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

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.

Da­ta Lit­er­a­cy: The Foun­da­tion for Mod­ern Tri­al Ex­e­cu­tion

In 2016, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) updated their “Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.” One key shift was a mandate to implement a risk-based quality management system throughout all stages of a clinical trial, and to take a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to clinical trial monitoring—on-site monitoring, remote monitoring, or any combination thereof.

Pfiz­er's big block­buster Xel­janz flunks its post-mar­ket­ing safe­ty study, re­new­ing harsh ques­tions for JAK class

When the FDA approved Pfizer’s JAK inhibitor Xeljanz for rheumatoid arthritis in 2012, they slapped on a black box warning for a laundry list of adverse events and required the New York drugmaker to run a long-term safety study.

That study has since become a consistent headache for Pfizer and their blockbuster molecule. Last year, Pfizer dropped the entire high dose cohort after an independent monitoring board found more patients died in that group than in the low dose arm or a control arm of patients who received one of two TNF inhibitors, Enbrel or Humira.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Covid-19 roundup: EU and As­traZeneca trade blows over slow­downs; Un­usu­al unions pop up to test an­ti­bod­ies, vac­cines

After coming under fire for manufacturing delays last week, AstraZeneca’s feud with the European Union has spilled into the open.

The bloc accused the pharma giant on Wednesday of pulling out of a meeting to discuss cuts to its vaccine supplies, the AP reported. AstraZeneca denied the reports, saying it still planned on attending the discussion.

Early Wednesday, an EU Commission spokeswoman said that “the representative of AstraZeneca had announced this morning, had informed us this morning that their participation is not confirmed, is not happening.” But an AstraZeneca spokesperson later called the reports “not accurate.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pascal Soriot, AP

As­traZeneca CEO Pas­cal So­ri­ot sev­ers an un­usu­al board con­nec­tion, steer­ing clear of con­flicts while re­tain­ing im­por­tant al­liances

CSL Behring chief Paul Perreault scored an unusual coup last summer when he added AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot to the board, via Zoom. It’s rare, to say the least, to see a Big Pharma CEO take any board post in an industry where interests can simultaneously connect and collide on multiple levels of operations.

The tie set the stage for an important manufacturing connection. The Australian pharma giant agreed to supply the country with 10s of millions of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine, once it passes regulatory muster.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Adeno-associated virus-1 illustration; the use of AAVs resurrected the gene therapy field, but companies are now testing the limits of a 20-year-old technology (File photo, Shutterstock)

Af­ter 3 deaths rock the field, gene ther­a­py re­searchers con­tem­plate AAV's fu­ture

Nicole Paulk was scrolling through her phone in bed early one morning in June when an email from a colleague jolted her awake. It was an article: Two patients in an Audentes gene therapy trial had died, grinding the study to a halt.

Paulk, who runs a gene therapy lab at the University of California, San Francisco, had planned to spend the day listening to talks at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, which was taking place that week. Instead, she skipped the conference, canceled every work call on her calendar and began phoning colleagues across academia and industry, trying to figure out what happened and why. All the while, a single name hung in the back of her head.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Mer­ck scraps Covid-19 vac­cine pro­grams af­ter they fail to mea­sure up on ef­fi­ca­cy in an­oth­er ma­jor set­back in the glob­al fight

After turning up late to the vaccine development game in the global fight against Covid-19, Merck is now making a quick exit.

The pharma giant is reporting this morning that it’s decided to drop development of 2 vaccines — V590 and V591 — after taking a look at Phase I data that simply don’t measure up to either the natural immune response seen in people exposed to the virus or the vaccines already on or near the market.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Anthony Fauci, NIAID director (AP Images)

As new Covid-19 task force gets un­der­way, threat looms of vac­cine, mon­o­clon­al an­ti­body-re­sis­tant vari­ants

Hours before President Biden’s Covid-19 team gave their first virtual press conference, the famed AIDS researcher David Ho delivered concerning news in a new pre-print: SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351, the variant that emerged in South Africa, is “markedly more resistant” to antibodies from convalescent plasma and vaccinated individuals.

The news for several monoclonal antibodies, including Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab, was even worse: Their ability to neutralize was “completely or markedly abolished,” Ho wrote. Lilly’s antibody cocktail, which was just shown to dramatically reduce the risk of hospitalizations or death, also became far less potent.

Jackie Fouse, Agios CEO

Agios scores its sec­ond pos­i­tive round of da­ta for its lead pipeline drug — but that won't an­swer the stub­born ques­tions that sur­round this pro­gram

Agios $AGIO bet the farm on its PKR activator drug mitapivat when it recently decided to sell off its pioneering cancer drug Tibsovo and go back to being a development-stage company — for what CEO Jackie Fouse hoped would be a short stretch before they got back into commercialization.

On Tuesday evening, the bellwether biotech flashed more positive topline data — this time from a small group of patients in a single-arm study. And the executive team plans to package this with its earlier positive results from a controlled study to make its case for a quick OK.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vir's CMO says he's sur­prised that a low dose of their he­pati­tis B drug ap­pears promis­ing in ear­ly slice of da­ta — shares soar

Initial topline data from a Phase I study of a new therapeutic for chronic hepatitis B virus was so promising that it surprised even the CMO of the company that produces it.

Vir Biotechnology on Tuesday announced that its VIR-3434 molecule reduced the level of virus surface antigens present in a blinded patient cohort after eight days of the trial with just a single 6 mg dose. Six of the eight patients in the cohort were given the molecule, and the other two a placebo—all six who received the molecule saw a mean antigen reduction of 1.3 log10 IU/mL, Vir said.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.