FDA lets blue­bird re­sume tri­als for sick­le cell gene ther­a­py af­ter can­cer scare, but big ques­tions linger over field

Blue­bird bio an­nounced that the FDA has lift­ed its holds on clin­i­cal tri­als for their gene ther­a­pies for sick­le dis­ease and be­ta-tha­lassemia, end­ing a 4-month saga that be­gan af­ter the biotech re­port­ed that two pa­tients had come down with can­cer and a can­cer-like con­di­tion.

Reg­u­la­tors were con­cerned that the cas­es may have been trig­gered by the virus blue­bird us­es to de­liv­er a healthy gene for he­mo­glo­bin in­to pa­tients with rare blood dis­or­ders, as had hap­pened in a 2004 gene ther­a­py tri­al that re­lied on a sim­i­lar virus. Blue­bird large­ly al­layed those con­cerns in March, when they re­leased a ge­net­ic analy­sis show­ing that the virus didn’t in­ter­fere with the pa­tient’s DNA in a way like­ly to trig­ger can­cer, but ex­perts say the cas­es have broad­ly raised con­cerns about the risks any of the more than half dozen of sick­le dis­ease gene ther­a­pies now in clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment may pose.

Ak­shay Shar­ma, a pe­di­atric bone mar­row spe­cial­ist at St. Jude, said doc­tors al­ready knew peo­ple with sick­le cell dis­ease are at greater risk of de­vel­op­ing leukemia. But the cas­es high­light­ed how any form of ge­net­ic ma­nip­u­la­tion — in­clud­ing the CRISPR-based ap­proach­es Ver­tex, No­var­tis, Beam and oth­ers are pur­su­ing — could ex­ac­er­bate that pre­dis­po­si­tion.

Ak­shay Shar­ma

“We def­i­nite­ly need more re­search to un­der­stand ex­act­ly what is this pre­dis­po­si­tion, and once we know it, on­ly then will we sat­is­fac­to­ri­ly an­swer this ques­tion: Is it safe or not?” Shar­ma, who has served as an in­ves­ti­ga­tor on gene ther­a­py tri­als, told End­points News. “And I think the an­swer may be in the mid­dle. Per­haps these ge­net­ic ther­a­pies are safe for most pa­tients, but some pa­tients are at greater risk.”

For blue­bird, the hold was an­oth­er in a se­ries of set­backs the Cam­bridge biotech has faced in the years since they first showed da­ta from a hand­ful of pa­tients sug­gest­ing that their gene ther­a­py can be a func­tion­al cure for sick­le cell dis­ease. Un­able to prove to the FDA they could man­u­fac­ture their prod­uct safe­ly at scale, they’ve re­peat­ed­ly pushed back the date for fil­ing for ap­proval.

Most re­cent­ly, they pushed their time­line in­to late 2022, al­though that was be­fore the FDA hold came down. The de­lays have al­lowed Ver­tex and CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics to catch up with a gene edit­ing ap­proach that en­tered the clin­ic five years lat­er. The two now be­lieve they will be first-to-mar­ket with a sick­le cell cure, which could pro­vide a ma­jor com­mer­cial ad­van­tage.

Nev­er­the­less, the FDA de­ci­sion re­newed in­vestor faith in blue­bird’s path ahead. The stock $Blue rose 6% in pre-mar­ket trad­ing, from $30.92 to $33.00.

In Feb­ru­ary, blue­bird an­nounced that a sick­le cell pa­tient who re­ceived their gene ther­a­py five years pri­or was di­ag­nosed with acute myeloid leukemia. A sec­ond, they said, had been di­ag­nosed with a sus­pect­ed case of myelodys­plas­tic syn­drome, a can­cer-like dis­ease that oc­curs in the bone mar­row. They lat­er said the lat­ter case was in fact a mis­di­ag­nosed case of trans­fu­sion-de­pen­dent ane­mia.

Al­though blue­bird’s analy­sis showed that the virus blue­bird us­es — a re-en­gi­neered form of HIV, called a lentivirus — didn’t in­ter­fere with genes known to cause can­cer, Shar­ma said the ther­a­py could have el­e­vat­ed the pa­tients’ risks in oth­er ways. It could have made more sub­tle ge­net­ic al­ter­ations, or the chemother­a­py “con­di­tion­ing” reg­i­ment pa­tients pri­or to the ther­a­py could have made them more sus­cep­ti­ble.

Af­ter a pa­tient who re­ceived blue­bird’s ther­a­py was di­ag­nosed with myelodys­plas­tic syn­drome in 2018, the com­pa­ny at­trib­uted it to the chemother­a­py.

Re­cent stud­ies, Shar­ma not­ed, have linked the risk of leukemia af­ter a trans­plant to spe­cif­ic ge­net­ic mu­ta­tions. Re­searchers need to de­vel­op meth­ods of screen­ing for pa­tients who have that mu­ta­tion and po­ten­tial­ly oth­er mu­ta­tions that could put them at greater risk and quan­ti­fy pre­cise­ly how high that risk is. They will al­so need ways of min­i­miz­ing those risks, such as by de­vel­op­ing safer al­ter­na­tives to chemother­a­py — a task com­pa­nies such as Ma­gen­ta and Jasper Ther­a­peu­tics are now work­ing on.

He em­pha­sized that it would not be a prob­lem just for blue­bird but to any of the near­ly dozen at­tempts to cure sick­le cell dis­ease now at or near the clin­ic.

“If some­body has a pre­dis­po­si­tion,” he said, “any type of ge­net­ic al­ter­ation or ex­po­sure to chemother­a­py could ac­cel­er­ate that and lead to leukemia.”

Un­lock­ing ESG strate­gies for growth with Gilead Sci­ences

RBC Capital Markets explores what is material in ESG for biopharma companies with the ESG leads at Gilead Sciences. Gilead has long focused on sustainability but recognized a more robust framework was needed. Based on a materiality assessment, Gilead’s ESG strategy today focuses first on drug access and pricing, while also addressing D&I and climate change. Find out why Gilead’s board is “acutely aware” of the contribution that ESG makes to firm’s overall success.

On the hunt for the next Mod­er­na, in­vestors have pumped 'plat­form plays' with cash. Can any­thing slow the run­away train?

It didn’t take an expert to see that mRNA platforms could be huge.

Julie Sunderland partnered with both Moderna and BioNTech about a decade ago while she was running program-related investments for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — and even then the potential for their platforms was obvious despite some well-founded concerns about whether the next-gen tech would ever cross the finish line.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Ken Frazier, Merck CEO (Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Mer­ck­'s Keytru­da blazes a path in first-line cer­vi­cal can­cer, mak­ing good on drug­mak­er's push for ear­li­er pa­tients

In the years since I/O wonder drug Keytruda’s initial approval, Merck has struck an aggressive clinical trial program, which is now firmly focused on earlier lines of therapy. The drugmaker has scored some success there so far, and now it’s earned one of its biggest wins yet.

Keytruda plus chemotherapy with or without background Avastin significantly extended patients’ lives over those dosed with a placebo control in first-line patients with persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer, according to top-line data from the Phase III KEYNOTE-826 study revealed Tuesday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Neu­rona Ther­a­peu­tics is dash­ing to the clin­ic with its cell ther­a­py for epilep­sy — but first, an­oth­er ven­ture round

Six years ago, a band of neuroscientists from the University of California, San Francisco combined decades of research and jumped into the hunt for an off-the-shelf cell therapy. Now, that team is sprinting toward the clinic with a treatment for epilepsy — but first, it’s making a pit stop at the venture well.

Neurona Therapeutics unveiled a $41.5 million round on Tuesday morning, bringing the San Francisco-based biotech’s total raise to $135 million. The cash will be used to advance the company’s pipeline, including an upcoming Phase I/IIa for its lead candidate, NRTX-1001, in chronic focal epilepsy.

Fred Upton and Diana DeGette

New DARPA-like NIH agency preps for re­al­i­ty as E&C un­veils bi­par­ti­san Cures 2.0 draft bill

House Energy & Commerce leaders Fred Upton (R-MI) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) on Tuesday released new draft legislation with wide-ranging implications for public health, the FDA, NIH, and that would create a new, $6.5 billion federal advanced research agency under NIH, with an aim to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s and other difficult diseases.

Similar to DARPA, the new NIH division to be known as ARPA-H, would be run by a small group of program managers with more latitude to pursue high-risk, high-reward projects that other government agencies would likely shy away from.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) with reporters in the Senate Subway (Graeme Sloan/Sipa via AP Images)

Top Wyden pri­or­i­ty for drug price re­forms: Medicare ne­go­ti­a­tions

As the Biden administration tries to wrangle the details of its infrastructure bill, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) took a concrete step forward on drug pricing reforms on Tuesday and unveiled five principles for such reforms, including providing Medicare with the ability to negotiate prices.

“Allowing the Secretary of HHS to negotiate the price Medicare will pay creates a much needed mechanism to achieve fairer prices when the market has failed to do so,” Wyden wrote.

End­points News is now 5 years old. Here's how you can sup­port us for the next phase of growth

Endpoints News turned five years old over the weekend. I wanted to mark the happy occasion by extending our deepest gratitude to Endpoints’ premium subscribers while outlining several other ways to support us as we go broader and get bigger this year and beyond.

Same as any business, we’ve got to create value and get paid for delivering it. So if you depend on Endpoints to stay abreast on biopharma developments, we depend on you too.

Emma Walmsley, GlaxoSmithKline CEO (Credit: Fang Zhe/Xinhua/Alamy Live News)

Ac­tivist in­vestor El­liott in talks with oth­er Glax­o­SmithK­line in­vestors about re­plac­ing Em­ma Walm­s­ley, spin­ning off vac­cine busi­ness — re­port

As Emma Walmsley reveals details this Wednesday about the upcoming split of GlaxoSmithKline’s pharma and consumer units, some tough questions may be coming her way.

Elliott Management, the activist investor that’s previously threatened an attack on GSK (but eventually backed off), is floating more radical changes like replacing the CEO, further breaking up the company and spinning out the vaccine unit, or reviewing the focus on cancer drugs, the Financial Times reported.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche's Alzheimer's drug spurred bio­mark­er changes but no cog­ni­tive im­pact — pa­per; vTv out-li­cens­es for­mer lead pro­gram

More than a year ago, Roche and Eli Lilly were forced to contend with a Phase II/III failure of their respective Alzheimer’s drugs. But while Eli Lilly essentially threw in the towels, Roche wasn’t ready to give up yet.

The Swiss drugmaker now has some biomarker data to spotlight as investigators continue monitoring patients in an open-label extension study.

Dubbed DIAN-TU, the study had been designed to see whether Roche’s gantenerumab and Lilly’s solanezumab could spur a cognitive benefit for a group of patients who had a rare, inherited form of Alzheimer’s that’d tied to early-onset. In short, they didn’t: Both failed the primary endpoint.