[For updated information on gene therapy, please see our articles on this blog dated November 16, 2015 and November 23, 2015.]

The idea of gene therapy has been around since at least the early 1970s. In 1972, an article by Theodore Friedmann and Richard Roblin advanced the concept of treating genetic diseases by replacing defective endogenous DNA with exogenous “good” DNA. However, these authors concluded that it was premature to begin gene therapy studies in humans because of lack of basic knowledge of genetic regulation and of genetic diseases, and for ethical reasons. They did, however, propose that studies in cell cultures and in animal models aimed at development of gene therapies be undertaken. Such studies–as well as abortive gene therapy studies in humans–had already begun as of 1972.

In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers applied such technologies as recombinant DNA and development of viral vectors for transfer of genes to cells and animals to the study and development of gene therapies. In the 1990s, several research groups conducted FDA-approved human studies of gene therapies, based on this technological development and increased knowledge of genetic diseases. However, several notable failures put a damper on development of gene therapies.

The most notorious case was the 1999 death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger, who had ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. In a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania, he was injected with an adenoviral vector carrying a corrected gene to test the safety of use of this procedure. He suffered a massive immune response triggered by the use of the viral vector, and died four days later. As a result of this incident, the FDA suspended several gene therapy clinical trials pending review of ethical and scientific/medical practices.

This incident, as well as the failure of other clinical studies put a severe damper on the gene therapy field, especially attempts at commercialization of gene therapies and of building biotech companies specializing in this field. Nevertheless, between 2003 and 2012, researchers have been quietly developing more advanced gene therapy technologies and conducting clinical studies, with some success. Entrepreneurs have also been building gene therapy specialty companies to commercialize this research.

Now comes the July 20, 2012 ruling by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) that recommends marketing of a gene therapy known as Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec) as a treatment for the ultra-rare genetic disease lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD) under exceptional circumstances. LPLD affects no more than two people per million in the general population. People with LPLD cannot break down fat, and must manage their disease with a restricted diet. However, dietary management is difficult, and a high proportion of patients suffer life-threatening pancreatitis.

Glybera is being developed by a small Dutch biotech called uniQure biopharma. Glybera consists of an adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector that carries the gene for LPL. Therapy consist of multiple intramuscular injections of the product, resulting in the delivery of functional LPL genes to muscle cells.

The European Commission (EC) generally follows the recommendations of the CHMP. At the time of the CHMP ruling, uniQure expected initial approval from the EC within 3 months of that decision. Articles published in Nature and Nature Biotechnology in the late September/early October 2012 period anticipate EC approval in a mater of days or a week or two.

If it is approved in the European Union (EU) as expected, that approval will require that Glybera be offered through dedicated centers of excellence with expertise in treating LPLD, and by specially trained doctors to ensure ongoing safety of the therapy. uniQure is now preparing to apply for approval in the U.S., Canada, and other markets.

uniQure is also using its AAVvector platform as the basis of a series of gene therapies for other rare diseases, including porphyria and Sanfilippo B, as well as what it calls “disruptive innovation” products for such diseases with established treatments as Parkinson’s disease and Hemophilia B.

Does the expected approval of Glybera herald the beginning of a new era of gene therapy?

Jörn Aldag, the CEO of uniQure, believes that “just like antibodies, gene therapy will one day be a mainstay in clinical practice.” Although uniQure is concentrating its development efforts in the area of rare diseases, Mr Aldag believes that “the potential of gene therapy stretches far beyond rare diseases.” He cites a December 2011 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, which describes a study in which 6 patients with hemophilia B were treated (via peripheral-vein infusion) with an AAV vector carrying a proprietary (codon-optimized) human factor IX (FIX) transgene. This treatment resulted in FIX transgene expression at levels sufficient to improve the bleeding phenotype, with few side effects, all of which were easily treatable. Hemophilia B, the second most common form of hemophilia, is nowhere as rare as the ultra-rare disease LPLD. Some of the patients treated with this gene therapy were able to discontinue prophylactic treatment with FIX. uniQure’s program in gene therapy for Parkinson’s disease exemplifies the companies efforts to move beyond the rare disease area.

However, others are not so sure that the approval of Glybera will usher in a new era of gene therapy, at least not in the near future. In particular, Fulvio Mavilio, Ph.D., Scientific Director of Genethon (Evry, France) (a non-profit center for development of gene therapies), does not believe that a large number of patients will be treated with gene therapies in the near future.

Dr. Mavilio cites the “relatively rich pipeline of gene therapy candidates already in human trials,” which  “suggests there may be a surge in the number of gene therapies approved over the next few years.” However, most of the gene therapy clinical candidates are for ultra-rare single Mendelian genetic deficiencies, with similar frequencies in the population to LPLD. The hemophilias (hemophilia A, 1 in every 5,000 male babies diagnosed per year in the US; hemophilia B, 1 in every 30,000 male babies per year) are the most common diseases to be addressed by gene therapies now in clinical development, according to Dr. Mavilio’s article. Moreover, Dr. Mavilio–as well as others–expects safety issues to thwart or slow the development of at least some gene therapies, which will also face competition from existing enzyme replacement therapies similar to those developed by Genzyme.

No gene therapy has yet been approved in the U.S. However, the FDA has established a system that facilitates faster reporting of adverse events in human gene transfer trials and that tracks such trials that are taking place. And uniQure has been planning to work with the FDA to seek U.S. approval of Glybera.

Gene therapy as a “premature technology”

Gene therapy fits the model of a “premature technology”. A field of biomedical science is said to be scientifically or technologically premature when despite the great science and exciting potential of the field, any practicable therapeutic applications are in the distant future, due to difficult hurdles in applying the technology. Moving a premature technology up the development curve requires the development of enabling technologies that can allow researchers and product developers to overcome the hurdles.

The classic case of a premature technology that has moved up the development curve and become successful is the field of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). We discussed the history of MAbs in detail in our September 28, 2009 blog article. The first ever MAb to enter the market, Johnson & Johnson’s Orthoclone OKT3 was approved in 1986 for use in transplant rejection. However, this drug can only be used once in a patient due to its immunogenicity. There were not any further approvals of MAb drugs until 1994. The numerous MAbs that have entered the market since then were made possible by the development of enabling technologies that overcame the immunogenicity problem. Several of these products are highly successful, and there is a rich pipeline of MAb therapeutics now in development.

Commentators on recent developments in gene therapies, including the ones we cited earlier, compare Glybera to Orthoclone OKT3. Given the limited number of patients for whom Glybera is appropriate, and especially given the exceptional circumstances under which Glybera may be prescribed and used, they are likely to be right.

bluebird bio

Among the many companies that are developing gene therapies, one has been singled our for special attention lately. That is bluebird bio (Cambridge, MA). On September 19, 2012, bluebird bio was named to FierceBiotech’s 2012 “Fierce 15”. By naming bluebird bio to the Fierce 15, FierceBiotech is designating the company as “one of the most promising private biotechnology companies in the industry”. “The Fierce 15 celebrates the spirit of being ‘fierce’ – championing innovation and creativity, even in the face of intense competition.” bluebird bio was formerly known as Genetix Pharmaceuticals.

bluebird bio has developed a novel gene therapy platform, in which a wild-type version of a patient’s disease-causing gene, carried in a lentiviral vector, is inserted into autologous CD34+ bone marrow-derived stem cells. These transformed autologous stem cells are then transfused into the patient. This eliminates potential complications associated with donor cell transplantation, or with systemic administration of gene therapy vectors.

bluebird bio’s platform thus represents both a gene therapy technology and an adoptive cellular transfer (ACT) technology. We have discussed ACT technologies (in this case, for immunotherapy for cancer) in a previous article on this blog. Since some of these technologies involve genetically-engineered autologous T cells, they may also be thought of as representing both ACT and a kind of gene therapy. (However, the “gene therapy” in these cases is not directed toward repairing a genetic disease, as  in classic gene therapy.)

For a list of links to bluebird bio publications using this and other gene therapy technologies, see the publications page of the company’s website.

bluebird bio is preparing a pivotal Phase 2/Phase 3 study of its lead treatment, for childhood cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD). The company is also in Phase 1/2 trials for its beta-thalassemia therapy, and in Phase 1 for its sickle cell disease program.

ALD is a rare, inherited neurological disorder that affects one in every 21,000 boys worldwide. It can cause damage to neural myelin sheaths in the brain, and progressive dysfunction of the adrenal glands. ALD is the disease that was featured in the 1992 movie Lorenzo’s Oil. Beta-thalassemias affect one in every 100,000 people throughout the world, with the greatest prevalence in the Mediterranean basin and in South Asia. Sickle cell disease mainly affects sub-Saharan Africans and their decedents, as well as residents of other areas with a high prevalence of malaria. Its prevalence in the U.S. is around 1 in 5,000, in France one in 2,415, and in the U.K. 1 in 2,000.

Thus the diseases that constitute the current focus of bluebird bio are much more common than is LPLD, the target of Glybera. The prevalence of the diseases that are the current targets of bluebird bio resemble the prevalence of “rare diseases” targeted by current Genzyme therapies–Gaucher’s disease (1 in 40,000 in the U.S.), and lysosomal storage disorders (individual diseases, an incidence of less than 1:100,000; total lysosomal storage diseases, an incidence of about 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 10,000).

bluebird bio’s business thus lies in the intersection between gene therapy and the “rare diseases” that are the main targets of an increasing number of biotechs and Big Pharmas.

bluebird bio is backed by several venture capital firms, notably TVM Capital, Third Rock Ventures, and Forbion Capital Partners, as well as by Genzyme (which is now part of Sanofi) and Shire. According to the Fierce 15 press release, bluebird bio is also “exploring a potential set of partnerships”.

Conclusions

In the long history of gene therapy, the expected approval in Europe of Glybera represents a key milestone–if indeed the EC approves the therapy as expected. However, given the very limited number of patients for whom Glybera is appropriate, and the exceptional circumstances under which Glybera may be prescribed and used, this milestone may be analogous to the approval of Orthoclone OKT3. Thus there may be a lag between the approval of the first gene therapy and the beginning of a more steady stream of gene therapy approvals.

However, bluebird bio’s cellular approach may enable it to circumvent many of the pitfalls of gene therapy. Other gene therapy companies may also possess enabling technologies that can help drive the gene therapy field up the technology development curve.

________________________________

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.

Amyloid precursor protein (APP)

As we mentioned in our August 19, 2012 article on Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the results of Phase 3 trials of Lilly’s amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibody (MAb) drug solanezumab, had been expected soon.

On August 24 2012, Lilly announced the top-line results of the two Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled EXPEDITION trials of solanezumab in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. The primary endpoints, both cognitive and functional, were not met in either of these trials.

However, a pre-specified secondary analysis of pooled data across both trials showed statistically significant slowing of cognitive decline in the overall study population, and pre-specified secondary subgroup analyses of pooled data across both studies showed a statistically significant slowing of cognitive decline in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease, but not in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

These results were reported in a press release.  What was absent was data from the trials. However, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), (an academic national research consortium) will present its independent analysis of the data from the EXPEDITION studies at the American Neurological Association (ANA) meeting in Boston on October 8, 2012, and at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) meeting in Monte Carlo, Monaco, on October 30, 2012.

Once again, an amyloid pathway-targeting drug for Alzheimer’s disease that was taken into Phase 3 trials despite Phase 2 results that showed no statistically significant efficacy has failed in Phase 3. Solanezumab joins a list of such failed drugs that includes Myriad Pharmaceuticals’ Flurizan (tarenflurbil), Neurochem’s (now Bellus Health) Alzhemed (3-amino-1-propanesulfonic acid), and as of July 2012, Pfizer/Janssen’s bapineuzumab (“bapi”). Nevertheless, as in the Phase 2 results with bapi, Lilly sees hope for the drug in the results of secondary analyses.

On the day of the Lilly announcement, August 24 2012, Lilly executives and stock analysts turned the results of these trials into something “positive”, as the result of the secondary analysis. This resulted in a one-day 3.4 percent increase in the price of Lilly stock. However, the results of the secondary analysis do not give Lilly any basis for going to the FDA with a New Drug Application (NDA) for solanezumab. Nor do they provide any realistic hope for AD patients, the physicians who treat them, or caregivers of AD patients.

At best, Lilly’s secondary analysis gives rise to a hypothesis–that solanezumab–and presumably other anti-amyloid MAbs–will be effective in treating earlier-stage AD patients, especially those who have not suffered extensive, irreversible brain damage. This is the very same hypothesis that is now being tested by Roche/Genentech in its clinical trials of its anti-amyloid MAb crenezumab, as we discussed in our August 19, 2012 article. Genentech is testing its drug candidate in a Phase 2a trial in a very special population–members of a large Colombian kindred who harbor a mutation in presenilin 1 (PS1) that causes dominant early−onset familial AD.

A News Focus article in the 17 August 2012 issue of Science, written by science writer Greg Miller, PhD, discusses three upcoming clinical trials designed to test the “treat early-stage or presymptomatic AD with anti-amyloid MAbs” hypothesis. One of these studies is the Genentech trial of crenezumab in the extended family in Colombia.

Another of these studies is being 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, published ahead of print in the July 11 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looked at changes in biomarkers and in cognitive ability as a function of expected age of AD onset in people with these mutations. Concentrations of amyloid-β1–42 (Aβ42) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) appeared to decline 25 years before expected symptom onset. This decrease may reflect impaired clearance of Aβ42 from the brain, which may be a factor in the amyloid plaque increase that is associated with AD. Amyloid accumulation in the brain was detected 15 years before expected symptom onset. Other biomarkers, as well as cognitive impairment, were also followed in the study published in the NEJM. 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 third study, known as 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] plan to select a drug for testing by December 2012.

If Lilly wishes to test solanezumab in early-stage (or presymptomatic) sporadic AD, it will need to follow a similar methodology to the studies outlined in the new Science article, especially with respect to the use of biomarkers to define “early-stage” AD and to track the effects of the drug. Studies such as the DIAN biomarker study published in the NEJM used the positron emission tomography (PET) ligand Pittsburgh Compound-B (PiB-C11), to image amyloid plaques. However, the use of this compound is limited by the short half-life of carbon-11 (20.4 minutes). A new PET amyloid imaging agent, Amyvid (florbetapir F18 Injection) was developed by Lilly and approved by the FDA in April 2012. This compound contains fluorine-18, which has a half-life of 109.8 minutes. A recent study indicates that Amyvid provides comparable information to PiB-C11. If Lilly wishes to conduct new studies of solanezumab in early-stage or presymptomatic sporadic AD, it may wish to use Amyvid, as suggested in a comment to an August 24, 2012 solanezumab post in Derek Lowe’s blog “In the Pipeline”. However, the FDA, in its press release announcing the approval of Amyvid, warns that increased amyloid plaque content (as detected by Amyvid or Pittsburgh Compound-B) may be present in the brains of patients with non-AD neurologic conditions, and in older people with normal cognition. Thus defining or detecting “early-stage (or presymptomatic) sporadic AD” is difficult.

In any case, for Lilly to follow up on its secondary analyses of the Phase 3 clinical trials of solanezumab will necessitate additional long and expensive clinical trials, with no assurance of success. Lilly executives will need to determine if such a course is worth the risk, or whether it should invest in other R&D efforts that might have a higher probability of success.

__________________________________________

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 click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

The APP processing pathway

An exciting new study on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) was published in the 2 August issue of Nature. The study was carried out by researchers at deCode Genetics (Reykjavik Iceland) and their collaborators at Genentech and several academic institutions. A News and Views article by leading AD researcher Bart De Strooper and genomics researcher Thierry Voet (both at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) analyzes this study and its implications.

Amyloid plaques are a central feature of AD.  They largely consist of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides. Aβ peptides are formed via sequential proteolytic processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP), catalyzed by two aspartyl protease enzymes–β-secretase and γ-secretase.  The β-site APP cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) cleaves APP predominantly at a unique site. However, γ-secretase cleaves the resulting carboxy-terminal fragment at several sites, with preference for positions 40 and 42. This leads to formation of amyloid-β1–40 (Aβ40) and Aβ1–42 (Aβ42) peptides. APP processing to yield Aβ peptides is illustrated by the figure at the top of this article.

By studying rare, familial cases of early-onset AD, human geneticists have identified three disease genes in these conditions— genes for APP, and for two presenilins, PS1 and PS2. The presenilins are components of γ-secretase, which exists as an intramembrane protease complex. Mainly because of these genetic studies, as well as studies in animal models and postmortem studies of AD brains, the majority of AD researchers have focused on the APP processing pathway and/or on aggregation of Aβ to form plaques as intervention points for therapeutic strategies. The hypothesis that this is the central AD disease pathway is called the “amyloid hypothesis”.

Up until the publication of the new deCode report, of the 30-odd coding mutations in APP that have been found, around 25 are pathogenic, usually resulting in autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Coding mutations at or near the β- or γ-proteolytic sites have appeared to result in overproduction of either total Aβ or a shift in the Aβ40:Aβ42 ratio towards formation of Aβ42, which is the more toxic of the two Aβ peptide. Until now, mutations in APP have not been implicated in the common, late-onset form of Alzheimer’s disease.

In the new deCode study, the researchers studied coding variants in APP in a set of whole-genome sequence data from 1,795 Icelanders. They identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), designated as rs63750847. The A allele of this SNP (rs63750847-A) results in an alanine to threonine substitution at position 673 in APP (A673T). The A673T mutation was found to be significantly more common in the elderly (age 85-100) control group (i.e., those without AD) than in the AD group. The researchers therefore concluded that the mutation is protective against AD.

The researchers also found that in a cohort of individuals over 80, those who were heterozygous for the A673T mutation performed better in a test of mental capacity than did control subjects. The authors concluded that the A673T mutation not only protects against AD, but also against the mild cognitive decline that is normally associated with old age.

In cellular studies (i.e., studies in cultured cells transfected with genes coding for wild type or mutant APP) and in biochemical studies, the researchers found that APP carrying the A673T mutation undergoes about 40% less cleavage by BACE1 than does wild-type APP, resulting in 40% less production of both Aβ40 and Aβ42.

The researchers conclude that the strong protective effect of the A673T mutation against AD provides proof of principle for the hypothesis that reducing the β-cleavage of APP (e.g., by use of BACE1 inhibitors, such as those being  developed by some pharmaceutical companies) may protect against the disease. (However, success in developing BACE1 inhibitors has been elusive.) Moreover, since the A673T allele also protects against cognitive decline in elderly individuals who do not have AD, AD and age-related mild cognitive decline may be mediated through the same or similar mechanisms.

Despite this compelling genetic finding, amyloid pathway-targeting drugs have not shown efficacy in Phase 3 trials

In our January 26, 2010 blog article, we discussed Phase 2 clinical trials of bapineuzumab, a monoclonal antibody (MAb) drug that is specific for Aβ, in mild to moderate AD. In that article, we referred to the drug as “Elan/Wyeth’s bapineuzumab”, after the original developers of the drug. As the result of mergers and acquisitions, the drug is now referred to as “Pfizer/Janssen’s bapineuzumab”. Many commentators call it “bapi” for short.

As we discussed in that article, the overall result of the Phase 2 trial was that there was no difference in cognitive function between patients in the bapi-treated and the placebo groups. However, the study did not have sufficient statistical power to exclude the possibility that there was such a difference. Retrospective analysis of the data from the trial suggested that bapi-treated patients who were not carriers of the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele (ApoE4) showed improved cognitive function as compared to placebo treatment. Given that this conclusion was reached via retrospective analysis, the idea that the bapi was efficacious in ApoE4 noncarriers was only a hypothesis, which would require prospective clinical trials to confirm. Janssen and Pfizer had been conducted large Phase 3 trials of bapi, which they prospectively segregated into ApoE4 carrier and noncarrier groups in order to test this hypothesis.

As of the past several weeks, the results of these Phase 3 trials have come in. On July 23rd, 2012, Pfizer announced the top-line results of an 18-month Janssen-led Phase 3 study of intravenous bapi in approximately 1,100 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease who carry at least one ApoE4 allele. The drug failed to meet its co-primary endpoints (change in cognitive and functional performance compared to placebo) in that study. On August 6, 2012, Pfizer announced the top-line results of the corresponding Phase 3 study of intravenous bapi in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease who do not carry the ApoE4 genotype. Once again, the co-primary clinical endpoints were not met. Based on these results, the companies decided to discontinue all other intravenous bapi studies in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

The bapi development program continues a history of amyloid pathway-targeting drugs that were taken into Phase 3 trials despite Phase 2 results that showed no statistically significant efficacy. For example, we cited the cases of Myriad Pharmaceuticals’ Flurizan (tarenflurbil) and Neurochem’s (now Bellus Health) Alzhemed (3-amino-1-propanesulfonic acid) in our January 26, 2010 blog article.

Leading industry commentator Matthew Herper of Forbes referred to the failure of bapi as “the latest piece of evidence of the drug industry’s strange gambling problem.” Johnson & Johnson (the parent company of Janssen) spent more than $1 billion to invest in Elan and get one-quarter of bapi, and Wyeth (later Pfizer) and Elan put the drug into Phase 3, despite the Phase 2 failure of bapi.

The temptation for pharmaceutical companies to take a chance on an AD drug such as bapi, Flurizan, and Alzhemed is driven by the complete lack of disease-modifying AD drugs, and the thinking that even a not-very-effective drug that receives FDA approval might generate billions of dollars in annual sales. In the case of bapi there was also that tantalizing suggestion that bapi might show efficacy in the subset of patients who lacked ApoE4.

In an August 16, 2012 article in Forbes, Dr. John LaMattina (the former President of Pfizer Global R&D) engages in informed speculation as to why bapi was moved into Phase 3. Dr. LaMattina (in contrast to critics like Mr. Herper, who discounted the ApoE4 retrospective analysis as “data-dredging” that was “likely to be due to chance”) referred to the efficacy signal of the Phase 2 trials as “mixed” due to the ApoE4 analysis. He stated that such “mixed results” present an “agonizing” dilemma for a pharmaceutical company.

In deciding whether to go forward Phase 3 trials of bapi, Dr. LaMattina further speculates that the decision might have been influenced by stakeholders such as AD patient advocates, and scientists who strongly believed in the science behind bapi, especially the amyloid hypothesis. Moreover, bapi had been shown to be relatively safe. In addition, dropping bapi would have caused public relations damage. Dr. LaMattina concludes, based on this analysis, “…this was a situation where these companies were in possession of a relatively safe drug, with a modest chance of success in being efficacious in what may be the biggest scourge that society will face.  How can you not make this investment?” He reminds us that pharmaceutical R&D “is a high risk, high reward business”.

Nevertheless, bapi joined Flurizan and Alzhemed on the list of high-profile amyloid-pathway failures. Now a Phase 3 trial of Lilly’s solanezumab, another MAb drug that targets Aβ, is nearing completion, with the results expected in September. Published Phase 2 results were designed to test safety, not efficacy, and 12 weeks of drug treatment gave no change in cognitive function. Although the results of the Phase 3 trial will not be known until they are reported, analysts expect the drug to fail because of its similarity to bapi.

Why don’t amyloid pathway-targeting drugs show efficacy in clinical trials, despite the compelling genetic evidence for the amyloid hypothesis?

The almost standard answer to that question given by scientists and clinicians who support the amyloid hypothesis is that we have been testing the drugs too late in the course of AD progression, after the damage to the brain has become irreversible. Roche/Genentech is testing this idea in its clinical trials of its drug candidate crenezumab (licensed from AC Immune), which is yet another MAb drug that targets Aβ. In a 5-year Phase 2a clinical trial, Genentech is testing intravenous crenezumab in 300 cognitively healthy individuals from a large Colombian kindred who harbor the Glu280Ala (codon 280 Glu to Ala substitution) PS1 mutation. This mutation causes dominant early−onset familial AD, and is associated with increased levels of Aβ42 in plasma, skin fibroblasts, and the brain. Family members with this mutation begin showing cognitive impairment around age 45, and full dementia around age 51.

Genentech is conducting this trial in collaboration with the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and the National Institutes of Health. The company says that this trial is the first-ever AD prevention study in cognitively healthy individuals. Genentech further says that the trial may help to determine if the amyloid hypothesis is correct–more specifically, it may help to determine if a drug that works by depleting amyloid plaques can be effective in preventing and/or treating AD.

Moreover, Genentech states that there is significant unmet medical need within this Colombian population. This large extended family may have as many as 5,000 living members, and no other population in the world offers a sufficiently large number of mutation carriers close to the age of potential disease onset for a study to determine whether a prevention treatment may work. This effort by Genentech thus represents an application of a rare disease strategy to AD.

It is also possible, however that drugs that work by lowering levels of Aβ will not be efficacious in treating AD, even if administered early in the disease process. This may be true despite the findings of the new genetic study by the deCode Genetics group. For example, in their Nature News and Views article, Drs. De Strooper and Voet remind us that if the A673T mutation indeed works via lowering of Aβ levels, it works via lifelong lowering of Aβ, not lowering of Aβ in patients who already have AD, as in all clinical trials so far of anti-Aβ antibodies. (Even Genentech’s Colombian trial may involve lowering of Aβ levels relatively late in the course of exposure of patients to a disease process that will result in AD.)

Moreover, as these authors speculate on the basis of work on another mutation at the same site in the APP protein, it is possible that the protective effect of the A673T mutation may be due to changing the aggregation properties of Aβ peptides, resulting in a less-toxic form of Aβ. If true, this would mean that the protective effect of the A673T mutation is due to qualitative, rather than quantitative changes in Aβ. In that case, the finding of protection from AD by the A673T mutation might not be as predictive of the efficacy of such Aβ-lowering treatments as the use of anti-Aβ MAb drugs as drug developers might like.
__________________________________________

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 click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Macrophages attack a cancer cell

An article in the June 2012 issue of OncologyLive, authored by the publication’s senior editor, Anita T. Shaffer, reviews cancer immunotherapies now in late-stage clinical trials, and discusses the prospects for the field.

The article begins with a discussion of the recent renaissance of cancer immunotherapy, as exemplified by the April 2010 FDA approval of Dendreon’s Sipuleucel-T (APC8015, Provenge) and the March 2011 FDA approval of Ipilimumab [Medarex/Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS’) Yervoy]. It then went on to discuss the exciting Phase 1 results with Medarex/BMS’ anti-PD-1 MAb, which we featured in the June 28, 2012 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog.

But the bulk of the article was a discussion of the current late-stage (Phase 3) active immunotherapy pipeline. The article’s table lists 14 such agents. If one eliminates Cel-Sci/Teva’s Multikine (which is a mixture of cytokines), that leaves 13 agents, at least most of which can be described as therapeutic cancer vaccines. These products range from dendritic cell vaccines to tumor cell-based vaccines and viruses that encode tumor antigens.

For example, Argos Therapeutics‘ AGS-003 (Arcelis) is an autologous dendritic cell vaccine loaded with the patient’s own messenger RNA (mRNA). This vaccine is in Phase 3 clinical trials in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We mentioned Argos and its technology in our November 25, 2011 article on the late Ralph Steinman, MD, who had discovered the dendritic cell and elucidated its central role in the immune system. Dr. Steinman was a cofounder of Argos. Patient mRNA in Argos’ cellular immunotherapy product encode tumor antigens, which are expressed on the surface of the dendritic cells. The dendritic cells then potentiate the production of tumor antigen-specific T cells which attack the patient’s tumor.

According to a July 2 2012 company news release, AGS-003 is a fully personalized immunotherapy that preferentially targets mutated tumor antigens, which drive disease progression. Patient T cells recognize these antigens as foreign. This enables AGS-003 to direct a specific and potent anti-tumor immune response, without attacking normal tissues.

In a Phase 2 study of a combination of AGS-003 and sunitinib (Pfizer’s Sutent, the standard of care for mRCC), researchers demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between the number of anti-tumor T cells induced and overall survival in mRCC patients receiving AGS-003. Adding AGS-003 to sunitinib doubled overall survival for these patients compared to historical results for unfavorable risk patients treated with sunitinib alone. Over 50 percent of patients in the study survived longer than 30 months after initiating therapy, which is four times the expected rate for sunitinib.

Another type of cancer vaccine is based on modified cancer cells. In our Steinman article, this strategy is represented by BioSante’s GVAX cancer vaccines [now licensed by Aduro BioTech (Berkeley, CA)]. One such vaccine, GVAX Pancreas for pancreatic cancer (which is now in clinical trials) is based on human pancreatic cancer cell lines that have been engineered to secrete the immunostimulant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and have then been lethally irradiated. Since the most advanced GVAX products are in Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, GVAX was not covered in the OncologyLive article.

However, other more advanced immunotherapies, such as NewLink Genetics‘ HyperAcute Pancreas cancer immunotherapy (in Phase 3 trials), also consist of modified cancer cells. HyperAcute Pancreas consists of equal parts of two separate allogeneic pancreatic cancer cell lines engineered to express α-galactosidase (an enzyme that is not expressed by natural human pancreatic tumors).

Another type of cancer vaccine is based on viruses that encode tumor antigens. For example, Bavarian Nordic A/S’ PROSTVAC, a treatment for prostate cancer, is a  sequentially dosed combination of vaccinia and fowlpox poxviruses that encode an altered, more immunogenic form of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) plus three immune enhancing costimulatory molecules ( B7.1, ICAM-1, and Lfa-3).

The late-stage immunotherapies listed in the table in the OncologyLive article include cancer vaccines that represent several design strategies other than the three mentioned here.

Some good news about sipuleucel-T

The OncologyLive article also referred to an abstract presented at the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting, which suggests that the survival advantage for prostate cancer patients treated with sipuleucel-T was significantly greater than the 4.1-month benefit reported in the Phase 3 trial that led to approval of the agent. The analysis reported in this abstract indicates that the overall survival treatment benefit with sipilleucel-T ranged from 4.1 months to  7.8 months.

Conclusions

As illustrated by the number of late-stage cancer immunotherapies in development, as well as the approval of two drugs in 2010 and 2011, cancer immunotherapy is here to stay. One question in the use of such immunotherapies, as highlighted in the OncologyLive article, is how they will be integrated with such established modalities as cytotoxic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and targeted cancer therapies.

Another factor is cost. A course of treatment with sipuleucel-T costs $93,000, and the cost of a course of treatment with ipilimumab is $120,000. However, as pointed out in the OncologyLive article, the total cost of treatment with other modalities that may continue for months or years may be higher. Nevertheless, the cost of cancer therapies, especially those that only increase overall survival by a few months, is a great concern to patients, physicians, and payers.

It must be remembered, however, that nearly all cancer therapies, when first introduced to the market, gave only slightly enhanced survival over older treatments. However, as oncologists learned how to use the therapies better (e.g., with changes in dosing, use in other groups of cancer patients, and/or use in combination therapies), numerous therapies eventually gave long-term remissions or even cures and proved to be cost-effective indeed.

Another issue with the cancer immunotherapy field, as pointed out in the OncologyLive article, is the difficulty of raising capital for cancer immunotherapy specialty companies. This is especially true in the current market, where most biotech companies have difficulty in raising capital. However, what venture capitalists and Big Pharma consider to be “premature technologies” or “unproven” emerging early-stage areas, as is usually the case, have particular difficulty in attracting investment.

Nevertheless, if and when additional late-stage cancer immunotherapy agents successfully complete Phase 3 trials and gain approval, this may demonstrate to investors that cancer immunotherapy has graduated from the premature-technology stage. In that case, cancer immunotherapy specialty companies may find it easier to attract capital, and large pharmaceutical companies may wish to acquire some of these companies. Since Big Pharma already is involved in developing such immunotherapies as anti-PD-1 and anti PD-1L, and ipilimumab is already a marketed Big Pharma drug, that should not be much of a stretch.

__________________________________________

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 click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) held its 2012 Annual Meeting on June 1-5, 2012. Arguably the highlight of the meeting was the June 2, 2012 presentation by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) on its Phase 1 immunotherapeutic, anti-PD-1 (BMS-936558). The results of this study were also published ahead of print on June 2, in the online version of the New England Journal of Medicine. Nature published a “News in Focus” article on the same subject by Nature staff writer Erika Check Hayden in its 6 June issue.

BMS acquired its anti-PD-1 MAb product BMS-936558 (MDX-1106) via its 2009 acquisition of Medarex. This is the same way in which BMS acquired its now-marketed immunotherapy, ipilimumab (Yervoy), which was approved by the FDA in March 2011. Both BMS-936558 and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). Ono Pharmaceuticals has been a partner in the development of anti-PD-1 MAb since its original collaboration with Medarex; Ono retains the right to exclusively develop and market the agent (which is also designated as ONO-4538) in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

PD-1 (“programmed cell death-1”) is a receptor on the surface of activated T lymphocytes of the immune system. PD-1 is a member of the CD28/CTLA4 family of T cell regulators. Like CTLA4, the target of ipilimumab, PD-1 is a negative regulator of T-cell receptor signals. When a protein on the surface of some tumor cells, known as PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), binds to PD-1 on T cells that recognize antigens on these tumors cells, this results in the blockage of the ability of the T cells to carry out an anti-tumor immune response. Anti-PD-1 MAb binds to PD-1 on T cells, thus preventing PD-L1 on tumor cells from binding to the PD-1 and initiating an inhibitory signal. Anti-tumor T cells are then free to initiate immune responses against the tumor cells. This mechanism of action is completely analogous to that of ipilimumab, which binds to CTLA4 and thus prevents negative signaling from that molecule.

Phase 1 clinical study of Medarex/BMS’s anti-PD-1

The Phase 1 clinical study was carried out by a multi-institution team of investigators, led by Suzanne L. Topalian, M.D. (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.) The researchers enrolled patients with advanced melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, renal cell cancer (RCC), or colorectal cancer. Patients received anti-PD-1 at a dose between 0.1 and 10.0 milligrams per kilogram of body weight every two weeks. Tumor response was determined after each 8-week treatment cycle. Patients received up to 12 cycles of treatment until either unacceptable adverse events, disease progression or a complete response occurred. A total of 296 patients received treatment through February 24, 2012.

Among the 236 patients in whom tumor responses could be evaluated, objective responses were observed in patients with NSCLC, melanoma, or RCC. Cumulative response rates (among patients treated with all doses of anti-PD-1) were 18% among patients with NSCLC, 28% among patients with melanoma, and 27% among patients with RCC.  These responses were durable–20 of 31 responses lasted 1 year or more in patients with 1 year or more of follow-up. Anti–PD-1 produced objective responses in approximately one in four to one in five patients with NSCLC, melanoma, or RCC.

In addition to patients with objective responses, other patients treated with anti-PD-1 exhibited stable disease lasting 24 weeks or more–5 patients (7%) with NSCLC, 6 patients (6%) with melanoma, and 9 patients (27%) with RCC.

Significant drug-related adverse effects were seen in 11% of the patients, including three deaths due to pulmonary toxicity. In most cases, adverse effects were reversible, and the observed adverse-event profile does not appear to preclude the use of the drug. A maximum tolerated dose was not reached in this study.

The exciting finding of this study is that anti-PD-1 produced durable responses not only in melanoma and RCC (the two types of cancer that are deemed to be “immunogenic”), but also in NSCLC, a much more common cancer that kills more people per year than any other cancer. Moreover, response rates with anti-PD-1 were much higher that those achieved with the other recently approved immunotherapeutics. In the Phase 3 clinical trial of ipilimumab that led to its approval, this drug gave response rates of 11% in melanoma patients. The other recently approved immunotherapeutic, the prostate cancer-specific dendritic cell vaccine Sipuleucel-T (Dendreon’s Provenge, APC8015), gives very low response rates and no complete responses. According to Antoni Ribas (Jonsson Comp­rehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles CA) as quoted Ms. Hayden’s Nature “News in Focus” review, if an immunotherapy “breaks the 10% ceiling” as did anti-PD-1, it becomes “even more important and clinically relevant”.

Despite the exciting efficacy results with anti-PD-1, and despite the fact that it was deemed that the adverse-event profile did not appear to preclude the use of the drug, researchers would still like to get away from the serious adverse effects (including three deaths) seen with anti-PD-1. As with other immunotherapeutics (e.g., ipilimumab), researchers hypothesize that anti-PD-1’s serious adverse effects were due to autoimmune responses.

Phase 1 clinical study of Medarex/BMS’ anti-PD-L1

A potential way of achieving similar efficacy to anti-PD-1 with an improved safety profile is provided by another Phase 1 immunotherapeutic,  anti-PD-L1. Anti-PD-L1 MAb drugs are being developed by Medarex/BMS, Roche/Genentech, and other companies. As mentioned earlier, PD-L1 is the binding partner of PD-1 that is expressed on some tumor cells. As quoted in the Nature “News in Focus” review, Ira Mellman (vice-president of research oncology at Genentech), believes that anti-PD-L1 might have fewer adverse effects than anti-PD-1. That is because anti-PD-L1 would target tumor cells while leaving T cells free to participate in immune networks that work to prevent autoimmune reactions.

The results of a Phase 1 clinical study of BMS/Medarex’ anti-PD-L1 (also known as MDX-1105) were also published ahead of print in the online version of the New England Journal of Medicine on June 2, 2012; this was a “companion study” to the Phase 1 study of anti-PD-1. This study was also carried out by a multi-institution team of investigators, led by Julie R. Brahmer, M.D. (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.); Dr. Topalian, among other investigators on the anti-PD-1 trial, also participated in the study.

This Phase 1 trial was a dose escalation study that was carried out via a similar protocol to the anti-PD-1 trial discussed earlier. As of February 24, 2012, a total of 207 patients — 75 with NSCLC, 55 with melanoma, 18 with colorectal cancer, 17 with RCC, 17 with ovarian cancer, 14 with pancreatic cancer, 7 with gastric cancer, and 4 with breast cancer — had received anti–PD-L1 antibody, for a median duration of 12 weeks. Among patients with an evaluable response, an objective response (i.e., a complete or partial response) was seen in 17% of patients with melanoma, 12% of patients with RCC, 10% of patients with NSCLC, and 6% of patients with ovarian cancer. Responses lasted for 1 year or more in 8 of 16 patients with at least 1 year of follow-up. Prolonged disease stabilization was seen in 12-41% of patients with advanced cancers, including NSCLC, melanoma, and RCC.

Significant drug-related adverse effects were seen in 9% of patients.

Although the two agents were not compared directly in a randomized trial, the frequency of objective responses for anti–PD-L1 MAb appears to be somewhat lower than that observed for anti–PD-1 MAb in initial Phase 1 trials; the frequency and severity of significant drug-related adverse events also appears to be lower. However, whether these differences will hold up in Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials remains to be determined. The clinically appropriate dose of anti–PD-L1 will also require further definition later studies. Nevertheless, the Phase 1 trial showed that anti-PD-L1 MAb induced durable tumor regression (objective response rate of 6-17%) and prolonged disease stabilization (rate of 12-41% at 24 weeks) in patients with select advanced cancers, including NSCLC, a tumor type that had been deemed to be “non-immunogenic”. This is essentially the same result that was observed for anti-PD-1MAb.

A predictive biomarker for treatment with anti-PD-1?

As with other modes of cancer therapy, it would be very useful to have mechanism-based predictive biomarkers to identify appropriate candidates for treatment with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy. The findings of the Phase 1 anti-PD-1 study suggest that PD-L1 expression in tumors is a candidate biomarker that warrants further evaluation for use in selecting patients for immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 MAb. The researchers found that 36% of patients with PD-L1–positive tumors achieved an objective response, while no patients with PD-L1–negative tumors achieved such a response. These results suggest that PD-L1 expression on the surface of tumor cells in pre-treatment tumor specimens may be associated with an objective response. However, further studies will be necessary to define the role of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker of response to anti–PD-1 therapy. Similarly, it appears reasonable that tumor expression of PD-L1 may be a predictive biomarker of response to anti-PD-L1 therapy. However, this hypothesis must also be tested in further clinical studies.

Further studies of anti-PD-1 MAb

Two studies of BMS-936558/MDX-1106 anti–PD-1 MAb, both in advanced/metastatic clear-cell RCC, are now recruiting patients. One trial is a Phase 1 biomarker study involving immunologic and tumor marker correlates of efficacy (progression-free survival and tumor response). The other trial is a Phase 2 efficacy (progression-free survival and tumor response) study; this is a dose ranging study that is designed to determine if a dose response exists. Phase 3 studies of BMS-936558/MDX-1106 anti–PD-1 MAb for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, and renal-cell cancer are also being planned.

Conclusions

The exciting results of the studies with BMS’ anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 have only been in Phase 1 studies. Thus caution is advisable in interpreting these results, pending the results of further clinical studies. Nevertheless, these results, together with the recent approval of ipilimumab (Medarex/Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Yervoy) and of Sipuleucel-T (Dendreon’s Provenge), indicate that cancer immunotherapy, a field that not so long ago was regarded as an impractical dream, is very much alive and well. In addition to clinical development and approval of immunotherapeutic agents, exciting basic and drug discovery research in this field is ongoing. This was recognized by the awarding of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for research with profound implications for the development of cancer immunotherapies.

The Biopharmconsortium Blog has been covering new developments in cancer immunotherapy since the spring of 2011. Our earlier articles on this subject (with links) are listed in our December 31, 2011 article, entitled “Read the cancer immunotherapy review in the 22 December 2011 issue of Nature!”

Cancer immunotherapy represents one of several “scientifically premature” or “frontier science” areas discussed in this blog that are providing new opportunities for drug discovery and development–for young entrepreneurial biotech start-ups and for more established biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Corporate strategists would do well to explore such areas for potential new R&D programs for their companies.

__________________________________________

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 click here. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.