As gene edit­ing ex­plodes, a new re­port from Gold­man says Chi­nese groups are seiz­ing the lead on CRISPR and CAR-T stud­ies

Con­trary to what you might be­lieve, bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies in the US are not the lead­ers in clin­i­cal tri­als us­ing gene edit­ing tech. While a slate of US/Eu­ro­pean pi­o­neers have been lin­ing up their first hu­man tri­als, in­ves­ti­ga­tors in Chi­na are al­ready well ahead in test­ing CRISPR-edit­ed cells in hu­mans, ac­cord­ing to a deep dive on gene ther­a­pies from Gold­man Sachs an­a­lyst Salveen Richter.

“As of the end of Feb­ru­ary 2018,” Richter and her team re­port­ed, “there were nine reg­is­tered clin­i­cal stud­ies test­ing CRISPR-edit­ed cells to treat var­i­ous can­cers and HIV in­fec­tion in Chi­na, vs. on­ly one study in the U.S. All of the stud­ies were ini­ti­at­ed / spon­sored by top-tier pub­lic hos­pi­tals across Chi­na, and >80 pa­tients were re­port­ed as be­ing treat­ed by these in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al genome med­i­cines.”

Last year alone, Richter adds, the Na­tion­al Nat­ur­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion of Chi­na pro­vid­ed fund­ing for more than 90 CRISPR projects — more than 270 over the last 4 years. With no reg­u­la­tions on these gene edit­ing projects, hos­pi­tals in Chi­na in par­tic­u­lar have been quick to ac­cel­er­ate their CRISPR work, a sit­u­a­tion that might change soon if Chi­na’s main drug agency steps in and ap­plies the brakes, as Gold­man ex­pects will hap­pen.

And Chi­nese in­ves­ti­ga­tors are al­ready ri­val­ing the US in the to­tal num­ber of CAR-T stud­ies that are be­ing done. As of Feb­ru­ary, Gold­man Sachs count­ed 153 CAR-T tri­als in Chi­na, com­pared to 164 in the US, 73 in Eu­rope and 56 in all of the rest of the world com­bined.

The one com­pa­ny fur­thest out in front is Leg­end Biotech­nol­o­gy, which J&J paid $350 mil­lion to part­ner with as it en­tered the glob­al race to de­vel­op new ther­a­pies in the wake of his­toric ap­provals for Kym­ri­ah (No­var­tis) and Yescar­ta (Gilead/Kite). And if these com­pa­nies and tri­als hit pay-dirt da­ta, as they promise to, Gold­man be­lieves that Chi­na will reap a con­sid­er­able ben­e­fit by sell­ing these ther­a­pies at a much low­er rate than the pi­o­neers on the mar­ket, spurring a sig­nif­i­cant amount of med­ical tourism.

What is this kind of mar­ket worth for the ri­vals look­ing to com­pete in it?

That de­pends on the sup­ply of pa­tients.

If your new genome med­i­cine ei­ther promis­es to cure a dis­ease or de­lay any fur­ther ther­a­py for a lengthy pe­ri­od of time, notes the Gold­man re­port, then your mar­ket could play out quick­ly as you race through the pa­tient pool that is avail­able. That’s what Gilead ex­pe­ri­enced when it came up with a pain­less cure for he­pati­tis C.

Not on­ly did the drugs from Gilead shrink the pool, Gold­man re­ports in a cold analy­sis of the num­bers, they al­so re­duced the num­ber of car­ri­ers present to keep spread­ing the dis­ease, fur­ther shrink­ing the mar­ket. From the re­port:

The po­ten­tial to de­liv­er “one shot cures” is one of the most at­trac­tive as­pects of gene ther­a­py, ge­net­i­cal­ly-en­gi­neered cell ther­a­py and gene edit­ing. How­ev­er, such treat­ments of­fer a very dif­fer­ent out­look with re­gard to re­cur­ring rev­enue ver­sus chron­ic ther­a­pies, par­tic­u­lar­ly in cer­tain dis­eases where it is pos­si­ble to cure a large pro­por­tion of the preva­lent pa­tient pool (or at least pre­vent an ad­di­tion­al dose from be­ing re­quired for an ex­tend­ed pe­ri­od). While this propo­si­tion car­ries tremen­dous val­ue for pa­tients and so­ci­ety, it could rep­re­sent a chal­lenge for genome med­i­cine de­vel­op­ers look­ing for sus­tained cash flow. Gilead is a case in point, where the suc­cess of its he­pati­tis C fran­chise has grad­u­al­ly ex­haust­ed the avail­able pool of treat­able pa­tients. 

The most lu­cra­tive dis­eases for these new cu­ra­tive ther­a­pies, Richter adds, would be big fields like he­mo­phil­ia or ar­eas where there’s a large sup­ply of new pa­tients each year — like can­cer. Spinal mus­cu­lar at­ro­phy, which af­flicts a stan­dard set of in­fants each year, is al­so vi­able. 

That may not be the kind of math that bio­phar­ma ex­ecs like to dis­cuss in pub­lic, but it’s cer­tain­ly the kind of equa­tions they re­view care­ful­ly while de­cid­ing how to spend R&D bud­gets.

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.

As dis­as­ter struck, Ab­b­Vie’s Rick Gon­za­lez swooped in on Al­ler­gan with an of­fer Brent Saun­ders couldn’t say no to

Early March was a no good, awful, terrible time for Allergan CEO Brent Saunders. His big lead drug had imploded in a Phase III disaster and activists were after his hide — or at least his chairman’s title — as the stock price continued a steady droop that had eviscerated share value for investors.

But it was a perfect time for AbbVie CEO Rick Gonzalez to pick up the phone and ask Saunders if he’d like to consider a “strategic” deal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CEO Pascal Soriot via Getty Images

As­traZeneca's jug­ger­naut PARP play­er Lyn­parza scoops up an­oth­er dom­i­nant win in PhI­II as the FDA adds a 'break­through' for Calquence

AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group under José Baselga keeps churning out hits.

Wednesday morning the pharma giant and their partners at Merck parted the curtains on a successful readout for their Phase III PAOLA-1 study, demonstrating statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for women with ovarian cancer in a first-line maintenance setting who added their PARP Lynparza to Avastin. This is their second late-stage success in ovarian cancer, which will help stave off rivals like GSK.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.