Next-gen ther­a­pies are evolv­ing fast. The drug de­vel­op­ment mod­el needs to keep up

Biotech Voices is a collection of exclusive opinion editorials from some of the leading voices in biopharma on the biggest industry questions today. Think you have a voice that should be heard? Reach out to senior editors Kyle Blankenship and Amber Tong.

A team of genome en­gi­neers at a start­up biotech has been work­ing for years to cre­ate a cell ther­a­py with the hope that it will cure an ag­gres­sive form of can­cer. Af­ter much gru­el­ing tri­al and er­ror at the edit­ing bench, they are ready to eval­u­ate their drug can­di­date in clin­i­cal tri­als. Things are go­ing well, and they’re ec­sta­t­ic to see that tu­mors are shrink­ing, T cell counts are ris­ing, and the dis­ease is re­treat­ing. But there’s a cloud on this bright hori­zon. A side ef­fect is show­ing up with some of the pa­tients in the tri­al, one which might have long-term con­se­quences for their well-be­ing. The sci­en­tists have an idea: What if they can flip what they call an “off-switch” on one pair of genes they’ve iden­ti­fied that could turn off this side ef­fect of the drug while re­tain­ing the new drug’s cu­ra­tive pow­ers? It sounds like an easy fix but its im­ple­men­ta­tion is go­ing to take a long time.

In the cur­rent reg­u­la­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment, af­ter an im­por­tant dis­cov­ery is made, a tri­al al­ter­ation is re­quired, which is a cost­ly and lengthy process that lim­its the abil­i­ty to bring nov­el unique ther­a­pies quick­ly to pa­tients with high un­met needs. If those genome en­gi­neers at the start­up want to make even the slight­est im­prove­ment to their drug can­di­date, which may at­ten­u­ate the pre­vi­ous­ly men­tioned se­ri­ous side ef­fect, they’ll be re­quired to start all over again with a 2.0 ver­sion. This kind of ver­sion­ing is cus­tom­ary in the biotech in­dus­try and can of­ten be a race against time.

An era of in­ter-dis­ci­pli­nary ad­vances

In our cur­rent cli­mate of drug in­no­va­tion, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals are be­ing de­vel­oped through hy­per-pre­cise ge­net­ic edit­ing. No longer rel­e­gat­ed to a siloed dis­ci­pline, block­buster drugs are be­ing de­vel­oped by the team ef­forts of gene ther­a­py, cell ther­a­py, gene edit­ing, pro­tein en­gi­neer­ing, syn­thet­ic bi­ol­o­gy and ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence. These com­bined dis­ci­plines pro­vide lim­it­less ca­pa­bil­i­ties to de­vel­op new ther­a­pies. This ag­ile ca­pac­i­ty could make in-tri­al drugs in­cre­men­tal­ly safer and more ef­fec­tive.

An ex­am­ple of what can emerge from this mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary world, that is mak­ing it rel­e­vant, is the in­ven­tion of al­lo­gene­ic CAR-T cell ther­a­pies. An ar­ti­fi­cial gene cod­ing for a de­signed Chimeric Anti­gen Re­cep­tor (the CAR part of the word) is de­liv­ered by a syn­thet­ic ves­sel called lentivirus in­to T cells, white cells which are our bod­ies’ im­mune re­sponse fight­ers. Then, through syn­thet­ic bi­ol­o­gy, T cells are edit­ed out (or in) to gain or lose spe­cif­ic func­tions. This process is made pos­si­ble by us­ing a gene edit­ing tool called TAL­EN, which are en­zymes that can be en­gi­neered to cut spe­cif­ic se­quences of DNA. The en­gi­neer­ing of TAL­EN is pow­ered by deep learn­ing al­go­rithms. We may re­fer to the treat­ments that arise from this work as “cell ther­a­py” or “gene ther­a­py,” but it’s high con­cen­tra­tion of so­phis­ti­cat­ed tech­nolo­gies work­ing to­geth­er.

A new ther­a­peu­tic mod­el

In 2015, dur­ing the an­nu­al meet­ing of the Amer­i­can So­ci­ety of Hema­tol­ogy (ASH), the com­plete re­mis­sion of the first pa­tient treat­ed with off-the-shelf CAR-T cells was an­nounced. It took near­ly 20 years of tri­al and er­ror at the edit­ing bench to go from con­cept to the first pa­tient treat­ment. Now, five years lat­er, the num­ber of on­go­ing tri­als in the sec­tor of cell and gene ther­a­py is rapid­ly in­creas­ing. A re­port re­leased in March 2020 by the Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal Re­search and Man­u­fac­tur­ers of Amer­i­ca (PhRMA) iden­ti­fied 362 in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al cell and gene ther­a­pies cur­rent­ly in clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment, a 20% in­crease since 2018.

Though the in­crease in tri­al num­bers and the mul­ti­tude of ad­vances in the way we uti­lize gene and cell ther­a­pies seem pos­i­tive, there is not a di­rect cor­re­la­tion be­tween the ad­vance in re­search we see in the lab and the way pa­tients are treat­ed in the clin­ic. Fur­ther­more, the drugs that these pa­tients re­ceive were in­vent­ed many years ago. To prove this point: Ap­proved cel­lu­lar ther­a­pies pro­vid­ing rev­o­lu­tion­iz­ing cures, like the first two au­tol­o­gous CAR-T prod­ucts Yescar­ta and Kym­ri­ah, were in­vent­ed over 15 years ago, and have side ef­fects, due to the CAR-T per­sis­tence re­sult­ing in B cell apla­sia (dis­ap­pear­ance of B cells). Im­prove­ments have yet to be im­ple­ment­ed in the com­pound and will need to be eval­u­at­ed in a clin­i­cal set­ting.

The cur­rent par­a­digm in phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal de­vel­op­ment is that pa­tients will get the “Old­er Gen” drugs with the af­fer­ent side ef­fects rather than the “Next Gen” ther­a­pies that could solve the is­sue, be­cause of the length, cost and com­plex­i­ty of the cur­rent reg­u­la­to­ry frame­work not al­low­ing for the im­ple­men­ta­tion of im­prove­ments in the drug de­vel­op­ment phase.

Bet­ter treat­ments, ready soon­er

While rapid, re­spon­sive ver­sion­ing is the norm in oth­er in­dus­tries, like soft­ware, com­put­er or rock­et sci­ence de­vel­op­ment, the ob­vi­ous dif­fer­ence in the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal sec­tor is that there are dis­tinct eth­i­cal and safe­ty con­cerns in con­duct­ing re­spon­sive ver­sion­ing in tri­als on hu­man be­ings; the safe­ty of pa­tients in clin­i­cal tri­als is para­mount. That be­ing said, what if we could ex­pe­dite the process and bring in­no­va­tion to pa­tients faster with­in a fit­ted reg­u­la­to­ry frame­work?

In re­cent years, sev­er­al new clin­i­cal process­es were cre­at­ed, in­tend­ed to stream­line and ex­pe­dite drug de­vel­op­ment and clin­i­cal tri­al eval­u­a­tion. To name a few: the cre­ation of Phase 0, bas­ket, and um­brel­la clin­i­cal tri­als. Though Phase 0 tri­als seem to ad­dress the ex­pe­di­tion of the tri­als them­selves, if any changes are made with­in this phase, a full IND ap­pli­ca­tion with the usu­al three pre-ap­proval phas­es is still re­quired to “re-ver­sion” your Phase 0 tri­al. Es­sen­tial­ly, with sim­ple pro­posed mod­i­fi­ca­tions, you are be­ing asked to start from scratch, from a reg­u­la­to­ry stand­point.

When the chance for fail­ure in clin­i­cal tri­als (specif­i­cal­ly in an­ti-can­cer drug clin­i­cal tri­als) is so high (fail­ure rate is more than 90%) and when more than half of these new drug can­di­dates in on­col­o­gy fail dur­ing lat­er stages of clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment, the path to ex­pe­dit­ing the im­ple­men­ta­tion of ver­sion­ing and re­vi­sion dur­ing ear­ly-stage tri­als is fun­da­men­tal to ad­dress pa­tients’ needs, in a time­ly man­ner.

If a mech­a­nism ex­ist­ed, by which se­ries of ver­sions of a prod­uct line could be test­ed, then adapt it or tune it up, ac­cord­ing to the re­sponse ob­served in clin­i­cal tri­als, pa­tients would have ac­cess to in­no­va­tion faster and the mod­ern med­i­cine will progress fur­ther at a quick pace. Of course, pre­clin­i­cal proof of con­cept re­quire­ments and CMC must be part of the reg­u­la­to­ry equa­tion, but the abil­i­ty to stream­line test­ing of var­i­ous ver­sions of a ther­a­peu­tic con­cept in the clin­ic could trig­ger a huge de­vel­op­men­tal ac­cel­er­a­tion to the ben­e­fit of pa­tients.

The pro­pos­al would be to open a new era in drug de­vel­op­ment and adapt the reg­u­la­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment to the speed of in­no­va­tion and its op­por­tu­ni­ties in the in­ter­est of pa­tients. The cur­rent reg­u­la­to­ry frame­work and IND process (In­ves­ti­ga­tion­al New Drug) seems set in stone for a sin­gle prod­uct de­vel­op­ment.

What if dif­fer­ent ver­sions of a prod­uct can­di­date could en­ter in clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment phase un­der the same In­ves­ti­ga­tion­al New Ther­a­py (INT) num­ber? In this INT, and un­der an ini­tial um­brel­la Core Pro­to­col (with­out mak­ing any short­cuts on prod­uct can­di­dates man­u­fac­tur­ing, qual­i­ty and con­trol or pre­clin­i­cal as­sess­ment of any of the ver­sions of the ther­a­py), in­cre­men­tal ver­sions of the prod­uct can­di­date could en­ter in small clin­i­cal co­horts. Once there is a sign of mean­ing­ful ef­fi­ca­cy and good safe­ty pro­file on one of the ver­sions, then this ver­sion of prod­uct can­di­date would be pushed in­to ex­pan­sion and piv­otal tri­al tar­get­ing a reg­is­tra­tion. In ju­ris­dic­tion with­out the IND con­cept, the pro­posed Core Pro­to­col will be as­so­ci­at­ed with a Core Prod­uct Dossier hold­ing the re­quired in­for­ma­tion for each of the prod­uct can­di­date ver­sions.

The goal of this process would be to get away from the track to get on­to a larg­er road, with bound­aries, where nim­ble­ness is al­lowed to adapt the right ver­sion be­fore mov­ing to com­mer­cial­iza­tion. This would be in the best in­ter­est of pa­tients to get the lat­est ther­a­py faster in a safe set­ting.

An­dré Chouli­ka is a vi­rol­o­gist and a biotech­nol­o­gist. He is the founder & CEO of Cel­lec­tis, a biotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­ny. He is al­so one of the in­ven­tors of nu­cle­ase-based genome edit­ing in the 90s.

Biotech Voic­es is a con­tributed col­umn from se­lect End­points News read­ers. Read pre­vi­ous pieces here. To in­quire about sub­mis­sions, con­tact Kyle Blanken­ship at kyle@end­pointsnews.com.

Qual­i­ty Con­trol in Cell and Gene Ther­a­py – What’s Re­al­ly at Stake?

In early 2021, Bluebird Bio was forced to suspend clinical trials of its gene therapy for sickle cell disease after two patients in the trial developed cancer. As company scientists rushed to assess whether there was any causal link between the therapy and the cancer cases, Bluebird’s stock value plummeted – as did those of multiple other biopharma companies developing similar therapies.

While investigations concluded that the gene therapy was unlikely to have caused cancer, investors and the public may be more skittish regarding the safety of gene and cell therapies after this episode. This recent example highlights how delicate the fields of cell and gene therapy remain today, even as they show great promise.

Chris Gibson (Photo By Vaughn Ridley/Sportsfile for Web Summit via Getty Images)

Re­cur­sion founders gin for­tunes as IPO back­ers show­er $436M on one of the biggest boasts in AI -- based on some very small deals

In the AI drug development world, boasting often comes with the territory. Yet few can rival Recursion when it comes to claiming the lead role in what company execs like to call the industrialization of drug development, with promises of continued exponential growth in the number of drugs it has in the pipeline.

On Friday, the Salt Lake City-based biotech translated its unicorn-sized boasts into a killer IPO, pricing more than 24 million shares at the high end of its range and bringing in $436 million — with a large chunk of that promised by some deep-pocket backers.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

UP­DAT­ED: New Kaiser analy­sis shows how lim­it­ing price ne­go­ti­a­tions to tar­get­ed drugs may bet­ter fo­cus up­com­ing leg­is­la­tion

As Congress considers whether to adopt sweeping new legislation to lower prescription drug prices across the board, the Kaiser Family Foundation is out with a new report on Monday showing how a more targeted approach on a subset of drugs might be a more efficient way to save government funds.

“This analysis shows that Medicare Part D and Part B spending is highly concentrated among a relatively small share of covered drugs, mainly those without generic or biosimilar competitors,” wrote Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare policy at KFF, and Tricia Neuman, SVP of KFF. “Focusing drug price negotiation or reference pricing on a subset of drugs that account for a disproportionate share of spending would be an efficient use of administrative resources, though it would also leave some potential savings on the table.”

Tillman Gerngross (Adagio)

Till­man Gern­gross' Covid-19 an­ti­body moon­shot scores $336M with the help of new ace CFO. Is an IPO next?

Less than a year into its existence, serial biotech entrepreneur Tillman Gerngross’ antibody play Adagio has raced ahead into a pivotal trial for its lead drug for Covid-19 on the back of some very promising preclinical data. Now, crossover investors led by Peter Kolchinsky at RA are rolling up the Brinks truck — and that could spell an IPO in the offing for Adagio.

Adagio has bagged $336 million as part of a Series C round led by RA Capital to advance lead single-shot antibody ADG20 through a pivotal Phase I/II/III trial for the treatment of mild to moderate Covid-19 patients at high risk of infection, the biotech said Monday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

When is a drug re­al­ly a de­vice? Court knocks down FDA ap­peal in try­ing to sort that grey area

It’s always a surprise when a court has to step in to tell the FDA that it erred in performing one of its main duties: classifying whether a medical product is drug or a device.

But that’s what the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did on Friday, making clear to the world’s top drug regulator that Genus Medical Technologies’ contrast agent barium sulfate (also known as Vanilla SilQ) should not be considered a drug, as the FDA had said, but a medical device.

Q1: A flood of in­vestor cash drove biotech's num­bers to new record highs, and the tor­rent of cash is mov­ing up­stream fast

If you thought biotech was booming last year, wait until you get a load of the numbers from Q1 2021.

On virtually every level, with one exception, the money engine was working around the clock in the first 3 months of this year. Venture capital has reached such a fever peak that the average B round now weighs in at an average mega-weight value of $100 million. The money flow is also finding its way to the mouth of the R&D river, where discovery work now merits the big bucks instead of cautionary seed funds.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Jami Rubin (EQRx)

Ja­mi Ru­bin, once fa­bled for grilling bio­phar­ma ex­ecs, de­camps to head fi­nance at drug pric­ing dis­rupter

As Goldman Sachs’ top pharmaceutical analyst, Jami Rubin was known for asking the tough questions. Now, as she takes the lead on EQRx’s mission to rewrite the rules of drug pricing, we’ll see how good her answers are.

Rubin made the jump to biotech on April 5, becoming EQRx’s new CFO, the company said Monday. She’s coming from PJT Partners, where she’s been a partner providing strategic guidance for biotech and pharmaceutical companies for the last couple years. With EQRx’s recent $500 million Series B round in the books, it wouldn’t be a surprise if she was already lining up a public debut.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Seagen gets Au­gust PDU­FA for Pad­cev ex­pan­sions; Adap­tate pulls in new cash for gam­ma delta T cell an­ti­bod­ies

Seagen is riding the wave of two new priority reviews straight to the FDA.

The Bothell, WA-based biotech and their partners at Astellas announced Monday that two supplemental BLAs for Padcev had been accepted by US regulators. FDA has set Aug. 17 as the PDUFA date for the reviews.

“With our recent regulatory submissions, we intend to provide the highest level of clinical evidence supporting Padcev use — overall survival data from a randomized Phase III trial — and expand availability in multiple countries where there is unmet medical need,” said Astellas oncology chief Andrew Krivoshik.

Ben Carson (Evan Vucci, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED The doc­tor is in: Trump in­sid­er Ben Car­son joins NASH play­er Galectin as a 'spe­cial con­sul­tant,' part-time spokesman

In the few short months since President Donald Trump left office, his former department heads are reportedly having a difficult time finding employment. But for Ben Carson, Trump’s former housing secretary, that’s not a problem anymore after biotech came calling.

Carson, a former GOP presidential candidate and erstwhile HUD head, has joined Galectin Therapeutics as a “special consultant” the biotech hopes will help raise its profile and provide an entrée to key business partnerships, the company said Monday.