Al­ny­lam achieves break­through RNAi suc­cess as PhI­II patisir­an study hits all goals, shares soar

Al­ny­lam in­vestors $AL­NY can now start breath­ing again.

The big Cam­bridge, MA-based biotech says that their Phase III study of patisir­an — part­nered with Sanofi — scored a pos­i­tive hit for the pri­ma­ry as well as all sec­ondary end­points in treat­ing rare cas­es of hered­i­tary AT­TR amy­loi­do­sis with polyneu­ropa­thy.


The score sets up Al­ny­lam’s first new drug ap­pli­ca­tion with the FDA be­fore the end of this year with a Eu­ro­pean fil­ing fol­low­ing soon af­ter, while Sanofi gears up for a slate of ap­pli­ca­tions around the globe.

Shares of Al­ny­lam shot up more than 20% in pre-mar­ket trad­ing Wednes­day, as the com­pa­ny added to a mar­ket cap that start­ed to­day at just un­der $7 bil­lion. But it didn’t stop there, with shares up 32% in ear­ly trad­ing as ex­cite­ment about the news spread fast. By mid-af­ter­noon, the stock was up 49%, worth more than $3 bil­lion in mar­ket cap.

Al­ny­lam’s gung-ho CEO John Maraganore, who has steered the com­pa­ny through calm seas and mael­stroms for more than a decade as he pi­o­neered one of the biggest RNA ven­tures in the in­dus­try, was clear­ly beam­ing as the in­dus­try ea­ger­ly pounced on the news of the first pos­i­tive Phase III study for an RNAi drug. He said:

This mo­ment is the cul­mi­na­tion of a 15-year jour­ney of tire­less work by count­less con­trib­u­tors who have over­come enor­mous sci­en­tif­ic and busi­ness chal­lenges to make RNAi ther­a­peu­tics a re­al­i­ty.

Sanofi, which bet big on Al­ny­lam when it in­vest­ed $700 mil­lion in­to the com­pa­ny more than three years ago, al­so cheered the re­sults.

The suc­cess for patisir­an comes af­ter some big clin­i­cal set­backs for Al­ny­lam, which has been dogged for years over the safe­ty is­sues raised by RNAi ther­a­pies. About 8 years ago big phar­ma large­ly bailed on RNAi, dis­turbed by the de­vel­op­ment chal­lenges and the time it would take to de­liv­er ma­jor new ther­a­pies. But Maraganore nev­er flinched, in­sist­ing through­out that his com­pa­ny could de­liv­er on its pipeline promis­es.

All we know right now is what the top line re­sults are.

The pri­ma­ry end­point for the study was the change from base­line in the mod­i­fied neu­ropa­thy im­pair­ment score, where re­searchers reg­is­tered a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant re­sult. Pa­tients on patisir­an al­so scored an im­prove­ment in their qual­i­ty of life. And there were hits on all 5 sec­on­daries:

NIS-W, the sub­do­main of mNIS+7 as­sess­ing mus­cle strength;

Rasch-built Over­all Dis­abil­i­ty Scale (R-ODS), a pa­tient re­port­ed out­come mea­sure of dai­ly liv­ing and dis­abil­i­ty;

10-me­ter walk test, as­sess­ing gait speed;

Mod­i­fied body mass in­dex (mB­MI), as­sess­ing nu­tri­tion­al sta­tus; and

COM­PASS-31, a ques­tion­naire to as­sess au­to­nom­ic symp­toms.

In ad­di­tion, while de­tails are lack­ing, the safe­ty pro­file looked good. Pa­tients in both groups ex­pe­ri­enced ad­verse events, but the drug arm com­pared fa­vor­ably with what we know about the place­bo group. Paul Mat­teis at Leerink not­ed:

In the wake of the re­cent fi­tusir­an set­back – and al­so the dis­con­tin­u­a­tion of re­vusir­an last fall – the pos­i­tive patisir­an re­sult with seem­ing­ly clean safe­ty is like­ly to im­prove sen­ti­ment sig­nif­i­cant­ly. Specif­i­cal­ly, the mor­tal­i­ty rate in the patisir­an arm (4.7%) was low­er than that seen on place­bo (7.8%); giv­en the small N it’s de­bat­able whether or not this con­sti­tutes a true im­prove­ment, but in any case it’s very en­cour­ag­ing with re­spect to RNAi safe­ty. Iron­i­cal­ly, more re­cent set­backs for AL­NY (re­vusir­an and then fi­tusir­an) have come from next-gen RNAi com­pounds that do not uti­lize the old­er, lipid­nanopar­ti­cle tech­nol­o­gy, which is the case for patisir­an. But even de­spite this dif­fer­ence, we ex­pect the re­sult this morn­ing to read pos­i­tive­ly on the plat­form and tech­nol­o­gy over­all.

But it won’t help Io­n­is, which has a com­pet­ing ther­a­py. That drug is now be­ing con­sid­ered an al­so ran against Al­ny­lam’s ther­a­py, with some an­a­lysts ex­pect­ing patisir­an to claim an 80% mar­ket share. Io­n­is stock $IONS plunged 10% this morn­ing.

Maraganore, this year’s BIO chair­man, is one of the most fa­mil­iar fig­ures in the biotech world. And he had plen­ty of sup­port to­day from the cheer­ing sec­tion on Twit­ter.

“This is a sig­nif­i­cant mile­stone that sup­ports our be­lief that RNAi ther­a­peu­tics have the po­ten­tial to be­come an in­no­v­a­tive new class of med­i­cines for pa­tients with rare ge­net­ic dis­eases,” said Elias Zer­houni, the pres­i­dent of R&D at Sanofi. “The APOL­LO da­ta sug­gest that patisir­an could help im­prove the lives of peo­ple liv­ing with hAT­TR amy­loi­do­sis with polyneu­ropa­thy, a pa­tient pop­u­la­tion in ur­gent need of ad­di­tion­al treat­ment op­tions. We look for­ward to work­ing with Al­ny­lam to make patisir­an avail­able around the globe as quick­ly as pos­si­ble.”

 

Nick Leschly via Getty

UP­DAT­ED: Blue­bird shares sink as an­a­lysts puz­zle out $1.8M stick­er shock and an un­ex­pect­ed de­lay

Blue­bird bio $BLUE has un­veiled its price for the new­ly ap­proved gene ther­a­py Zyn­te­glo (Lenti­Glo­bin), which came as a big sur­prise. And it wasn’t the on­ly un­ex­pect­ed twist in to­day’s sto­ry.

With some an­a­lysts bet­ting on a $900,000 price for the β-tha­lassemia treat­ment in Eu­rope, where reg­u­la­tors pro­vid­ed a con­di­tion­al ear­ly OK, blue­bird CEO Nick Leschly said Fri­day morn­ing that the pa­tients who are suc­cess­ful­ly treat­ed with their drug over 5 years will be charged twice that — $1.8 mil­lion — on the con­ti­nent. That makes this drug the sec­ond most ex­pen­sive ther­a­py on the plan­et, just be­hind No­var­tis’ new­ly ap­proved Zol­gens­ma at $2.1 mil­lion, with an­a­lysts still wait­ing to see what kind of pre­mi­um can be had in the US.

Ted Love. HAVERFORD COLLEGE

Glob­al Blood Ther­a­peu­tics poised to sub­mit ap­pli­ca­tion for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval, with new piv­otal da­ta on its sick­le cell dis­ease drug

Global Blood Therapeutics is set to submit an application for accelerated approval in the second-half of this year, after unveiling fresh data from a late-stage trial that showed just over half the patients given the highest dose of its experimental sickle cell disease drug experienced a statistically significant improvement in oxygen-wielding hemoglobin, meeting the study's main goal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

News­mak­ers at #EHA19: Re­gen­eron, Ar­Qule track progress on re­sponse rates

Re­gen­eron’s close­ly-watched bis­pe­cif­ic con­tin­ues to ring up high re­sponse rates

Re­gen­eron’s high-pro­file bis­pe­cif­ic REGN1979 is back in the spot­light at the Eu­ro­pean Hema­tol­ogy As­so­ci­a­tion sci­en­tif­ic con­fab. And while the stel­lar num­bers we saw at ASH have erod­ed some­what as more blood can­cer pa­tients are eval­u­at­ed, the re­sponse rates for this CD3/CD20 drug re­main high.

A to­tal of 13 out of 14 fol­lic­u­lar lym­phomas re­spond­ed to the drug, a 93% ORR, down from 100% at the last read­out. In 10 out of 14, there was a com­plete re­sponse. In dif­fuse large B-cell lym­phoma the re­sponse rate was 57% among pa­tients treat­ed at the 80 mg to 160 mg dose range. They were all com­plete re­spons­es. And 2 of these Cars were for pa­tients who had failed CAR-T ther­a­py.

Neil Woodford, Woodford Investment Management via YouTube

Un­der siege, in­vest­ment man­ag­er Wood­ford faces an­oth­er in­vest­ment shock

Em­bat­tled UK fund man­ag­er Neil Wood­ford — who has con­tro­ver­sial­ly blocked in­vestors from pulling out from his flag­ship fund to stem the blood­let­ting, af­ter a slew of dis­ap­point­ed in­vestors fled fol­low­ing a se­ries of sour bets — is now pay­ing the price for his ac­tions via an in­vestor ex­o­dus on an­oth­er fund.

Har­g­reaves Lans­down, which has in the past sold and pro­mot­ed the Wood­ford funds via its re­tail in­vest­ment plat­form, has re­port­ed­ly with­drawn £45 mil­lion — its en­tire po­si­tion — from the in­vest­ment man­ag­er’s In­come Fo­cus Fund.

Search­ing for the next block­buster to fol­low Darza­lex, J&J finds a $150M an­ti-CD38 drug from part­ner Gen­mab

Now that J&J and Genmab have thrust Darzalex onto the regulatory orbit for first-line use in multiple myeloma, the partners are lining up a deal for a next-gen follow-on to the leading CD38 drug.


Janssen — J&J’s biotech unit — has its eyes on HexaBody-CD38, a preclinical compound generated on Genmab’s tech platform designed to make drugs more potent via hexamerization.


Genmab is footing the bill on studies in multiple myeloma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; once it completes clinical proof of concept, Janssen has the option to license the drug for a $150 million exercise fee. There’s also $125 million worth of milestones in play.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gene ther­a­pies seize the top of the list of the most ex­pen­sive drugs on the plan­et — and that trend has just be­gun

Anyone looking for a few simple reasons why the gene therapy field has caught fire with the pharma giants need only look at the new list of the 10 most expensive therapies from GoodRx.

Two recently approved gene therapies sit atop this list, with Novartis’ Zolgensma crowned the king of the priciest drugs at $2.1 million. Right below is Luxturna, the $850,000 pioneer from Spark, which Roche is pushing hard to acquire as it adds a gene therapy group to the global mix.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Savara shares are crushed as PhI­II tri­al flunks pri­ma­ry, key sec­on­daries — but they can’t stop be­liev­ing

In­vestors are in no mood to hear biotechs tout the suc­cess of a “key” sec­ondary end­point when the piv­otal Phase III flunks the pri­ma­ry goal. Just ask Savara. 

The Texas biotech $SVRA went look­ing for a sil­ver lin­ing as com­pa­ny ex­ecs blunt­ly con­ced­ed that Mol­gradex, an in­haled for­mu­la­tion of re­com­bi­nant hu­man gran­u­lo­cyte-macrophage colony-stim­u­lat­ing fac­tor (GM-CSF), failed to spur sig­nif­i­cant­ly im­proved treat­ment out­comes for pa­tients with a rare res­pi­ra­to­ry dis­ease called au­toim­mune pul­monary alve­o­lar pro­teinosis, or aPAP.

As an­oth­er an­tibi­otics biotech sinks in­to a cri­sis, warn­ings of a sec­tor ‘col­lapse’

Another antibiotics company is scrambling to survive today, forcing the company’s founding CEO to exit in a reorganization that eliminates its research capabilities as the survivors look to improve on minuscule sales of their newly approved treatment. And the news — on top of an alarming series of failures — spurred at least one figure in the field to warn of a looming collapse of the antimicrobial resistance research field.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

'We kept at it': Jef­frey Blue­stone plots late-stage come­back af­ter teplizum­ab shown to de­lay type 1 di­a­betes

Late-stage da­ta pre­sent­ed at the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion an­nu­al meet­ing in 2010 pushed Eli Lil­ly to put a crimp on teplizum­ab as the phar­ma gi­ant found it un­able to re­set the clock on new­ly di­ag­nosed type 1 di­a­betes. At the same con­fer­ence but in dif­fer­ent hands nine years lat­er, the drug is mak­ing a crit­i­cal come­back by scor­ing suc­cess in an­oth­er niche: de­lay­ing the on­set of the dis­ease.

In a Phase II tri­al with 76 high-risk in­di­vid­u­als — rel­a­tives of pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes who have di­a­betes-re­lat­ed au­toan­ti­bod­ies in their bod­ies — teplizum­ab al­most dou­bled the me­di­an time of di­ag­no­sis com­pared to place­bo (48.4 months ver­sus 24.4 months). The haz­ard ra­tio for di­ag­no­sis was 0.41 (p=0.006).