to complete its IPO during the week of June 17, 2013. We discussed bluebird bio in our October 11, 2012 Biopharmconsortium Blog article.

As with Agios, neither Epizyme, TetraPhase, Enanta, nor bluebird has any revenues from approved and marketed therapeutics. However, unlike Agios, all of these four companies have drug candidates that have reached the clinic. In addition, TetraPhase and Enanta have compounds that have completed Phase 2 clinical trials, and thus have presumably achieved proof-of-concept in humans. Thus the stock of these two companies appear to be lower risk investments than that of Agios, despite Agios’ very compelling scientific and strategic rationale. At least until its compounds achieve proof-of-concept in human studies, investing in Agios is mainly for sophisticated investors who have a high tolerance for risk.

__________________________________________

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.

Posted in Animal Models, Cancer, Drug development, Drug discovery, Epigenetics, Haberman Associates, Metabolism, Strategy and Consulting

Haberman Associates has a new website!

Published by Allan Haberman on May 30, 2013 | Leave a response

Haberman Associates now has a new website, which is available at http://biopharmconsortium.com. Our new site has an attractive, up-to-date look and feel, and also contains updated news and other updated content.

We have also fully integrated our Biopharmconsortium Blog into our new site. Our blog resides at http://biopharmconsortium.com/blog. There has been a hiatus in posting on our blog recently, due to finishing construction of our new site. Thus the last article on our blog before completion of the website was posted on April 5, 2013. However, we posted a new article on May 29, 2013, and intend to publish blog articles on a more regular basis.

The integration of the Biopharmconsortium Blog into our website emphasizes that it is the blog for our consulting group, not an independent entity or a journalistic blog. Despite the diversity of subjects covered by the blog, the focus is on effective drug discovery and development, and on company strategies designed to facilitate effective new product development.

For more information on our consulting group, Haberman Associates, see our brief December 16, 2012 blog article, entitled What Is Haberman Associates? Better yet, you may explore our website for a more complete picture of our consulting group.

We hope that the diverse community of our readers will benefit from the discussions on our blog. We also hope that those of you in life science companies will get a feeling for how we approach issues in drug discovery and development and company strategies.

However, even the best articles or books on how to solve key industry problems will not solve these problems on their own. Companies need to develop company-specific solutions and to implement them. Haberman Associates consulting may enable your company to formulate and implement the solutions you need to improve your productivity.

If you are in a life sciences firm, and have questions about Haberman Associates, or wish to send us a consulting inquiry or to commission us to write a report for publication, please telephone or e-mail us.

Posted in About Our Blog, Haberman Associates, Strategy and Consulting

New findings on mechanism of activation of sirtuins may vindicate Sirtris founders

Published by Allan Haberman on May 29, 2013 | 2 Responses

Sir2, the yeast homologue of SIRT1

The Biopharmconsortium Blog has from time to time been following novel developments in anti-aging medicine, including attempts to develop activators of sirtuins. However, we have not had an article on sirtuins since December 1, 2010. At that time, we reported on the discontinuation by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) of its lead sirtuin activator, SRT501, a proprietary formulation of the natural product resveratrol (which is found in red wine).

Sirtuins are nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+)–dependent protein deacetylases, which have been implicated in control of lifespan in yeast, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, and the fruit fly Drosophila. Mammalian sirtuins have been implicated (via animal model studies) in protection against aging-related diseases such as metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, neurodegeneration, and cancer.

As we discussed in our December 1, 2010 article, GSK acquired the sirtuin-pathway specialty company Sirtris (Cambridge, MA) for $720 million in June 2008. This gave GSK ownership of Sirtris’ sirtuin modulator drugs. As stated in that article, although GSK discontinued development of SRT501, it was continuing development of Sirtris’ non-resveratrol synthetic selective sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) activators, which in addition to their greater potency, had more favorably drug-like properties.

Recently, resveratrol and synthetic sirtuin activators such as those developed by Sirtris have come to be known as “sirtuin-activating compounds” (STACs).

Sirtuin-activating compounds (STACs) under a cloud

As we discussed in our February 10, 2010 blog article, researchers at Amgen found evidence that the apparent in vitro activation of SIRT1 by resveratrol depended on the substrate used in the assay. The Amgen group found that the fluorescent SIRT1 peptide substrate used in the Sirtris assay is a substrate for SIRT1, but in the absence of the covalently linked fluorophore, the peptide is not a SIRT1 substrate. Resveratrol did not activate SIRT1 in vitro as determined by assays using two other non-fluorescently-labeled substrates.

Researchers at Pfizer also found that resveratrol and three of Sirtris’ second-generation STACs activated SIRT1 when a fluorophore-bearing peptide substrate was used, but were not SIRT1 activators in in vitro assays using native peptide or protein substrates.The Pfizer researchers also found that the Sirtris compounds interact directly with the fluorophore-conjugated peptide, but not with native peptide substrates.

Moreover, the Pfizer researchers were not able to replicate Sirtris’ in vivo studies of its compounds. Specifically, when the Pfizer researchers tested SRT1720 in a mouse model of obese diabetes, a 30 mg/kg dose of the compound failed to improve blood glucose levels, and the treated mice showed increased food intake and weight gain. A 100 mg/kg dose of SRT1720 was toxic, and resulted in the death of 3 out of 8 mice tested.

The Pfizer researchers also found that the Sirtris compounds interacted with an even greater number of cellular targets (including an assortment of receptors, enzymes, transporters, and ion channels) than resveratrol. For example, SRT1720 showed over 50% inhibition of 38 out of 100 targets tested, while resveratrol only inhibited 7 targets. Only one target, norepinephrine transporter, was inhibited by greater than 50% by all three Sirtris compounds and by resveratrol. Thus the Sirtris compounds have a different target selectivity profile than resveratrol, and all of these compounds exhibit promiscuous targeting.

Finally, as we reported in our December 1, 2010 blog article, NIH researcher Jay H. Chung and his colleagues found evidence that resveratrol works indirectly, via the energy sensor AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), to activate sirtuins. Since activation of AMPK increases fatty acid oxidation and upregulates mitochondrial biogenesis, this study suggested that the effect of resveratrol on AMPK may be more important than its more indirect activation of sirtuins in the regulation of insulin sensitivity.

All of these studies left Sirtris/GSK’s STACs under a cloud.

On March 13, 2013, GSK reported that it was shutting down Sirtris and its Cambridge MA facilities, just five years after its $720 million acquisition. GSK also said that it was offering transfers to the Philadelphia area for some of the 60 remaining Sirtris employees. Although GSK was closing Sirtris, it said that it remained confident in Sirtris’ drug candidates. The pharma company said that following Sirtris’ “highly successful” research on the biology of sirtuins, further development of Sirtris’ drug candidates “requires the resource and expertise available from our broader drug discovery organization.” GSK will be “exami[ing] [its] research against a variety of therapeutic conditions, with the aim of moving potential assets into the clinic within the next three to four years.”

New evidence that STACs activate SIRT1 in vitro under certain conditions

On 8 March 2013, the journal Science published a report by Sirtris founder David A. Sinclair, Ph.D. (Harvard Medical School, Boston MA) and his colleagues [from academia and from Sirtris, GSK, and from Biomol (Plymouth Meeting, PA)] that identified conditions under which STACs activate SIRT1 in vitro. This research report was accompanied by a Perspective in the same issue of Science authored by Hua Yuan, Ph.D. and Ronen Marmorstein, Ph.D. (Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA).

Dr. Sinclair and his colleagues hypothesized that the fluorophore tags on peptide substrates that were used in the original, successful SIRT1 activation assays might mimic hydrophobic amino acid residues of natural substrates at the same position as the fluorophore (i.e, +1 relative to the acetylated lysine that is engaged by SIRT1). Consistent with this hypothesis, the researchers found that non-fluorophore-tagged natural SIRT1 substrates with a large hydrophobic amino acid residue [i..e, tryotophan (Trp), tyrosine (Tyr), or phenylalanine (Phe)] at positions +1 and +6 or +1 were selectively activated by STACs. Examples of such substrates are peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator 1α acetylated on lysine at position 778 (PGC-1α–K778), and forkhead box protein O3a acetylated on lysine at position 290 (FOXO3a-K290). The PGC-1α–K778 peptide contains Tyr at the +1 position and Phe at the +6 position, and FOXO3a contains Trp at the +1 position. Substitution of these aromatic amino acids on either acetylated peptide with alanine (Ala) resulted in complete abolition of SIRT1 activity.

The researchers identified over 400 nuclear acetylated proteins that are potential SIRT1 targets that support STAC-mediated activation of SIRT1, on the basis of their structure. They tested five of these native sequences and found that three of them supported SIRT1 activation.

Kinetic analysis of SIRT1 activation by STACs in the presence of the above peptide substrates showed that the enhancement in the rate of SIRT1 deacetylation was mediated primarily through an improvement in peptide binding. This is consistent with an allosteric mechanism of activation. In allosteric regulation, an allosteric activator (in this case, a STAC) binds to a regulatory site (also known as an allosteric site) that is distinct from the catalytic site of an enzyme (in this case, SIRT1). Binding of the activator to the allosteric site results in the enhancement of the activity of the enzyme, for example by causing a conformational change in the protein that results in improved biding of the catalytic site to the substrate.

In order to investigate the nature of the hypothesized SIRT1 allosteric site, the researchers screened for SIRT1 mutant proteins that could not be activated by STACs in the presence of an appropriate peptide substrate. As a result of these studies, the researchers identified a critical glutamate (Glu) residue at position 230 of SIRT1, which is immediately N-terminal to the catalytic core of SIRT1. Glu230 of SIRT1 is conserved from flies to humans. Replacement of Glu230 with another amino acid, such as lysine or alanine, resulted in attenuation of SIRT1 activation by STACs, independent of the substrate used. Structural studies identified a rigid N-terminal domain that contains Glu230, and is critical for activation by STACs.

The researchers then studied the effects of STACs on cultured cells (murine myoblasts), expressing either wild-type SIRT1 or mutant SIRT1 in which Glu230 is replaced with lysine (SIRT1-E222K, which is the murine equivalent of human SIRT1-E230K). Cells expressing the mutant SIRT1 did not respond to STACs, but cells expressing wild-type SIRT1 did. Specifically, cells expressing wild-type SIRT1 exhibited STAC-stimulated increases in ATP levels, mitochondrial mass, and mitochondrial DNA copy number, but cells expressing mutant SIRT1 did not. In STAC-treated cells, the researchers found no evidence of SIRT1-independent AMPK phosphorylation. This goes against studies discussed earlier in this article, that indicate that resveratrol works via activating AMPK. They also found no evidence for inhibition of phosphodiesterase isoforms in the STAC-treated cells. This goes against a study, published in Cell in 2012, that indicates that resveratrol ameliorates aging-related metabolic conditions by inhibiting cAMP phosphodiesterases, thus engaging a pathway that activates AMPK.

The researchers conclude that STACs act via a mechanism of direct “assisted allosteric activation” mediated by the Glu230-containing N-terminal activation domain of SIRT1. They further conclude that their findings support the hypothesis that allosteric activation of SIRT1 by STACs constitutes a viable therapeutic intervention strategy for many aging-related diseases. thus apparently vindicating the Sirtris/GSK development program.

However, the authors of the companion Perspective hypothesize that the reason that existing STACs only work with SIRT1 substrates that contain hydrophobic residues at position +1 to the acetylated lysine is because they were identified via screening with a substrate that contained a hydrophobic residue mimetic–i.e., a fluorophore tag. A new screen that is not biased in this way might possibly identify STACs that exhibit selectivity for SIRT1 substrates that contain other sequence signatures. It is possible that such STACs might be better therapeutics for certain aging-related diseases than the current STACs being investigated by Sirtris/GSK. There also remain many unknowns in the biology of SIRT1, and in the biochemistry of STACs –i.e., mechanisms by with certain STACs modulate the activity of biomolecules other than SIRT1 (e.g,, cAMP phosphodiesterases). Such issues might affect the success or failure of any program to develop STACs as therapeutic compounds.

________________________________

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.

Posted in Anti-Aging, Drug development, Drug discovery, Epigenetics, Metabolic diseases

FDA proposes accelerated approval of early-stage Alzheimer’s drugs based on cognitive improvement alone

Published by Allan Haberman on April 5, 2013 | Leave a response

Pittsburgh compound B staining in AD. Source: National Institute on Aging/NIH.

In our February 28, 2013 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog, we discussed the FDA’s February 7, 2013 Draft Guidance for Industry entitled “Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for the Treatment of Early Stage Disease”.

This document had been distributed for comment purposes only, and the FDA has been seeking public comment on the draft guidance for 60 days following publication.

As we discussed, by issuing this Draft Guidance, the FDA added its voice to that of an ever-increasing segment of the scientific community that calls for a new focus on conducting clinical trials in early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). This is in order to focus industry R&D on developing treatments for patients whose disease is in a stage prior to the development of extensive irreversible brain damage. It is in this early stage of disease in which researchers believe that new drugs have the best chance of providing benefits to patients, by preventing further damage to the brain.

In our February 28, 2013 article, we also discussed several clinical trials being carried out by industry and academic researchers in early-stage AD. These trials should allow the scientific and medical community to answer the question as to whether treating patients with pre-AD or very early-stage AD with anti-amyloid MAb drugs can have a positive effect on the course of the disease, and slow or prevent cognitive decline.

Readers of our article may have noticed that the February 7, 2013 Draft Guidance was somewhat vague or confused. That is because there is currently no evidence-based consensus as to which biomarkers might be appropriate to support clinical findings in trials in early AD. Moreover, in “pre-AD” or very early-stage AD (i.e., before the onset of overt dementia) disease-related impairments are extremely challenging to assess accurately. Thus both measuring clinical outcomes and assessment via biomarkers in very early-stage AD are fraught with difficulty, making determination of drug efficacy very difficult.

In issuing the Draft Guidance, The FDA appeared to be seeking guidance from industry and from the academic community on how these issues might be resolved. As we said in our article, the early-stage AD trials now in progress might help the scientific and medical community, and the FDA, with issues of evaluation of biomarkers and clinical outcome measures in determining disease prognosis and the efficacy of drug treatments.

More recently–on March 13, 2013–the FDA proposed a further modification of its proposed guidelines for regulation of early-stage AD therapeutics. This was published online in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), entitled “Regulatory Innovation and Drug Development for Early-Stage Alzheimer’s Disease”, by Nicholas Kozauer, M.D. and Russell Katz, M.D. (As we stated in our earlier article, Dr.Katz is the director of the Division of Neurology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Dr. Kozauer is a Clinical Team Lead in the same division of the FDA.)

The new proposal attempts to deal with some of the apparent confusion in the February 7, 2013 Draft Guidance, and to facilitate the development and approval of new drugs for early-stage AD. The NEJM article notes that traditional measures of AD drug efficacy at the FDA had included assessment both of improved cognition and improvements in function. Specifically, as stated by a New York Times article discussing the new FDA proposal, “cognition” refers to such mental processes as memory and reasoning (as assessed by various tests), and “function” refers to performing such day-to-day activities as cooking, dressing or bathing.

In the FDA’s March 13, 2013 NEJM article, the authors note that researchers and regulatory agencies “simply do not yet have drug-development tools that are validated to provide measures of function in patients with Alzheimer’s disease before the onset of overt dementia”. Thus, although one can test early-stage AD patients for improvements in cognition with the appropriate tests, testing for deficits and improvements in function is extremely difficult.

The authors of the NEJM article therefore suggest that it might be feasible that a drug for treating early-stage AD be approved via the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, on the basis of assessment of cognitive outcome alone. The agency’s accelerated-approval pathway allows drugs that address an unmet medical need to be approved on the basis of a surrogate or an intermediate clinical endpoint–in this case, a sensitive measure of improvement in cognition. Drugs approved via “accelerated approval” must be subjected to postmarketing studies to verify the clinical benefit. This regulatory pathway might facilitate the approval of treatments that appear to be effective in early AD, when patients might be expected to derive a greatest benefit than after the development of overt dementia.

With respect to selection of patients for trials in early-stage AD, the authors of the NEJM article suggest that (based on “the consensus emerging within the AD research community”) clinical diagnosis of early cognitive impairment be combined with appropriate biomarkers. These biomarkers might include brain amyloid load [as measured by positron-emission tomography (PET)] and cerebrospinal fluid levels of β-amyloid and tau proteins. The FDA places a high priority on efforts by the researchers to qualify such biomarkers in clinical trial design in early-stage AD.

The author of the New York Times article, veteran science and medicine reporter Gina Kolata, says that the FDA’s new proposal could “help millions of people at risk of developing [AD] by speeding the development and approval of drugs that might slow or prevent it.”

She also says that the proposal could be a boon for the pharmaceutical industry and AD researchers. They have often been hampered by regulations that left them uncertain of how to get drugs tested and approved for early-stage AD. Not only might anti-AD therapies provide greater benefit to patients with early-stage AD than with later stage disease, but clinical trials in early-stage AD would have a greater potential for success–provided that researchers had appropriate means of determining efficacy in early-stage AD. The new FDA proposal may increase the likelihood of identifying such appropriate means.

As pointed out in the Times article, several leading AD researchers agree, with some important caveats. For example, AD researcher P. Murali Doraiswamy, M.D. (Duke University School of Medicine) said that the new proposed regulations would lead to more clinical trials, and more motivation now to invest in the AD field. However, many companies never manage to do postmarking studies required for drugs given accelerated approval, and such studies might not be randomized clinical trials as required in gaining approval of the drugs in the first place.

Sean Bohen, M.D., Ph.D. (Senior Vice President for Early Development at Genentech) was very positive about the proposed new FDA policy, but wondered how researchers could develop appropriate tests to identify subtle cognitive changes in early AD or pre-AD. Nevertheless, he said, “We have to start somewhere.”

Thus clinical trials in early-stage AD, and development of regulatory frameworks for approval and postmarketing studies of agents that emerge from these trials, remain a work in progress.

________________________________

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.

Posted in Biomarkers, Drug development, Neurodegenerative diseases

Japanese group to take induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell-derived retinal cells into the clinic

Published by Allan Haberman on March 14, 2013 | Leave a response

Stem cells. Source: http://bit.ly/ZnYuFS

As reported in Nature News on 27 February 2013 ophthalmologist Masayo Takahashi M.D., Ph.D. and her colleagues at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology (Kobe, Japan), plan to submit an application to the Japanese health ministry for a clinical study of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS)-derived cells. The researchers planned to submit their application in March 2013; if approved, they could begin recruiting patients as early as September.

The author of the Nature News article is Nature‘s Asian-Pacific Correspondent, David Cyranoski, who is based in Tokyo.

The researchers plan to treat approximately six people with severe age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Specifically, the researchers are targeting “wet” AMD, in which angiogenic blood vessels invade the retina, destroying the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) that supports the light-sensitive photoreceptors.

AMD is a common cause of blindness that affects at least 1% of adults over 50. Wet AMD can be treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents such as ranibizumab (Genentech/Novartis’ Lucentis), pegaptanib (Gilead/OSI/Pfizer’s Macugen), aflibercept (Sanofi/Regeneron’s Eylea), and–off-label–small doses of the anticancer agent bevacizumab (Genentech/Roche’s Avastin). However, the use of these agents requires that they be injected repeatedly into the eye.

According to the Nature News article, Dr. Takahashi and her colleagues will take an upper arm skin sample the size of a peppercorn, and transform the cells from this sample into iPS cells by using specific proteins. They will then add other factors that will induce differentiation of the iPS cells into retinal cells. Then a small sheet of these retinal cells will be placed under the damaged area of the retina, where they are expected to grow and repair the damaged RPE.

Although the researchers would like to demonstrate efficacy of this treatment in ameliorating the disease, the main focus of these studies will be on safety. Safety concerns include immunogenicity of the transplanted cells, and formation of tumors if the transplanted cells multiply uncontrollably. Another concern is that the transplanted cells might fail to engraft, and to integrate with the host tissue. It is also possible that the RPE identity of the transplanted and differentiated cells might not be stable over time.

With respect to these concerns, studies published by Japanese researchers in 2013 (Araki et al.) and reviewed in a recent Nature News article contradicted the original mouse studies that suggested that syngeneic or autologous iPS cells might be immunogenic.

With respect to tumor formation, Dr. Takahashi’s proposed studies will involve using only a few iPS cells, thus reducing the probability of forming tumors. Moreover, since the eye is relatively accessible, any tumors would be relatively easy to remove.

In addition, Dr, Takahashi has presented preclinical studies at conferences, which indicate that her iPS cells do not form tumors in mice and are safe in non-human primates. (Dr. Takahashi’s preclinical studies have also been submitted for publication.) The studies have provided reassurance of the cells’ safety to at least some leading researchers, such as Martin Pera (University of Melbourne, Australia) and George Daley (Harvard Medical School, Boston MA).

However, other researchers believe that to take iPS cell-derived tissue into the clinic at this time is premature. Robert Lanza, M.D., the chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) (Santa Monica CA) says that he cannot imagine regulatory agencies permitting studies such as Dr. Takahashi’s without years of preclinical testing.

As mentioned in the Nature News article, ACT has a program involving human embryonic stem cell (hES cell) and iPS-derived platelets for transfusion. This program is in the preclinical stage. Since platelets lack a nucleus and cannot form tumors, it is inherently less risky that clinical programs of stem-cell (and especially iPS cell) derived differentiated cells that have nuclei.

Dr. Takahashi’s proposed study of her therapy in humans is considered a “clinical study”, not a clinical trial. In Japan’s regulatory system, clinical studies are less tightly regulated than clinical trials. However, a clinical study cannot by itself lead to approval of a potential therapeutic for clinical use as a treatment. If Dr. Takahashi’s clinical study data is positive, that might attract investors or help her to get approval for a formal clinical trial. As in the U.S. or Europe, successful clinical trials will be required if Dr. Takahashi’s cellular therapy is ever to be used to treat patients.

Dr. Takahashi’s clinical study was approved by institutional review boards at both the natural sciences institute RIKEN in Wako and the Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation in Kobe, where the surgical procedures will be carried out. Final approval will depend on the action of a committee of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. If Dr. Takahashi wins approval by September 2013 as expected, it will take another eight months to produce the tissue implants needed for her clinical study.

Other retinal repair programs involving human embryonic stem cell-derived RPE cells

Dr. Takahashi’s research does not represent the only RPE cell-based retinal repair program now being developed. There are at least two others, both of which are based on hES cells, not iPS cells.

As was not mentioned in the Nature News article, ACT has Phase 1 trials underway in its own RPE retinal repair program. ACT’s RPE cells are derived from human embryonic stem cells (hES cells). The company’s Phase 1 safety studies are in Stargardt’s Macular Dystrophy (SMD) and in dry AMD (which results from atrophy of the RPE layer, and causes vision loss through loss of photoreceptors in the central part of the eye. Dry AMD does not involve angiogenesis.). SMG is a rare inherited juvenile macular degeneration.

In February 2012, Dr. Lanza and his academic collaborators at the University of California at Los Angeles published a preliminary report of their clinical studies in dry AMD and SMG. In this study, one patient with each of the two conditions was treated with hES cell-derived RPE cells. The hES cell-derived RPE cells showed no signs of hyperproliferation, tumorigenicity, ectopic tissue formation, or apparent rejection after 4 months. Neither patient showed loss of vision, and there were signs of improvement of vision. As a result of this very preliminary study, the researchers decided in the design of future clinical studies to treat patients earlier in the disease processes, potentially increasing the likelihood of improvement of vision.

The other RPE-based retinal repair program is a collaborative effort between Neusentis (A Cambridge U.K. and Durham NC-based Pfizer research unit) and “The London Project” which was formed by Professor Pete Coffey [Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL)] and his collaborator Lyndon da Cruz (Moorfields Eye Hospital) to develop cellular therapies for all types of AMD. The London Project began collaborating with Pfizer in 2008; this collaboration was brought under the aegis of Neusentis when it was formed in 2011. Research is based on RPE cells derived from hES cells.

The Neusentis/London Project group claims to have developed a deep understanding of the biology of hEC cell-derived RPE cells, and to have worked out methods of producing enough RPE cells under GMP conditions to support clinical studies. They also claim to have developed a clear approach to establishing the safety of the therapy via preclinical studies. The collaborative group is now moving towards clinical studies of their therapies, which they “hope to achieve in the not too distant future”.

As we discussed in our February 15, 2011 article on this blog, Pfizer–as of February 1, 2011–closed its Memorial Drive laboratory in Cambridge, MA. This laboratory housed most of Pfizer’s regenerative medicine research, as well as the company’s RNAi therapeutics research group. However, as we said in this article, Pfizer was folding its Cambridge, UK regenerative medicine group–”which had been focusing on development of preclinical embryonic stem (ES) cell-based ophthalmology therapies, in collaboration with the University of London”–into a “new pain and sensory disorder research unit”. According to its website, Neusentis, which was formed in 2011, has “a particular focus on pain and sensory disorders”.

Japanese government backing for iPS cell research and commercialization

Japan has been a hotbed of iPS cell research, since these cells were first produced by Shinya Yamanaka, M.D. Ph.D. (Kyoto University) in 2006. He received The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2012 for his work on iPS cells. The co-recipient of the Prize, Sir John B. Gurdon, successfully cloned a frog using intact nuclei from the somatic cells of a Xenopus tadpole back in 1958. The two scientists received the 2012 Prize “for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent”. Since their discovery, iPS cells have been employed in such areas as basic research, disease modeling, and drug screening. (Follow this link for a recently-published example of the potential use of iPS cells in designing personalized treatments for Alzheimer’s disease.)

In 2013, as part of its stimulus package, the Japanese government has been providing generous funding for iPS research. This funding includes ¥700 million for a cell-processing centre at the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation in Kobe, mainly to support Dr. Takahashi’s regenerative medicine research. In general, the iPS funding under the stimulus is aimed at moving university research on iPS cells into commercial and medical applications.

Moreover, according to Mr. Cyranoski’s 27 February 2013 Nature News article, the Japanese parliament is expected to rule by late June 2013 on a provision of a revised drug law, which would fast-track iPS-based therapies that appear to be effective in phase 2 or phase 3 trials. However, the success of the Japanese government’s efforts to accelerate commercialization of iPS-based therapies may depend in part on the success of Dr. Takahashi’s clinical research.

________________________________

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.

Posted in Drug development, Rare diseases, Stem Cells

Haberman Associates in “Pink Sheet” article on the cystic fibrosis drug market

Published by Allan Haberman on March 13, 2013 | Leave a response

Lumacaftor (Vertex’ VX-809)

I was quoted in an article in the March 11, 2013 issue of Elsevier Business Intelligence’s The Pink Sheet by senior writer Joseph Haas. The article is entitled “Cystic Fibrosis Market Snapshot: Disease-Modifying Drugs Elusive 24 Years After Discovery Of Root Cause”. A subscription is required to view the full text of this article.

The article focused on the newly-approved disease modifying drug ivacaftor (Vertex’ Kalydeco), as well as programs in drug discovery and development of disease-modifying drugs for cystic fibrosis (CF) at Vertex, PTC Therapeutics, Proteostasis Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Genzyme. It also discussed pipeline products aimed at treating or preventing life-threatening infections in CF patients at such companies as KaloBios, Insmed, and Savara.

Mr. Haas interviewed me for this article. Most of the content of our interview is available in our February 15, 2013 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog. One company whose R&D program we did not cover in that article is Proteostasis. Proteostasis’ CF program, which is being carried out in collaboration with the Scripps Research Institute, is aimed at discovery and development of compounds that promote CFTR ΔF508 folding and trafficking. This program is in the research and lead optimization stage. We discussed R&D programs at other companies (Vertex, Pfizer) that are also aimed at correction of improper CFTR ΔF508 folding and trafficking in our February 15, 2013 article.

KaloBios’ KB001-A, a bacterial virulence factor-targeting agent

Among the agents aimed at ameliorating life-threatening infections in CF patients that were discussed in the Pink Sheet article is KB001-A, a monoclonal antibody (MAb) agent being developed by KaloBios (South San Francisco, CA). KB001-A is now in Phase 2 development for prevention of Pseudomonas aerguinosa infections in the lungs of CF patients. KB001-A targets an extracellular component of the bacterium’s type III secretion system. This system enables the bacteria to kill immune cells by injection of protein toxins into these cells.

The type III secretion system is an example of a virulence factor. Virulence factors are not expressed by a strain of pathogenic bacteria in vitro, but are expressed only when the bacteria infect a host. Once expressed, they enable the bacteria to colonize the host and cause disease.

In our June 11, 2012 article on this blog, we discussed an antibacterial drug discovery strategy aimed at targeting two related physiological systems that are important in the ability of pathogenic bacteria to cause disease, but are not essential for bacterial proliferation or survival. These systems are virulence factors and quorum sensing. At least by hypothesis, agents that disrupt these systems will prevent pathogenic bacteria from causing disease without selecting for resistant strains of the bacteria. This will give such agents an advantage over conventional antibiotics, which notoriously generate resistant strains when used to treat infections. According to the Pink Sheet article, KaloBios believes that P. aerguinosa bacteria will not develop resistance to KB001-A, which is in accord with this hypothesis.

Another issue with anti-infectives used to treat CF that is discussed in the Pink Sheet article is the definition of a “disease-modifying” agent for CF. We define disease-modifying agents as drugs that ameliorate or cure a disease by targeting the root cause of that disease. However, KaloBios considers KB001-A to be a disease-modifying agent. That is because the company believes that most CF patients die of the effects of P. aerguinosa infection, which causes deterioration of the patients’s lungs. Thus an effective anti-P. aerguinosa agent may produce dramatic increases in patients’ lifespans.

Perhaps the real issue is that one should not classify CF drugs as “disease-modifying” agent and agents that merely treat “symptoms” (as is done in the Pink Sheet article) but should define infections of CF patients as “complications” of the disease. Thus anti-infectives such as KB001-A may effectively treat a major life-threatening complication of CF, without modifying the underlying disease. Such an agent would result in increased lifespans (and improved quality of life) for CF patients, without affecting their underlying disease. As KaloBios asserts, anti-infective agents like KB001-A would be complementary to such disease-modifying agents as ivacaftor.

________________________________

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.

Posted in Drug development, Drug discovery, Haberman Associates, Infectious disease, Monoclonal Antibodies, Personalized medicine, Rare diseases

FDA publishes Draft Guidance on developing drugs for early stages of Alzheimer’s disease

Published by Allan Haberman on February 28, 2013 | Leave a response

Normal and Alzheimer’s brains compared.

Once again, approaches to improving clinical trials for candidate disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are in the news. On February 7, 2013, the FDA issued a Draft Guidance for Industry entitled “Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for the Treatment of Early Stage Disease”.

This document has been distributed for comment purposes only, and the FDA is seeking public comment on the draft guidance for 60 days.

The wording of the Draft Guidance illustrates the extreme difficulty of defining populations with pre-AD or very early-stage AD, and of demonstrating the efficacy of a drug in ameliorating early-stage disease, and/or in preventing its progression to later-stage disease. The document states that the FDA is “open to considering the argument that a positive biomarker result (generally included as a secondary outcome measure in a trial) in combination with a positive finding on a primary clinical outcome measure may support a claim of disease modification in AD.”

However, there is currently no evidence-based consensus as to which biomarkers might be appropriate to support clinical findings in trials in early AD. Moreover, in “pre-AD” or very early-stage AD (i.e., before the onset of overt dementia) mild disease-related impairments are extremely challenging to assess accurately. Thus both measuring clinical outcomes and assessment via biomarkers in very early-stage AD are fraught with difficulty, making determination of drug efficacy extremely difficult. The FDA thus appears to be seeking guidance from industry and from the academic community on how these knotty problems might be solved.

The move toward conducting clinical trials in early-stage AD patients

By issuing the Draft Guidance, the FDA adds its voice to that of an ever-increasing segment of the scientific community that calls for a new focus on conducting clinical trials in early-stage AD. We discussed this trend in our August 19, 2012 and August 28, 2012 articles on the Biopharmconsortium Blog.

As we discussed, this trend is driven in part by the Phase 3 failures of Pfizer/Janssen’s bapineuzumab and Lilly’s solanezumab in 2012. Now–in February 2013–Russell Katz, M.D. (director of the Division of Neurology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research) says, “The scientific community and the FDA believe that it is critical to identify and study patients with very early Alzheimer’s disease before there is too much irreversible injury to the brain. It is in this population that most researchers believe that new drugs have the best chance of providing meaningful benefit to patients.” In line with this statement, the FDA refused to entertain Lilly’s secondary analysis of early stage patients in the solanezumab study that we discussed in our August 28, 2012 blog article. Instead, the FDA mandated that Lilly conduct a new Phase 3 trial that will exclude the moderate-stage patients who hadn’t responded, and focus only on early-stage patients.

Recent news on clinical trials in early-stage AD

Despite the difficulties highlighted in the Draft Guidance in conducting clinical trials in early-stage AD patients, three research groups are actually conducting such trials. We outlined these studies in our August 28, 2012 blog article, and discussed one of these studies, the one begin carried out by Genentech, in greater detail in our August 19 2012 article.

The three studies are:

Roche/Genentech’s Phase 2a trial of its its anti-amyloid MAb crenezumab, in presymptomatic members of a large Colombian kindred who harbor a mutation in presenilin 1 (PS1) that causes dominant early−onset familial AD.

Studies conducted in conjunction with the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN), a consortium led by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis, MO). This study will include people with mutations in any of the three genes linked to early-stage, dominantly-inherited AD–PS1, PS2, and amyloid precursor protein (APP). Initial studies focused on changes in biomarkers and in cognitive ability as a function of expected age of AD onset in people with these mutations. These included changes in concentrations of amyloid-β1–42 (Aβ42) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and amyloid accumulation in the brain. In the first stage of the actual trial, three drugs (which have not yet been selected) will be tested in this population, and changes in biomarkers and cognitive performance will be followed.

The Anti-Amyloid Treatment of Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s (A4) trial, will involve treating adults without mutations in any of the above three genes, whose brain scans show signs of amyloid accumulation. A4 is thus designed to study prevention of sporadic AD (by far the most common form of the disease). It will enroll 500 people age 70 or older who test positive on a scan of amyloid accumulation in the brain. (This is in contrast to the two trials in subjects with gene mutations, who are typically in their 30s or 40s.) A4 will also have a control arm of 500 amyloid-negative subjects. Amyloid-positive and control subjects will be entered into a three-year double-blind clinical trial that will look at changes in cognition with drug treatment. The A4 researchers [led by Reisa Sperling, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard University (Boston, MA), and Paul Aisen, University of California, San Diego] planned to select a drug for testing by December 2012.

Now there is more recent news on two of these trials.

1. On December 13, 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that Genentech and its collaborators [affiliated with the University of Antioquia medical school (Medellin, Colombia), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and the Banner Alzheimer's Institute (Phoenix, AZ)] will begin their $100 million clinical trial of crenezumab with 100 Colombians who carry the PS1 mutation in the spring of 2013. Genentech is contributing $65 million of the study’s $100-million cost. The NIH and the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute (Phoenix, AZ) are financing the remainder.

This story was also reported on December 14, 2012 by Fierce Biotech.

The design of the trial calls for 100 additional patients in Colombia with the same Alzheimer’s-related gene to receive a placebo, and an equal number of other at-risk patients without the gene to take crenezumab. A branch of the trial will include U.S. patients as well. A “branch study” will also be conducted at UCLA, where researchers have discovered a similar genetic disposition among members of an extended family from Jalisco, Mexico. Some 30 individuals from this family who have immigrated to Southern California could participate. Around 150 other U.S. patients with similar mutations will also participate in the trial.

The trial is designed to provide evidence that targeting amyloid with crenezumab at an early stage or even before patients show signs of dementia can have a positive effect on the course of disease.

2. On January 18, 2013, Fierce Biotech reported that the researchers conducting the A4 study have chosen Lilly’s solanezumab as as the first therapeutic drug candidate to be evaluated in the trial. The A4 trial’s principal investigator, Reisa Sperling said that the researchers chose solanezumab (after considering a number of anti-amyloid drugs) because the compound has a good safety profile, and appeared to show a modest clinical benefit in the mild AD patients in Lilly’s Phase 3 trial. The A4 researchers’ confidence in solanezumab grew when this was confirmed via an independent academic analysis by the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), a consortium of academic Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial centers. The ADCS, which was established by NIH, will help facilitate the A4 trial.

The A4 researchers hope that starting treatment with solanezumab before symptoms are present, as well as treating for a longer period of time, will slow cognitive decline and ultimately prevent AD dementia.

After the failure of solanezumab in Lilly’s own Phase 3 studies, and the FDA’s rebuff of the company’s secondary analysis of early stage patients, the A4 study’s choice of solanezumab gives the drug a new lease on life. Meanwhile, Lilly will be continuing its own clinical trial program for solanezumab.

Conclusions

The three clinical trials discussed in this article should allow the scientific and medical community to answer the question as to whether treating patients with pre-AD or very early-stage AD with anti-amyloid MAb drugs can have a positive effect on the course of the disease, and slow or prevent cognitive decline. The studies may also help the scientific and medical community, and the FDA, with issues of evaluation of biomarkers and clinical outcome measures in determining disease prognosis and the efficacy of drug treatments. Given the large size and rapid growth of the at-risk population, finding safe and efficacious disease-modifying preventives and treatments for AD is of increasing urgency.

________________________________

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.

Posted in Biomarkers, Drug development, Monoclonal Antibodies, Neurodegenerative diseases, Personalized medicine, Rare diseases

A new wave of small-molecule disease-modifying drugs for cystic fibrosis

Published by Allan Haberman on February 15, 2013 | Leave a response

Ivacaftor

In our January 24, 2013 article on this blog, we discussed the cases of two genetic diseases, sickle cell disease (SCD) and cystic fibrosis (CF). In both cases, the genetic cause of the disease was identified decades ago. However, no disease-modifying drugs for SCD have yet been developed.

In the case of CF, small-molecule disease-modifying drugs have only recently entered the pipeline. In one case, such a drug–ivacaftor (Vertex’ Kalydeco), was approved both in the U.S. and in Europe in 2012.

In this article, we discuss the development of small-molecule drugs for CF.

Cystic fibrosis

As we discussed in our earlier article, 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 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.

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 a small percentage of CF patients), the mutant proteins reach the cell membrane, but are ineffective in chloride-channel function.

Vertex’ program for the development of small molecule CF drugs

Efforts aimed at the discovery of small-molecule drugs for CF began in 1998, when the nonprofit Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) established its Therapeutics Development Program. This included a drug discovery unit, through which CFF would support both academic and industrial research. An early recipient of CFF funding via this program was a small biotech company, Aurora Biosciences (San Diego, CA). Aurora had developed technology for ultra-high-throughput screening in cellular assays, which they were applying to the discovery of small-molecule drugs for CF. In 2001, Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA) acquired Aurora. Vertex then incorporated Aurora’s technology into its drug discovery programs, including its CF program. Vertex’ CF program received continuing support from CFF.

Vertex researchers screened thousands of drug-like and lead-like synthetic compounds in recombinant mouse cells expressing mutant human CFTR. Positive hits that met criteria for developability were further tested in a rat epithelial cell line that expressed the mutant CFTR. Compounds selected for further study were also tested for rescue of CFTR activity in cultured primary human lung airway epithelial cells from CF patients, which expressed the same mutant CFTRs studied in the recombinant cell assays. Performing the latter studies required isolating the epithelial cells from lung tissue of CF patients. The thick mucus found in CF lungs made this isolation very challenging. According to Vertex researcher and project head Fred Van Goor, researchers had to use tweezers to extract the mucus, in order to isolate the cells. It reportedly took all of 2003 to develop cellular assays (both in primary and recombinant cells) to conduct the drug discovery studies.

Vertex’ high-throughput screening studies resulted in the identifications of two types of lead compounds:

CFTR potentiators, which potentiate the chloride channel activity of mutant CFTR molecules at the cell surface;
CFTR correctors, which partially correct the folding and/or trafficking defect of such mutant CFTRs as ΔF508, thus facilitating exit from the endoplasmic reticulum and deposition of a portion of the mutant CFTR in the cell membrane.

Vertex’ ivacaftor, a CFTR potentiator

The Vertex screening studies discussed in the previous section, published in 2006, resulted in clinical candidates in both the potentiator and corrector classes. The company pursued development of one potentiator compound, ivacaftor (formerly known as VX-770) (Vertex’ Kalydeco). Ivacaftor is indicated only in patients with the G551D (Gly551Asp) mutation in CFTR, which only accounts for around 4% of CF patients.

Ivacaftor was discovered via high-throughput screening as described in the previous section, followed by lead optimization. The compound increased chloride channel function both in recombinant cells carrying mutant CFTR, and in cultured primary human lung airway epithelial cells from CF patients. Ivacaftor was found to be efficacious in opening both CFTR G551D and CFTR ΔF508 present in the cell membranes of recombinant cells. However, because of the retention of CFTR ΔF508 in the endoplasmic reticulum in human lung airway epithelial cells, this compound is not efficacious in treating CF patients carrying this mutation. The lack of efficacy in patients homozygous for CFTR ΔF508 was confirmed in a subsequent clinical trial.

On February 23, 2011, the CFF and Vertex announced that a Phase 3 trial of ivacaftor (then called VX-770) showed marked improvement in lung function in CF patients carrying the CFTR G551D mutation. Treated patients also had significant weight gain, showed reduced sweat chloride (a CF biomarker), and were less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation. The results of this Phase 3 trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Also in 2011, Vertex submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) for ivacaftor. In January 2012, the FDA approved ivacaftor for treatment of CF patients carrying the CFTR G551D mutation. In July 2012, Vertex received European approval for this drug.

Vertex’ lumacaftor (VX-809) and VX-661, CFTR correctors

Vertex is currently developing the CFTR corrector lumacaftor (VX-809). The company has completed Phase 2 studies of a combination of ivacaftor and lumacaftor/VX-809 in CF patients who are homozygous for the CFTR ΔF508 mutation. It is now planning pivotal phase 3 trials of the combination therapy in this patient population. The rationale for the combination treatment is that VX-809 potentates the deposition of CFTR ΔF508 in the cell membrane, and invacaftor potentiates the function of cell-surface CFTR ΔF508.

Vertex is also conducting Phase 2 trials of another CTFR corrector, VX-661, alone and in combination with ivacaftor/VX-770 in CF patients homozygous for CFTR ΔF508.

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s collaboration with Pfizer

The CFF has also been collaborating with Pfizer to discover drugs to treat patients carrying the the CFTR ΔF508 mutation. This collaboration began after the 2010 acquisition by Pfizer of FoldRX (Cambridge, MA). In November 2012, the CFF and Pfizer expanded their collaboration.

The Pfizer/CFF collaboration builds on FoldRx’s cystic fibrosis research program in collaboration with the CFF, which started in 2007. FoldRX (now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer) specializes in discovering and developing drugs to treat diseases of protein misfolding. The correction of protein misfolding clearly applies to CFTR ΔF508 protein.

Under the expanded six-year CFF/Pfizer collaboration, the CFF will invest up to $58 million to support and accelerate the discovery and development of disease-modifying therapies for CFTR ΔF508 CF. The goal of the collaboration is to advance one or more drug candidates into the clinic by the end of the six-year period. The CFF will provide scientific as well as financial support to help advance this discovery program.

Ataluren, for treatment of patients with CFTR nonsense mutations

Ataluren (formerly known as PTC124), is being developed by PTC Therapeutics for various genetic diseases caused by nonsense mutations in critical genes. The drug is currently being investigated for use in patients with nonsense mutation Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD) and cystic fibrosis (CF). PTC Therapeutics’ efforts in CF are supported by a grant from the CFF.

Ribosomes normally translate messenger RNAs (mRNAs) into protein until arriving at a normal stop codon in the mRNA, at which point the ribosome stops translation, resulting in a functional protein. Nonsense mutations, however, create a premature stop signal in the mRNA coding sequence. This causes the ribosome to stop translation before a functioning protein is generated, creating a truncated, nonfunctional protein. This can result in disease.

Ataluren is designed to allow the ribosome to ignore the premature stop signal and continue translation of the mRNA, resulting in formation of a functioning protein. Ataluren does not cause the ribosome to read through the normal stop signal.

The results of clinical trials of ataluren in pediatric (Phase 2a) and adult (Phase 2) patients with nonsense-mutation CF showed that the drug resulted in production of functional CFTR protein and statistically significant improvements in CFTR chloride channel function. Ataluren treatment was also associated with significant reductions in cough frequency and trends toward improvement in pulmonary function tests.

Conclusions

As we discussed in our January 24, 2013 article on this blog, the 1989 identification of the genetic cause of CF did not immediately lead to the development of disease-modifying drugs. Bottlenecks in the pathway from genetic research to small-molecule drugs included understanding the different ways (e.g., deficiencies in chloride channel function, deficiencies in protein processing, blockages in protein translation due to nonsense mutations) in which the many mutations that can cause CF act, and the need to develop effective assays for use in drug discovery.

The 2012 approval of the CFTR potentiator ivacaftor (Vertex’ Kalydeco) in the U.S. and Europe represents a real milestone in CF drug development. Vertex and the CFF should be congratulated on their breakthrough CF R&D program, which required the willingness to pursue a long pathway to development.

Other compounds that target CFTR are in Phase 2 development. All indications suggest that treatment for CF will represent a case of “personalized medicine”, as befits a disease that is caused by multiple mutations that act at different levels of protein synthesis, processing, and function.

As is typical for personalized medicines that target rare diseases, Kalydeco is expensive. The drug reportedly costs upwards of $294,000 for a year’s supply. Vertex says that it will supply Kalydeco free to U.S. patients with no insurance and a household income of under $150,000.

With the interest of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in developing targeted therapies and therapies for rare diseases, the story of the development of small-molecule drugs for CF represents an important case study in drug discovery and development in the 2010s. According to the FDA, the emphasis on targeted drugs and rare diseases has also resulted in the the recent increase in FDA drug approvals; the agency approved 39 new drugs in 2012, which represents a 16-year high.
________________________________

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.

Posted in Drug development, Drug discovery, Personalized medicine, Rare diseases, Strategy and Consulting

FDA approves mipomersen (Isis/Genzyme’s Kynamro)–the first systemically-delivered oligonucleotide drug to reach the market

Published by Allan Haberman on February 1, 2013 | Leave a response

Atherosclerosis. Source: Nephron http://bit.ly/jL6Zos

In our November 20, 2012 Biopharmconsortium Blog article, entitled “Novel hypercholesterolemia drugs move toward FDA decisions”, we discussed two drugs–Aegerion Pharmaceuticals’ lomitapide, and Isis/Sanofi/Genzyme’s mipomersen. These drugs were nearing approval decisions by the FDA, following the recommendations of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee that both drugs be approved for treatment of homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH).

In our December 31, 2012 blog article, we reported that the FDA had approved Aegerion’s small-molecule drug lomitapide (Juxtapid). That left us waiting for “the other shoe to drop”–the decision on the approval of mipomersen.

On January 29, 2013, Genzyme (a Sanofi company) and Isis Pharmaceuticals (Carlsbad, CA) reported that the FDA had approved mipomersen (Kynamro) for the treatment of HoFH. Mipomersen, given as a 200 mg weekly subcutaneous injection, has been approved as an adjunct to lipid-lowering medications and diet for the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with HoFH. In contrast to mipomersen, Aegerion’s lomitapide is an oral drug.

The approval of mipomersen triggered a $25 million milestone payment to Isis from Genzyme.

MIpomersen is an antisense oligonucleotide that targets the messenger RNA for apolipoprotein B. This agent represents the first oligonucleotide drug capable of systemic delivery to be approved in a regulated market. (The two previously marketed oligonucleotide drugs both treat ophthalmologic diseases and are delivered locally.) Mipomersen targets the liver, without the need for a delivery vehicle. Thus mipomersen represents the “great hope” for proof-of-concept for oligonucleotide drugs, including antisense and RNAi-based drugs.

In the January 29, 2013 press release, Stanley T. Crooke, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Board and CEO of Isis, said:

“Kynamro is the first systemic antisense drug to reach the market and is the culmination of two decades of work to create a new, more efficient drug technology platform. As evidenced by our robust pipeline, our antisense drug discovery technology is applicable to many different diseases.” This indicates that Isis considers the approval of mipomersen as a proof-of-concept for its approach to antisense oligonucleotide drug discovery and development, and in particular for its pipeline.

Clinical trials of mipomersen

The FDA approval of mipomersen is based on the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial that enrolled 51 HoFH patients age 12 to 53 years, including 7 patients age 12 to 16 years, who were on lipid lowering medications. The trial found that mipomersen treatment further reduced LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 113 mg/dL, or 25%, from a treated baseline of 439 mg/dL, and further reduced all measured endpoints for atherogenic particles. In March 2010, these data were published in The Lancet.

Safely data for mipomersen are based on pooled results from four Phase 3 trials. Eighteen percent of patients on the drug and 2% of patients on placebo discontinued treatment due to adverse effects. The most common adverse effects of mipomersen treatment were injection site reactions, increases in the liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) , flu-like symptoms, and an abnormal liver function test.

As a result of these safety findings, the label for Kynamro contains a Boxed Warning citing the risk of hepatic toxicity. The label for Aegerion’s Juxtapid (lomitapide) also contains such a Boxed Warning. A Boxed Warning is the strongest warning that the FDA requires.

The FDA is also requiring four postmarketing studies of mipomersen, and wants the developers to carefully track the long-term safety of the drug.

As an antisense drug, mipomersen is metabolized without affecting the CYP450 pathways used in commonly prescribed drugs. It thus is potentially free of drug-drug interactions. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were reported between mipomersen and warfarin, or between mipomersen and simvastatin or ezetimibe.

The safety and effectiveness of mipomersen have not been established in patients with hypercholesterolemia who do not have HoFH. Nor has the effect of mipomersen on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality been determined.

Because of the risk of hepatotoxicity, mipomersen is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) called the Kynamro REMS. The goals of the REMS are:

To educate prescribers about the risk of hepatotoxicity associated with the use of mipomersen, and the need to monitor patients during treatment with mipomersen as per product labeling.
To restrict access to therapy with mipomersen to patients with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis consistent with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH).

Genzyme has also developed an HoFH and Kynamro support program for healthcare providers, patients, and their families.

Wider implications of the FDA approval of mipomersen

Mipomersen achieved FDA approval despite an unenthusiastic 9-6 recommendation for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. This compares to a 13-2 vote to recommend approval of lomitapide. Meanwhile, mipomersen received a negative opinion from a European Medicines Agency panel. And it faces strong competition in the market from lomitapide. Therefore, mipomersen is unlikely to become a large-selling drug.

Nevertheless, Sanofi has been positioning itself around Genzyme (and its rare disease platform) in its drug discovery and development strategy. Therefore, any and all Genzyme/Sanofi drug approvals represent important victories.

Although the FDA Advisory Committee and industry commentators favor lomitapide over mipomersen, they also believe that not all patients with HoFH would be likely to benefit from only one drug. Thus having two alternative drugs may well be better in treating this disease.

Does the approval of mipomersen herald a new age of oligonucleotide drugs? The first antisense agent to reach the market, fomivirsen (Isis/ Novartis Ophthalmics’ Vitravene), which is indicated for treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis in AIDS patients was approved in 1998. However, it is delivered locally to the eye, and has not been profitable.

Even though mipomersen is unlikely to become a large-selling drug, it could become the first commercially successful antisense agent. As stated by Arthur Krieg, M.D., chief executive of RaNA Therapeutics, “What many people have been waiting for is validation where someone actually makes a profit and where patients actually benefit.”

As we have discussed in earlier blog posts, oligonucleotide drugs (especially antisense and RNAi) represent a premature technology. It is therefore not unusual that it would take over 20 years for the first profitable drug in this class to reach the market. This was also recently stated by Dr. Crooke.

Finally, as we stated in our November 20, 2012 blog article:

For oligonucleotide drug developers and enthusiasts, the case of mipomersen–considered the “great hope” for proof-of-concept for oligonucleotide drugs by many in the field–provides several lessons. 1. At the end of the day, oligonucleotide drugs must meet the same standards of safety and efficacy as other drugs. 2. Oligonucleotide drugs may encounter competition from drugs in other classes, such as small molecules or monoclonal antibodies.

________________________________

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.

Posted in Cardiovascular disease, Drug development, Oligonucleotide therapeutics, Rare diseases

HDL drug update

Published by Allan Haberman on January 30, 2013 | Leave a response

Niacin

We have published two articles on high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or “good cholesterol”) raising drugs on this blog:

Can HDL-raising drugs be a big field after all? (May 19, 2011)
HDL-raising drugs revisited (June 1, 2011)

The more recent of these article has received quite a few hits lately. This is probably because of recent news of a clinical trial failure in the HDL drug field. It therefore seems appropriate to publish an update on HDL-raising drug clinical trials, in order to bring our blog up to date.

Update on the trials and tribulations of niacin-based HDL-raising drugs

As of the time of our June 1, 2011 article, high-dose niacin was the only drug that was approved by the FDA for raising HDL. However, generic high-dose niacin can cause adverse effects such as skin flushing and itching. Therefore, two companies, Abbott and Merck, were developing high-dose niacin-based products designed to reduce these adverse effects.

In May 2011, as discussed in our June 1, 2011 article, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stopped a large clinical trial (known as AIM-HIGH) of Abbott’s Niaspan, an extended-release formulation of high-dose niacin, because the drug failed to prevent heart attacks and strokes. There was also a small increased rate of strokes in patients taking Niaspan, which researchers cautioned may have been due to chance. Niaspan remains an FDA-approved drug, and it is now owned by Abbot spin-off AbbVie. However, Niaspan is scheduled to go off-patent later in 2013.

Merck’s high-dose non-flushing niacin product is known as Tredaptive or Cordaptive in different markets. It is a combination product consisting of extended-release high dose niacin plus laropiprant. Laropiprant is designed to block the ability of prostaglandin D2 to cause skin flushing; niacin-induced skin flushing works via the action of prostaglandin D2 in the skin.

In 2008, the FDA rejected Merck’s New Drug Application for Tredaptive/Cordaptive, so the drug remained investigational in the US. However, in 2009 Merck launched Tredaptive in international markets including Mexico, the UK and Germany. The drug has been approved in over 45 countries. Merck had also been conducting a 25,000-person trial of Tredaptive for reducing the rate of cardiovascular events in patients who are at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Merck intended to file for approval of the drug in the US in 2012, based on the results of this trial if it had been positive.

However, on December 20, 2012, Merck announced that its clinic trial of Tredaptive, known as the HPS2-THRIVE Study (Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events), did not achieve its primary endpoint.

As a result of this finding, Merck does not plan to seek regulatory approval for this medicine in the United States. It also–as of January 11, 2013–began a recall of Tredaptive in the 40 countries in which it had been approved. The HPS2-THRIVE Study not only showed that Tredaptive was of no benefit in reducing cardiovascular events in high-risk patients on statins, but it also significantly raised the incidence of such adverse effects as blood, lymph and gastrointestinal problems, as well as respiratory and skin issues.

The results of a new study published online on February 26 2013 showed that around a quarter of all patients taking the niacin/laropiprant combination Tredaptive had dropped out of the trial–compared to fewer than 17% in the placebo arm. This was mostly due to itching, rashes, indigestion and muscle problems. There were also dozens of serious reactions, including 29 cases of myopathy.

Skin-related adverse effects seen in some patients with Tredaptive resemble those seen with high-dose niacin. The addition of laropiprant was supposed to ameliorate these adverse effects, but may not have done so in all patients. As for the serious adverse effects such as myopathy, several medical researchers assert that it is not known whether niacin, laropiprant or drug-drug interactions between these two agents and/or the statin (simvastatin) used in the study was responsible. Simvastatin is known to have adverse interactions with certain other drugs. Moreover, one-third of subjects enrolled in HPS2-THRIVE were Chinese, a patient population that is known to be more sensitive to the effects of statins, especially the 40-milligram dose of simvastatin used in the trial. It was the Chinese patients enrolled in the trial who showed the highest risk of myopathy.

In addition, some of the researchers question whether laropiprant is a “clean drug” that has no effects on atherosclerosis and thrombosis. A recent study has shown aneurysm formation and accelerated atherogenesis in mice with deleted prostaglandin D2 receptors; these receptors are the target of laropiprant. Thus the use of laropiprant may have been a factor in the failure of the trial, as well as in the adverse effects seen in patients treated with the niacin/laropiprant combination.

Full results of the HPS2-THRIVE study will be presented by lead investigator Dr Jane Armitage (Oxford University, UK) on March 9, 2013 at the American College of Cardiology 2013 Scientific Sessions (San Francisco, CA.)

Thus–although generic niacin and Niaspan remain FDA-approved HDL-raising drugs–the results of the AIM-HIGH and the HPS2-THRIVE studies have put niacin-based HDL-raising drugs–and the whole HDL-raising drug field–under a cloud.

Update on development of CETP inhibitors

As discussed in our earlier articles, the development of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors has been a particular focus of several pharmaceutical companies. CETP catalyzes the transfer of cholesteryl esters and triglycerides between LDL/VLDL and HDL, and vice versa. In vivo (in animals and in humans), CETP inhibitor drugs raise HDL and lower LDL.

The clinical failure of Pfizer’s CETP inhibitor torcetrapib in 2006 put a severe damper on development of drugs in this class. However, the toxicity of torcetrapib was found to be due to an off-target effect, and other CETP inhibitors do not display this toxicity. Thus companies have been developing three CETP inhibitors: Roche’s dalcetrapib, Merck’s anacetrapib, and Lilly’s evacetrapib.

However, on May 7, 2012 Roche announced that it had–following the recommendation of an independent group of experts (the Data and Safety Monitoring Board)–halted its Phase 3 trial of dalcetrapib “due to a lack of clinically meaningful efficacy.”

Dalcetrapib’s lack of efficacy might possibly be due to its relatively low potency in raising HDL. Dalcetrapib boosted HDL by 30%, as compared to 138% for anacetrapib and 130% for evacetrapib, depending on the dose. Moreover, anacetrapib and evacetrapib, unlike dalcetrapib, also lower LDL (“bad cholesterol”).

Currently, anacetrapib and evacetrapib are being evaluated in large Phase 3 clinical trials–REVEAL (Randomized EValuation of the Effects of Anacetrapib Through Lipid-modification) and ACCELERATE (A Study of Evacetrapib in High-Risk Vascular Disease), respectively.

Is HDL-raising drug development high-stakes gambling or rational clinical research?

Given the lack of success–so far–in developing a safe HDL-raising drug that lowers the frequency of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, some commentators speculate that attempting to develop HDL-raising drugs such as CETP inhibitors might be a form of high-stakes gambling. Chemist and leading pharmaceutical industry blogger Derek Lowe in particular takes this point of view. As we discussed in our June 1, 2011 article, the biology of HDL is complex. For example, HDL particles in blood serum are heterogeneous, with some HDL particles having a greater degree of positive effects on atherosclerotic plaque biology than others. As a result, treatments (e.g., drugs, diet) that raise HDL, as determined by standard clinical assays for serum HDL, may not necessarily result in clinical benefit, because of qualitative changes in populations of HDL particles.

The unknowns of HDL biology, combined with the need to conduct huge expensive clinical trials and the big payoffs for success in the large dyslipidemia market, convinced Derek Lowe that CETP inhibitor development more resembles gambling (in which only Big Pharmas can play) than rational clinical research. The same, according to Lowe, applies to Alzheimer’s disease drug development. According to Lowe, Big Pharmas may be undertaking these “go-for-the-biggest-markets-and-hope-for-the-best” research undertakings because they think that success in large markets are the only things that can rescue them.

Nevertheless, Steven Nissen, M.D. (chief of cardiovascular medicine at Cleveland Clinic), a veteran HDL researcher who has often been critical of the pharmaceutical industry, persists in running clinical studies of novel HDL-raising drugs. Although he considered dalcetrapib a “long-shot”, he continues to believe that anacetrapib and evacetrapib have a reasonable chance of success. And he has expressed particular enthusiasm for anacetrapib.

Dr. Nissen is involved in clinical trials of Resverlogix’s epigenetic agent RVX-208, a first-in-class small-molecule drug related to resveratrol that induces endogenous production of the protein component of HDL, apolipoprotein A1. On August 28, 2012, Resverlogix reported that RXV-208 significantly increased HDL-C, the primary endpoint of a Phase 2b clinical trial known as SUSTAIN. SUSTAIN also successfully met secondary endpoints–showed increases in levels of Apo-AI and large HDL particles. Both of these are believed to be important factors in enhancing reverse cholesterol transport activity. Safety data from SUSTAIN indicate that increases in the liver enzyme alanine aminotransferase (ALT) reported in previous trials were infrequent and transient, with no new increases observed beyond week 12 of the 24-week trial. Thus the drug appears to be suitable for chronic use.

Thus, despite the features of CETP-inhibitor clinical trials that resemble high-stakes gambling, we must wait for the results of the clinical trials to draw any meaningful conclusions about the prospects for development of these agents. Moreover, other approaches to developing HDL-raising drugs, such as Resverlogix’ epigenetic strategy, may turn out to be superior to older approaches. And as with Alzheimer’s disease, continuing studies on the basic biology of HDL may eventually yield breakthrough strategies to discovery and development of novel antiatherosclerotic drugs.

_________________________________________

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.

Posted in Cardiovascular disease, Drug development, Epigenetics

1 2 … 12 Next →

Search

Biopharmconsortium Blog

Agios Pharmaceuticals files for an IPO

Haberman Associates has a new website!

New findings on mechanism of activation of sirtuins may vindicate Sirtris founders

FDA proposes accelerated approval of early-stage Alzheimer’s drugs based on cognitive improvement alone

Japanese group to take induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell-derived retinal cells into the clinic

Haberman Associates in “Pink Sheet” article on the cystic fibrosis drug market

FDA publishes Draft Guidance on developing drugs for early stages of Alzheimer’s disease

A new wave of small-molecule disease-modifying drugs for cystic fibrosis

FDA approves mipomersen (Isis/Genzyme’s Kynamro)–the first systemically-delivered oligonucleotide drug to reach the market

HDL drug update

Blog Archives

Meta

Categories

Contact Information