Drug dis­cov­ery in the age of coro­n­avirus

De­vel­op­ing new drugs is in­cred­i­bly hard. That’s why, de­spite su­per­hu­man ef­forts from the in­dus­try, we’re still look­ing at 12-18 months min­i­mum be­fore we can re­al­is­ti­cal­ly hope for a vac­cine for Covid-19, and prob­a­bly months be­fore there’s a proven vi­able drug treat­ment.

But our in­creas­ing abil­i­ty to be­gin to in­dus­tri­al­ize the drug dis­cov­ery and de­vel­op­ment process through an en­gi­neer­ing ap­proach means that we have more hope for speed­ing up this process than ever be­fore — and not just to de­feat coro­n­avirus, but to ben­e­fit the de­vel­op­ment of all new med­i­cines in the fu­ture.

The tra­di­tion­al drug de­vel­op­ment process can be bro­ken down in­to two big “tracks” which have changed very lit­tle for decades: pro­phy­lac­tics (like vac­cines) which pre­vent you from get­ting sick; and ther­a­peu­tics (like an­tivi­rals) that help you get bet­ter once you have symp­toms. Nei­ther is easy.

For vac­cines, that usu­al­ly looks like first iden­ti­fy­ing the cor­rect “dead” part of the virus (anti­gen) so that our im­mune sys­tem can de­vel­op the right an­ti­bod­ies; then test­ing for safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy (how long do your an­ti­bod­ies last?); then man­u­fac­tur­ing at scale (no mean feat; think about all those flu vac­cines grow­ing in eggs each year!).

De­vel­op­ing ther­a­peu­tics is just as hard, re­quir­ing a deep knowl­edge of the un­der­ly­ing bi­ol­o­gy, in­clud­ing the right tar­get to go af­ter with just the right small mol­e­cules or bi­o­log­ics, with high ef­fi­ca­cy and low tox­i­c­i­ty again demon­strat­ed in clin­i­cal tri­als … and so on. You see why it can take years to un­der­stand all of this — some­times even decades.

But us­ing an en­gi­neer­ing ap­proach to de­vel­op­ing new drugs with the tools we have com­ing on­line to­day is al­ready trans­form­ing this process, mak­ing it faster, more ef­fi­cient and in­creas­ing the odds of suc­cess. A big part of this is us­ing tech­nol­o­gy to au­to­mate and stan­dard­ize how we un­cov­er new knowl­edge about bi­ol­o­gy — the in­dus­tri­al­iza­tion of dis­cov­ery it­self.

Biotech com­pa­nies are do­ing this by build­ing ro­bot­ic wet lab ex­per­i­ment pipelines with au­toma­tion + bioin­for­mat­ics + da­ta sci­ence for rapid mea­sure­ment and analy­sis of in­for­ma­tion in a ful­ly in­dus­tri­al­ized process. So the se­quenc­ing of a virus (now cheap and quick, due to 20 years of ad­vances in se­quenc­ing tech) im­me­di­ate­ly feeds in­to bioin­for­mat­ic tools that iden­ti­fy the key parts of the genome; bioin­for­mat­ic analy­sis in turn speeds up new ideas for how to tar­get the virus, whether in a vac­cine or ther­a­peu­tic vac­cines; new drug can­di­dates are moved in­to ro­bot­ic test­ing mas­sive­ly, and in par­al­lel; and the en­tire process to hu­man clin­i­cal tri­als is loaded up with more good can­di­dates, faster.

This un­der­ly­ing ap­proach is why Mod­er­na was able to come up with a po­ten­tial coro­n­avirus vac­cine at a speed that blew most in­dus­try es­ti­mates out of the wa­ter. In­dus­tri­al­iz­ing dis­cov­ery like this could work much the same way that fac­to­ry work­force vs. hu­man speeds things up, stan­dard­izes process­es, and helps us scale faster and more broad­ly. It al­so great­ly im­proves re­pro­ducibil­i­ty, a huge is­sue in drug dis­cov­ery ex­per­i­ments when even the way you hold the pipette can af­fect the na­ture of the ex­per­i­ment. Now, re-run­ning an ex­per­i­ment starts to look a lot like re-run­ning code — again, eas­i­er, faster, and more ac­cu­rate.

An­oth­er crit­i­cal el­e­ment of the in­dus­tri­al­iza­tion of vac­cine de­vel­op­ment is our new abil­i­ty to use RNA. In­stead of giv­ing you part of the vi­ral pro­tein and say­ing, hey im­mune sys­tem, learn this, an RNA vac­cine gives you RNA code (akin to soft­ware) for your body to make those vi­ral pro­teins it­self, and then de­vel­op an­ti­bod­ies.

Why both­er with this RNA mid­dle man? RNA is re­al­ly, at heart, in­for­ma­tion, and ac­tu­al­ly very easy chem­i­cal­ly to pro­duce — so this is ef­fec­tive­ly scal­ing pro­duc­tion by us­ing your own body as the pro­tein pro­duc­tion fa­cil­i­ty in­stead of a lab mak­ing the pro­tein — syn­the­siz­ing them, ex­press­ing them, grow­ing them in, say, eggs for an en­tire pop­u­la­tion, all of which is slow and dif­fi­cult.

If RNA is like soft­ware, CRISPR is a whole new hard­ware plat­form. Our new abil­i­ty to ed­it ge­net­ic code through bi­o­log­i­cal de­sign tools like CRISPR is an­oth­er ma­jor vec­tor of at­tack. For ex­am­ple, one type of CRISPR—Cas­Rx—on­ly goes af­ter RNA: if you give it a guide RNA se­quence that has a part of what the virus has, it will “search and find” virus RNA and then cut, i.e. de­stroy them (teams like Stan­ley Qi’s are al­ready at work on this).

Now, again, this be­comes an­oth­er bioin­for­mat­ics prob­lem: Can you iden­ti­fy what the right se­quences are? It is al­so a fun­da­men­tal shift be­tween those two tra­di­tion­al drug de­vel­op­ment tracks of vac­cine vs. ther­a­peu­tic: con­cepts like in vi­vo blurs the line be­tween both. This you would ap­ply pro­phy­lac­ti­cal­ly like a vac­cine, be­fore you get the dis­ease, giv­ing your body a new tool that it didn’t have be­fore to fight the virus when it does en­counter it.

In its grand­est pro­phy­lac­tic form, this type of tech­nol­o­gy could po­ten­tial­ly ad­dress not just pre­vi­ous pan­demics, but even fu­ture pan­demics we haven’t even seen yet. Be­cause in the­o­ry, if you did this right, you could iden­ti­fy a se­quence that isn’t just for coro­n­avirus, or this year’s flu, but an en­tire group or cat­e­go­ry of virus­es to “search and de­stroy.”

Be­cause the RNA se­quence cov­ers such a broad spec­trum, to evade de­tec­tion like that, a virus would have to fun­da­men­tal­ly change their bi­ol­o­gy. So the pro­phy­lac­tic treat­ment al­ready liv­ing in us would cov­er not just Covid-19, but al­so SARS, and MERS, and maybe even those rel­a­tive­ly harm­less coro­n­avirus­es that cause the com­mon cold.

If one as­pect of these ap­proach­es is about in­dus­tri­al­iz­ing dis­cov­ery and an­oth­er is about in­dus­tri­al­iz­ing de­sign tools, is there a way to com­bine both, and al­low us to en­gi­neer this process from start to fin­ish? That’s where AI comes in: one of the broad spec­trum new tools we have that can in­dus­tri­al­ize every sin­gle stage of drug de­sign. By in­cor­po­rat­ing ge­nom­ic analy­ses from not just the virus at hand but all known virus­es, AI can help to iden­ti­fy ide­al and po­ten­tial­ly nov­el tar­gets; to iden­ti­fy drugs that can be quick­ly re­pur­posed; to help come up with new “hits” and lead mol­e­cules for nov­el drugs; for lead op­ti­miza­tion of which can­di­dates have the high­est po­ten­tial ef­fi­ca­cy and min­i­mal tox­i­c­i­ty; even to im­prove the ef­fi­cien­cy of run­ning clin­i­cal tri­als.

As we are learn­ing far too painful­ly now, de­vel­op­ing a new ther­a­peu­tic or vac­cine is not just about ac­cu­ra­cy, it’s about speed—and a true mat­ter of life and death. But the good news is, we are fi­nal­ly see­ing drug dis­cov­ery be­gin to ben­e­fit from Moore’s Law. Tech­nol­o­gy and soft­ware tools and mind­sets are bring­ing new forces, tools, and da­ta that will help us speed up and in­dus­tri­al­ize the de­vel­op­ment of drug can­di­dates we have to treat a whole host of our dis­eases — so that maybe, when the next pan­dem­ic hap­pens, we can move much more quick­ly, with much more ef­fi­ca­cy … or even elim­i­nate the pan­demics of the fu­ture.


Vi­jay Pande is the found­ing in­vestor of a16z’s bio fund. He is a for­mer pro­fes­sor of Chem­istry and pro­fes­sor of Struc­tur­al Bi­ol­o­gy at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty where he con­cur­rent­ly di­rect­ed the bio­physics pro­gram.

For a look at all End­points News coro­n­avirus sto­ries, check out our spe­cial news chan­nel.

The Avance Clinical leadership team: CEO Yvonne Lungershausen, Sandrien Louwaars - Director Business Development Operations, Gabriel Kremmidiotis - Chief Scientific Officer, Ben Edwards - Chief Strategy Officer

How Aus­tralia De­liv­ers Rapid Start-up and 43.5% Re­bate for Ear­ly Phase On­col­o­gy Tri­als

About Avance Clinical

Avance Clinical is an Australian owned Contract Research Organisation that has been providing high-quality clinical research services to the local and international drug development industry for 20 years. They specialise in working with biotech companies to execute Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials to deliver high-quality outcomes fit for global regulatory standards.

As oncology sponsors look internationally to speed-up trials after unprecedented COVID-19 suspensions and delays, Australia, which has led the world in minimizing the pandemic’s impact, stands out as an attractive destination for early phase trials. This in combination with the streamlined regulatory system and the financial benefits including a very favourable exchange rate and the R & D cash rebate makes Australia the perfect location for accelerating biotech clinical programs.

Sanofi brings in 4 new ex­ec­u­tives in con­tin­ued shake-up, as vac­cines and con­sumer health chief head out the door

In the middle of Sanofi’s multi-pronged race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine, David Loew, the head of their sprawling vaccines unit, is leaving – part of the final flurry of moves in the French giant’ months-long corporate shuffle that will give them new-look leadership under new CEO Paul Hudson.

The company also said today that Alan Main, the head of their consumer healthcare unit, is out, and they named 4 executives to fill new or newly vacated positions, 3 of whom come from both outside both Sanofi and from Pharma.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As­traZeneca trum­pets the good da­ta they found for Tagris­so in an ad­ju­vant set­ting for NSCLC — but many of the ex­perts aren’t cheer­ing along

AstraZeneca is rolling out the big guns this evening to provide a salute to their ADAURA data on Tagrisso at ASCO.

Cancer R&D chief José Baselga calls the disease-free survival data for their drug in an adjuvant setting of early stage, epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated NSCLC patients following surgery “momentous.” Roy Herbst, the principal investigator out of Yale, calls it “transformative.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pablo Legorreta, founder and CEO of Royalty Pharma AG, speaks at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Cap­i­tal­iz­ing Pablo: The world’s biggest drug roy­al­ty buy­er is go­ing pub­lic. And the low-key CEO di­vulges a few se­crets along the way

Pablo Legorreta is one of the most influential players in biopharma you likely never heard of.

Over the last 24 years, Legorreta’s Royalty Pharma group has become, by its own reckoning, the biggest buyer of drug royalties in the world. The CEO and founder has bought up a stake in a lengthy list of the world’s biggest drug franchises, spending $18 billion in the process — $2.2 billion last year alone. And he’s become one of the best-paid execs in the industry, reaping $28 million from the cash flow last year while reserving 20% of the cash flow, less expenses, for himself.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi CEO (Getty Images)

Sanofi CEO Paul Hud­son has $23B burn­ing a hole in his pock­et. And here are some hints on how he plans to spend that

Sanofi has reaped $11.1 billion after selling off a big chunk of its Regeneron stock at $515 a share. And now everyone on the M&A side of the business is focused on how CEO Paul Hudson plans to spend it.

After getting stung in France for some awkward politicking — suggesting the US was in the front of the line for Sanofi’s vaccines given American financial support for their work, versus little help from European powers — Hudson now has the much more popular task of managing a major cash cache to pull off something in the order of a big bolt-on. Or two.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pfiz­er, Mer­ck KGaA ce­ment Baven­cio blad­der can­cer win with OS da­ta — while carv­ing an­oth­er niche in rare can­cer

Pfizer and Merck KGaA have detailed the Phase III data that inspired FDA regulators to designate Bavencio a “breakthrough” for first-line advanced bladder cancer and offered an early glance at how the PD-L1 can help patients with a rare gynecological cancer — carving out niches in the checkpoint space for itself after being shut out of numerous others.

In JAVELIN Bladder 100, Bavencio led to a 31% reduction in risk of death compared to standard care alone. It also extended median survival by more than seven months — a historic feat in this setting, according to investigators at Queen Mary University of London.

Look­ing to move past an R&D fi­as­co, Ipsen poach­es their new CEO from Sanofi

Ipsen has turned to another Paris-based biopharma company for its next CEO.

Sanofi Pasteur chief David Loew — who’s been leading one of the most advanced efforts to develop vaccines for Covid-19 — is making the journey to Ipsen, 5 months after David Meek jumped ship to run a startup in late-stage development.

Loew arrives as Ipsen works to get back on track with their rare bone disease drug palovarotene, picked up in the $1.3 billion Clementia buyout, which was slammed with a partial hold after researchers observed cases of “early growth plate closure” in patients under the age of 14. But they are pushing ahead with the over-14 crowd after writing down slightly more than half of its initial development.

Dan O'Day, Gilead CEO (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Gilead leas­es part­ner rights to TIG­IT, PD-1 in a $2B deal with Ar­cus. Now comes the hard part

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has brokered his way to a PD-1 and lined up a front row seat in the TIGIT arena, inking a deal worth close to $2 billion to align the big biotech closely with Terry Rosen’s Arcus. And $375 million of that comes upfront, with cash for the buy-in plus equity, along with $400 million for R&D and $1.22 billion in reserve to cover opt-in payments and milestones..

Hotly rumored for weeks, the 2 players have formalized a 10-year alliance that starts with rights to the PD-1, zimberelimab. O’Day also has first dibs on TIGIT and 2 other leading programs, agreeing to an opt-in fee ranging from $200 million to $275 million on each. There’s $500 million in potential TIGIT milestones on US regulatory events — likely capped by an approval — if Gilead partners on it and the stars align on the data. And there’s another $150 million opt-in payments for the rest of the Arcus pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis jumps in­to Covid-19 vac­cine hunt, as Big Phar­ma and big biotech com­mit to bil­lions of dos­es

After spending most of the pandemic on the sidelines, Novartis is offering its aid in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

AveXis, the Swiss pharma’s gene therapy subsidiary, has agreed to manufacture the vaccine being developed by Massachusetts Eye and Ear and Massachusetts General Hospital. The biotech will begin manufacturing this month, while the vaccine undergoes further preclinical testing. They’ve agreed to provide the vaccine for free for clinical trials beginning in the second half of 2020, but have not disclosed financials for after.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.