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.

De­vel­op­ment of the Next Gen­er­a­tion NKG2D CAR T-cell Man­u­fac­tur­ing Process

Celyad’s view on developing and delivering a CAR T-cell therapy with multi-tumor specificity combined with cell manufacturing success
Overview
Transitioning potential therapeutic assets from academia into the commercial environment is an exercise that is largely underappreciated by stakeholders, except for drug developers themselves. The promise of preclinical or early clinical results drives enthusiasm, but the pragmatic delivery of a therapy outside of small, local testing is most often a major challenge for drug developers especially, including among other things, the manufacturing challenges that surround the production of just-in-time and personalized autologous cell therapy products.

Paul Hudson, Getty Images

UP­DAT­ED: Sanofi CEO Hud­son lays out new R&D fo­cus — chop­ping di­a­betes, car­dio and slash­ing $2B-plus costs in sur­gi­cal dis­sec­tion

Earlier on Monday, new Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson baited the hook on his upcoming strategy presentation Tuesday with a tell-tale deal to buy Synthorx for $2.5 billion. That fits squarely with hints that he’s pointing the company to a bigger future in oncology, which also squares with a major industry tilt.

In a big reveal later in the day, though, Hudson offered a slate of stunners on his plans to surgically dissect and reassemble the portfoloio, saying that the company is dropping cardio and diabetes research — which covers two of its biggest franchise arenas. Sanofi missed the boat on developing new diabetes drugs, and now it’s pulling out entirely. As part of the pullback, it’s dropping efpeglenatide, their once-weekly GLP-1 injection for diabetes.

“To be out of cardiovascular and diabetes is not easy for a company like ours with an incredibly proud history,” Hudson said on a call with reporters, according to the Wall Street Journal. “As tough a choice as that is, we’re making that choice.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

What does $6.9B buy these days in on­col­o­gy R&D? As­traZeneca has a land­mark an­swer

Given the way the FDA has been whisking through new drug approvals months ahead of their PDUFA date, AstraZeneca and their partners Daiichi Sankyo may not have to wait until Q2 of next year to get a green light on trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201).

The pharma giant this morning played their ace in the hole, showing off why they were willing to commit to a $6.9 billion deal — with $1.35 billion in a cash upfront — to partner on the drug.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Large advertisements for the drug Vivitrol decorate the walls of Grand Central Station on June 15, 2017 in New York City. (Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein via Getty)

FDA slaps down Alk­er­mes for mis­lead­ing Viv­it­rol ads — don't for­get vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to opi­oid over­dose

The ads piqued interest as soon as they started appearing in 2016: at Grand Central Station, on the Red Line in Cambridge, and on a billboard off the New Jersey Turnpike. All showed a young person, generally with his or her arms crossed, and the question, “what is Vivitrol?”

Vivitrol’s maker, Alkermes, was in the midst of a marketing and lobbying campaign to promote the anti-opioid addiction drug — a campaign that would face significant backlash for tarnishing competitors despite little evidence for Vivitrol’s superiority.

FDA in-house re­view spot­lights an is­sue with one of Hori­zon's end­points but notes ef­fi­ca­cy for lead drug

The FDA in-house review highlights a disagreement of investigators’ use of a key endpoint by Horizon Pharma in the late-stage trial for the top drug in its pipeline, but largely agreed that the antibody was effective.

Horizon submitted a BLA for thyroid eye disease (TED) drug teprotumumab in March, less than two years after they bought the drug (and the rest of a division) from Narrow River for $145 million upfront. With breakthrough status, priority review, orphan designation and in-house sales projections of up to $750 million, the one-time Roche reject became the marquee pipeline asset for a company that’s developed some of the world’s most expensive drugs.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi

Paul Hud­son promis­es a bright new fu­ture at Sanofi, kick­ing loose me-too drugs and fo­cus­ing on land­mark ad­vances. But can he de­liv­er?

Paul Hudson was on a mission Tuesday morning as he stood up to address Sanofi’s new R&D and business strategy.

Still fresh into the job, the new CEO set out to convince his audience — including the legions of nervous staffers inevitably devoting much of their day to listening in — that the pharma giant is shedding the layers of bureaucracy that had held them back from making progress in the past, dropping the duds in the pipeline and reprioritizing a more narrow set of experimental drugs that were promised as first-in-class or best-in-class.  The company, he added, is now positioned to “go after other opportunities” that could offer a transformational approach to treating its core diseases.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Seat­tle Ge­net­ics de­tails pos­i­tive OS and PFS da­ta for tu­ca­tinib in breast can­cer

Seattle Genetics $SGEN is showing off more positive data around tucatinib, its pivotal-stage drug for HER2 positive breast cancer.

A month after hearing about solidly upbeat hazard ratios, we learned today that the estimated progression-free survival rate at one year was 33% in the tucatinib arm compared to 12% for patients taking trastuzumab and capecitabine alone.

Median PFS was 7.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 9.6) in the tucatinib arm, compared to 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.2, 7.1) in the control arm.

Bat­tered, cash hun­gry In­tec feels the burn of No­var­tis re­jec­tion

It’s a case of some bad timing for Intec.

Just when a key trial testing the company’s Accordion drug delivery tech imploded in Parkinson’s disease, they handed Novartis data from a successful PK study of a custom Accordion pill engineered to deliver a Novartis compound to entice the Swiss drugmaker into signing a licensing agreement.

Novartis said thanks, but no thanks.

For the cash-strapped Israeli drug developer, the failure to clinch the deal marks a big blow. As of the third quarter, the company has $15.7 million in cash and equivalents, which HC Wainwright analysts estimate will keep the lights on into mid-2020.

Bris­tol-My­ers shows off a low-pro­file AML con­tender it gained from Cel­gene buy­out — and they’re tak­ing it straight to the FDA

Bristol-Myers Squibb reaped an enormous pipeline with its much-criticized $64 billion megadeal to buy Celgene. And it got a few hidden gems in the deal.

One of those gems was brought out for display on Tuesday, with a late-breaker at ASH on CC-486, which is now being prepped for regulatory filings at the FDA and elsewhere.

Celgene top-lined the positive results in a maintenance setting for acute myeloid leukemia a few months ago, but at ASH investigators pulled back the curtains on the all-important data they believe will give them an advantage in the commercial wars to come.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.