Gene-edit­ing up­start lays out a $100M IPO with a plan to quick­ly leapfrog the lead­ers in their field

CRISPR/Cas9. TAL­EN. Zinc fin­ger nu­cle­ase tech. The ARC nu­cle­ase.

You may have heard about those first 3 gene-edit­ing plat­forms. But what’s an ARC nu­cle­ase?

Matthew Kane

AR­CUS was put to­geth­er by a group of sci­en­tists in North Car­oli­na who have been mak­ing the pitch that they have a bet­ter way to ac­com­plish the DNA hack­ing pop­u­lar­ized 5 years ago by the orig­i­nal trio of star­tups: CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics, Ed­i­tas, In­tel­lia. Those biotechs are just now get­ting in­to the clin­ic, with Pre­ci­sion Bio­Sciences com­ing in right be­hind with its own new­ly filed IND. They’re fo­cused on a gene-edit­ed al­lo­gene­ic (off the shelf) CAR-T cell pro­gram tar­get­ing CD19 (not for the first time) which they plan on launch­ing soon, with a Phase I/IIa clin­i­cal tri­al in pa­tients with acute lym­phoblas­tic leukemia and non-hodgkin lym­phoma. 

AR­CUS be­longs to the start­up Pre­ci­sion Bio­Sciences, which on Fri­day filed for an IPO, pen­cilling in $100 mil­lion as the tar­get.

Their claim to fame rests on a one-step en­gi­neer­ing process, which they are sell­ing as a sim­pler, more ef­fec­tive way of com­plet­ing the gene edit­ing process that will trans­late well to a less ex­pen­sive mass pro­duc­tion ap­proach. 

The sim­ple ex­pla­na­tion is that Pre­ci­sion Bio be­lieves it has a bet­ter sur­gi­cal tool — the ARC nu­cle­ase — for slic­ing in­to a spe­cif­ic DNA se­quence need­ed to cor­rect a dis­ease.

Jeff Smith

This ARC nu­cle­ase, they say, is “a ful­ly syn­thet­ic en­zyme sim­i­lar to a hom­ing en­donu­cle­ase but sig­nif­i­cant­ly im­proved to be the start­ing point for the genome-edit­ing plat­form.” It’s small, they claim, with “in­com­pa­ra­ble” speci­fici­ty that can be cus­tomized to hit the right tar­get in just the right way to im­prove po­ten­cy.

Every one of the pi­o­neers has a sim­i­lar claim to the best tech. CRISPR $CR­SP and In­tel­lia $NT­LA are Cas9 spe­cial­ists, pop­u­lar­iz­ing a new tool cre­at­ed by Jen­nifer Doud­na and Em­manuelle Char­p­en­tier that’s known for be­ing cheap and easy to use. This tech has spread like wild­fire in aca­d­e­m­ic labs. Ed­i­tas $ED­IT is us­ing a new-and-im­proved ver­sion of Cas9. Cel­lec­tis $CLLS CEO An­dré Chouli­ka is diplo­mat­ic about it, but he’s pas­sion­ate about TAL­EN, which he helped cre­ate. Sang­amo, which on­ly re­cent­ly of­fered its first hu­man da­ta, was off tar­get on the da­ta but hap­py about the ef­fect it was see­ing in hu­mans.

All the pi­o­neers have seen their shares beat up over the past year. But then, that’s true for a lot of pub­lic biotechs.

Derek Jantz

The whole field, which has at­tract­ed large in­vest­ments, is pri­mar­i­ly based on non-hu­man pri­mate da­ta. But it’s at a cross­roads, with much more hu­man da­ta on the near hori­zon. The win­ners will be rich­ly re­ward­ed. The losers will face the scrap heap.

The Durham, NC-based biotech with close con­nec­tions to Duke rolled out a $110 mil­lion mega round last sum­mer from a laun­dry list of back­ers that in­clud­ed Gilead. And as we said at the time, it had every ear­mark of a clas­sic crossover round point­ed straight at the $100 mil­lion IPO you’re read­ing about now.

David Thomp­son

Ar­row­Mark Part­ners led the deal and was joined by oth­er new in­vestors: Franklin Tem­ple­ton In­vest­ments, Cowen Health­care In­vest­ments, Brace Phar­ma Cap­i­tal, Pon­tif­ax AgTech, OCV Part­ners, Adage Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment, Cor­morant As­set Man­age­ment, Vi­vo Cap­i­tal, Alexan­dria Ven­ture In­vest­ments, Ridge­back Cap­i­tal, Agent Cap­i­tal, and en­ti­ties af­fil­i­at­ed with Leerink Part­ners. Ex­ist­ing in­vestors ven­Bio, F-Prime, RA Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment, Am­gen

Ven­tures, Os­age Uni­ver­si­ty Part­ners, DU­MAC, and the Longevi­ty Fund al­so par­tic­i­pat­ed in the fi­nanc­ing.

Gilead fol­lowed up with a $445 mil­lion pact with Pre­ci­sion in the fall, fo­cused on he­pati­tis B. And then gene edit­ing ex­perts at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia stepped up with a sci­en­tif­ic col­lab­o­ra­tion. They split off their ag ops just ahead of the new round last year.

Abid Ansari

The top 3 ex­ecs haven’t ex­act­ly short­changed them­selves on in­come. CEO Matthew Kane took home a com­pen­sa­tion pack­age worth $1.6 mil­lion for last year. CFO Abid Ansari snagged $1.4 mil­lion and David Thomp­son, the chief de­vel­op­ment of­fi­cer, got $1.8 mil­lion — all big mon­ey in the start­up world. They al­so got rais­es for their base salary, now at $523,000 for Kane, who al­so has 5.6% of the stock, which will be worth mil­lions if the IPO comes in as they hope.

Jeff Smith — a co-founder and CTO out of Duke Uni­ver­si­ty — has a wedge of 10% of the eq­ui­ty, which puts him up with the two top in­vestors: ven­Bio at 11% and F-Prime at 9.7%. The oth­er sci­en­tif­ic co-founder is Derek Jantz, whose bio in­cludes a ci­ta­tion for ear­ly work de­vel­op­ing the zinc fin­ger tech.

Lessons for biotech and phar­ma from a doc­tor who chased his own cure

After being struck by a rare disease as a healthy third year medical student, David Fajgenbaum began an arduous journey chasing his own cure. Amidst the hustle of this year’s JP Morgan conference, the digital trials platform Medable partnered with Endpoints Studio to share Dr. Fajgenbaum’s story with the drug development industry.

What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation between Medable CEO Dr. Michelle Longmire and Dr. Fajgenbaum, and it is full of lessons for biotech executives charged with bringing the next generation of medicines to patients.

Jim Scholefield via PR Newswire

Mer­ck los­es its chief dig­i­tal of­fi­cer, spot­light­ing tal­ent hunt for the hottest ti­tle in Big Phar­ma

Over the last few years we’ve seen the chief digital officer title become one of the hottest commodities in Big Pharma as global organizations hunt the best talent to sharpen the cutting edge of their tech platforms.

But Merck just discovered how hard it may be to keep them focused on pharma.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tim Mayleben (file photo)

Es­pe­ri­on's goldilocks cho­les­terol fight­er wins FDA ap­proval — will its 'tra­di­tion­al' pric­ing ap­proach spur adop­tion?

It’s more effective than decades-old statins but not as good as the injectable PCSK9 — the goldilocks treatment for cholesterol-lowering, bempedoic acid, has secured FDA approval.

Its maker, Esperion Therapeutics, is betting that their pricing strategy — a planned list price of between $10 to $11 a day — will help it skirt the pushback the PCSK9 cholesterol fighters, Repatha and Praluent, got from payers for their high sticker prices.

The sky-high expectations for the pair of PCSK9 drugs that were first approved in 2015 quickly simmered — and despite a 60% price cut, coupled with data showing the therapies also significantly cut cardiovascular risk, sales have not really perked up.

Esperion is convinced that by virtue of being a cheaper oral therapy, bempedoic acid will hit that sweet spot in terms of adoption.

“We’re kind of like the old comfortable shoe,” Esperion’s chief commercial officer Mark Glickman remarked in an interview with Endpoints News ahead of the decision date. “It’s an oral product, once-daily and nontitratable — these are things that just resonate so true with patients and physicians and I think we’ve kind of forgotten about that.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

James Collins, Broad Institute via Youtube

UP­DAT­ED: A space odyssey for new an­tibi­otics: MIT's ma­chine learn­ing ap­proach

Drug development is complex, expensive and comes with lousy odds of success — but in most cases, if you make it across the finish line brandishing a product with an edge (and play your cards right) it can be a lucrative endeavor.

As it stands, the antibiotic market is cursed — it harbors the stink of multiple bankruptcies, a dearth of innovation, and is consequently barely whetting the voracious appetites of big pharma or venture capitalists. Enter artificial intelligence — the biopharma industry’s cure-all for the pesky process of making a therapeutic, including data mining, drug discovery, optimal drug delivery, and addressable patient population.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead los­es two more patent chal­lenges on HIV pill, set­ting up court­room fight in Delaware

Gilead sustained two more losses in their efforts to rid themselves of an activist-backed patent lawsuit from the US government over a best-selling HIV pill.

Urged on by activists seeking to divert a portion of Gilead’s revenue to clinics and prevention programs, the Department of Health and Human Services made a claim to some of the patents for the best-selling HIV prevention drug, Truvada, also known as PrEP. Gilead responded by arguing in court that HHS’s patents were invalid.

Today, the US Patent and Trademark Office ruled that Gilead was likely to lose the last two of those challenges as well. The USPTO ruled against Gilead on the first two patents earlier this month.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Kathy High (file photo)

Gene ther­a­py pi­o­neer Kathy High has left Spark af­ter com­plet­ing $4.3B union with Roche

Kathy High dedicated the past seven years of her life shepherding experimental gene therapies she’s developed at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia toward the market as president and head of R&D at Spark Therapeutics. Now that the biotech startup is fully absorbed into Roche — with an FDA approval, a $4.3 billion buyout and a promising hemophilia program to boast — she’s ready to move on.

Roche confirmed her departure with Endpoints News and noted “she will take some well-deserved time off and then will begin a new chapter in a sabbatical at a university.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks (Moderna via YouTube)

For two decades, a new vac­cine tech­nol­o­gy has been slow­ly ap­proach­ing prime time. Now, can it stop a pan­dem­ic?

Two months before the outbreak, Moderna CMO Tal Zaks traveled from Cambridge, MA to Washington DC to meet with Anthony Fauci and the leaders of the National Institutes of Health.

For two years, Moderna had worked closely with NIH researchers to build a new kind of vaccine for MERS, one of the deadliest new viruses to emerge in the 21st century. The program was one test for a new technology designed to be faster, cheaper and more precise than the ways vaccines had been made for over a century. They had gathered evidence the technology could work in principle, and Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a longtime advocate for better epidemic preparedness, wanted to see if it, along with a couple of other approaches, could work in a worst-case scenario: A pandemic.

“[We were] trying to find a test case for how to demonstrate if our technology could rapidly prepare,” Zaks told Endpoints News.

Zaks and Fauci, of course, wouldn’t have to wait to develop a new test. By year’s end, an outbreak in China would short circuit the need for one and throw them into 24/7 work on a real-world emergency. They also weren’t the only ones with new technology who saw a chance to help in a crisis.

An ocean away, Lidia Oostvogels was still on vacation and relaxing at her mother’s house in Belgium when her Facebook started changing. It was days after Christmas and on most people’s feeds, the news that China had reported a novel virus to the World Health Organization blurred into the stream of holiday sweaters and fir trees. But on Oostvogels’s feed, full of vaccine researchers and virus experts, speculation boiled: There was a virus in China, something contained to the country, but “exotic,” “weird,” and maybe having to do with animals. Maybe a coronavirus.

Lidia Oostvogels

“I was immediately thinking like, ‘Hey, this is something that if needed, we can play a role,'” Oostvogels told Endpoints.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Christos Kyratsous (via LinkedIn)

He built a MERS treat­ment in 6 months and then the best Ebo­la drug. Now Chris­tos Kyrat­sous turns his sights on Covid-19

TARRYTOWN, NY — In 2015, as the Ebola epidemic raged through swaths of West Africa, Kristen Pascal’s roommates sat her down on their couch and staged an intervention.

“Are you sure this is what you want to be doing with your life?” she recalls them asking her.

Special report

Pascal, a research associate for Regeneron, had been coming home at 2 am and leaving at 6 am. At one point, she didn’t see her roommate for a week. For months, that was life in Christos Kyratsous’ lab as the pair led a company-wide race to develop the first drug that could effectively treat Ebola before the outbreak ended. For Pascal, that was worth it.

“I’m ok, I don’t have Ebola,” Pascal told them. “I see that death toll rising and I can’t not do something about it.”

Last August, Regeneron learned they had succeeded: In a large trial across West Africa, their drug, REGN-EB3, was vastly more effective than the standard treatments. It was surprise news for the company, coming just 10 months into a trial they thought would take several years and a major victory in the global fight against a deadly virus that killed over 2,000 in 2019 and can carry a mortality rate of up to 90%.

For Kyratsous and Pascal, though, it brought only fleeting reprieve. Just four months after the NIH informed them REGN-EB3 worked, Kyratsous was back in his office reading the New York Times for updates on a new outbreak on another continent, and wondering alongside Pascal and senior management whether it was time to pull the trigger again.

In late January, as the death toll swelled and the first confirmed cases outside China broke double digits, they made a decision. Soon they were back on the phone with the multiple government agencies and their coronavirus partners at the University of Maryland’s Level 3 bio lab. The question was simple: Can Kyratsous and his team use a process honed over two previous outbreaks, and create a treatment before the newest epidemic ends? Or worse, if, as world health experts fear, it doesn’t vanish but becomes a recurrent virus like the flu?

“Christos likes things immediately,” Matt Frieman, Regeneron’s coronavirus collaborator at the University of Maryland, told Endpoints. “That’s what makes us good collaborators: We push each other to develop things faster and faster.”

Kristen Pascal (Regeneron)

Click on the image to see the full-sized version

The first time Regeneron tried to respond to a global outbreak, it was something of a systems test, Kyratsous explains from his office at Regeneron’s Tarrytown headquarters. Kyratsous, newly promoted, has crammed it with photos of his family, sketches of viral vectors and a shark he drew for his 3-year-old son. He speaks rapidly – an idiosyncrasy his press person says has only been aggravated this afternoon by the contents of his “Regeneron Infectious Diseases”-minted espresso glass – and he gesticulates with similar fluidity, tumbling through antibodies, MERS, the novel coronavirus, Ebola-infected monkeys.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Don't let Ab­b­Vie fool FTC with an easy di­vesti­ture, plead crit­ics in lat­est at­tack on $63B Al­ler­gan buy­out

If the FTC must let AbbVie and Allergan go ahead with their merger, at least make them divest their latest blockbuster on the market, a chorus of unions, consumer groups and public interest organizations plead in a new attempt to rein in the megamerger.

There’s a second part to their argument: If the antitrust watchdog does greenlight the divestiture AbbVie wants, then at least ensure the pharma giant cannot corner its future rivals with its exclusionary tactics.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 72,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.