A month af­ter roil­ing in­vestors with what skep­tics dis­missed as cher­ry pick­ing of its de­pres­sion da­ta, Min­er­va is back with a clean slate of da­ta from its Phase IIb in­som­nia tri­al.

In a de­tailed up­date, the Waltham, MA-based biotech said sel­torex­ant (MIN-202) hit both the pri­ma­ry and sev­er­al sec­ondary end­points, ef­fec­tive­ly im­prov­ing sleep in­duc­tion and pro­long­ing sleep du­ra­tion. In­ves­ti­ga­tors made a point to note that the ef­fects were con­sis­tent across the adult and el­der­ly pop­u­la­tions, with the lat­ter more prone to the sleep dis­or­der.

Re­my Luthringer Min­er­va

A to­tal of 365 pa­tients with no oth­er psy­chi­atric con­di­tions were en­rolled in the study and ran­dom­ized in­to five groups: three dif­fer­ent dos­es of sel­torex­ant, place­bo, and Am­bi­en. Un­like the house­hold drug, which pro­motes sleep by ac­ti­vat­ing the GA­BA neu­ro­trans­mit­ter, Min­er­va’s drug is “de­signed to mim­ic the nat­ur­al sleep process by in­hibit­ing the brain mech­a­nisms that pro­mote ex­ces­sive wake­ful­ness,” CEO Re­my Luthringer said in a state­ment.

The drug scored a clear win in im­prov­ing la­ten­cy to per­sis­tent sleep (LPS) com­pared to place­bo, as re­searchers tracked es­ca­lat­ing least squares mean on changes from base­line on Night 1: 16.4 min­utes (5 mg), 32.2 min­utes (10 mg) and 36.6 min­utes (20 mg), with p ≤0.001 on the two high­er dos­es. “Ad­van­tages over place­bo were al­so ob­served at Night 13: 5.2 min­utes for the 5 mg, 28.6 min­utes for the 10 mg (p ≤0.001), and 21.0 min­utes for the 20 mg (p ≤0.001),” the com­pa­ny added.

But per­haps more in­ter­est­ing were the sec­ondary analy­sis in which sel­torex­ant seems to work bet­ter than Am­bi­en in terms of LPS as well as WA­SO-6, a mea­sure­ment of dis­turbed sleep through­out the night. That was true on Night 13 on both scores, no­table be­cause Am­bi­en did not show su­pe­ri­or­i­ty over place­bo on the same night, like­ly due to a known, wan­ing ef­fect of the stan­dard-of-care drug.

Min­er­va had much less to say about safe­ty — a big deal on sleep drugs — oth­er than that it’s well tol­er­at­ed, with treat­ment-emer­gent ad­verse events (TEAEs) tak­ing place in 33.8% of pa­tients across the three drug arms com­pared to 49.3% in place­bo group and 42.5% in the Am­bi­en co­hort. The FDA sets a high bar on safe­ty for sleep drugs, cre­at­ing a chal­lenge that has kept most small play­ers out of a dif­fi­cult field. Mar­ket­ing is al­so a big chal­lenge, even for the ma­jor bio­phar­mas.

The sub­se­quent surge on share price $NERV — up 51.93% and reach­ing $6.43 — helped Min­er­va re­cov­er some lost grounds from the con­tro­ver­sial read­out in May. At one point pre-mar­ket trad­ing brought the stock over $7 but the en­thu­si­asm has sub­sided as in­vestors pon­der on the mar­ket­ing chal­lenges ly­ing ahead.

That tri­al saw a de­crease in the Mont­gomery-As­berg De­pres­sion Rat­ing Scale among the 20 mg group, where pa­tients were treat­ed with the oral pill along­side stan­dard an­ti­de­pres­sant ther­a­pies.

Ven­tur­ing in­to a field most biotechs have steered clear of, Min­er­va’s over­all propo­si­tion with sel­torex­ant is to treat in­som­nia and re­lat­ed mood dis­or­ders by tin­ker­ing with the orex­in sys­tem, which is as­so­ci­at­ed with feed­ing, home­osta­sis, arousal, mod­u­la­tion of sleep-wake cy­cles and mo­ti­va­tion. J&J signed on as a part­ner to the ORX2 in­hibitor on two in­di­ca­tions in 2014, but re­turned the rights for in­som­nia three years lat­er.

Pa­tients with de­pres­sion who al­so strug­gle to sleep — around 105 to­tal be­tween the drug and place­bo arms — showed a big­ger im­prove­ment in the MADRS than the over­all tri­al pop­u­la­tion, the com­pa­ny had re­port­ed.

So­cial im­age: Shut­ter­stock

Gilead is surging again off data that suggest its antiviral remdesivir might improve survival.

The new data come from an analysis Gilead conducted comparing the death rate and recovery time of patients in one of its remdesivir trials to a group of 800 patients “with similar baseline characteristics and disease severity” who received only standard-of-care around the same time. The result, they said, suggested that patients who received remdesivir had a 62% better chance at surviving than those who did not.