NYU surgeon transplants an engineered pig kidney into the outside of a brain-dead patient (Joe Carrotta/NYU Langone Health)

No, sci­en­tists are not any clos­er to pig-to-hu­man trans­plants than they were last week

Steve Holtz­man was awok­en by a 1 a.m. call from a doc­tor at Duke Uni­ver­si­ty ask­ing if he could put some pigs on a plane and fly them from Ohio to North Car­oli­na that day. A mo­tor­cy­clist had got­ten in­to a hor­rif­ic crash, the doc­tor ex­plained. He be­lieved the pigs’ liv­ers, su­tured on­to the pa­tient’s skin like an ex­ter­nal fil­ter, might be able to tide the young man over un­til a donor liv­er be­came avail­able.

Holtz­man was the pres­i­dent of DNX, one of the first com­pa­nies to try to use biotech­nol­o­gy to make pig-to-hu­man trans­plants pos­si­ble. He had amassed a pathogen-free porcine fa­cil­i­ty for their work and so oblig­ed, putting some un­lucky hogs on an Ohio State Uni­ver­si­ty plane to Duke, where one of ul­ti­mate­ly four pa­tients treat­ed with the pro­ce­dure sur­vived to re­ceive a new hu­man liv­er. The re­sults were pub­lished in the New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine in 1994.

Which is why Holtz­man was shocked and a lit­tle bit con­fused when he read re­ports this week that doc­tors at NYU had con­duct­ed a “ground­break­ing” pro­ce­dure by, with the fam­i­ly’s con­sent, tak­ing a pig kid­ney and su­tur­ing it to the leg of a brain-dead pa­tient for 54 hours.

It was some­thing sci­en­tists could’ve done for years, he said. And it didn’t get them clos­er to ac­tu­al­ly mak­ing an­i­mal-to-hu­man trans­plants pos­si­ble, or ad­dress­ing the field’s main goal: solv­ing a na­tion­al or­gan short­age that kills 20 Amer­i­cans per day.

Steve Holtz­man

“It is hype and bull­shit,” said Holtz­man, who is now the chair­man of a Chi­nese com­pa­ny work­ing on xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion. “It be­longs in the Na­tion­al En­quir­er.”

Oth­er ex­perts with­in the small and large­ly in­su­lar world of xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion — the tech­ni­cal term for an­i­mal-to-hu­man trans­plants — were more sub­dued. Pig kid­neys, they said, are more dif­fi­cult to en­graft in a hu­man than pig liv­ers. And they not­ed Robert Mont­gomery, the NYU sur­geon, and Unit­ed Ther­a­peu­tics, the com­pa­ny that sup­plied the ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied pig, were not the first ones to con­ceive of this type of pro­ce­dure.

Yet while many were glad to see xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion get main­stream at­ten­tion af­ter two decades in which much of the field worked in ob­scu­ri­ty, they strug­gled to see the ex­act re­search ques­tion the ex­per­i­ment an­swered or the sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge gained.

Al­though DNX and oth­er 90s-era xeno­trans­plant com­pa­nies flamed out for a va­ri­ety of rea­sons, sci­en­tists have known since the ear­ly 2000s that a sin­gle ge­net­ic ed­it should al­low or­gans to sur­vive for days, if not months, in a pa­tient. The re­al ques­tion is get­ting pig or­gans to con­sis­tent­ly sur­vive long-term, a much high­er im­muno­log­ic hur­dle.

The best some could say was that the work con­firmed what they al­ready knew.

Megan Sykes

“The re­sult doesn’t con­tain any sur­pris­es for those of us in this trans­plant field,” said Megan Sykes, di­rec­tor of Co­lum­bia’s cen­ter for trans­la­tion­al im­munol­o­gy. In that sense, it was a “good first step.”

For those who missed it, on Tues­day night, USA To­day pub­lished an in­tri­cate fea­ture de­tail­ing how, in late Sep­tem­ber, with $3.2 mil­lion in fund­ing from Unit­ed Ther­a­peu­tics, Mont­gomery con­nect­ed a mod­i­fied pig kid­ney to the leg of a 66-year-old woman who had re­cent­ly been de­clared brain-dead.

The pa­tient’s fam­i­ly was ap­proached, with the ad­vice of bioethi­cists, be­cause they want­ed to do­nate her or­gans but they weren’t fit for trans­plant. It of­fered an­oth­er way to help ad­vance med­i­cine that could one day save lives, they ex­plained.

The kid­ney be­gan fil­ter­ing her blood in­to urine with­in min­utes and stayed pink and func­tion­al for just over 2 days. Cru­cial­ly, Mont­gomery said, there was no ev­i­dence of in­stant re­jec­tion.

“As you all know, this is re­al­ly im­por­tant,” he said af­ter­wards. “This is go­ing to take us to the next step, which is hav­ing or­gans avail­able to every­one who needs them at any time.”

The sto­ry was soon picked up by The New York Times, Econ­o­mist, BBC and Al Jazeera, along with AP and Reuters re­ports that were reprint­ed wide­ly. The pro­ce­dure, the Times said, was “a sci­en­tif­ic break­through that one day may yield a vast new sup­ply of or­gans for se­vere­ly ill pa­tients.”

The xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion field has in­deed been inch­ing to­ward that goal for two decades, slow­ly build­ing it­self up af­ter falling apart in the 1990s, when com­pa­nies such as DNX and No­var­tis poured bil­lions in­to en­gi­neer­ing an­i­mals in­to donors. That decade, it be­came clear just how much mod­i­fi­ca­tion a pig — an an­i­mal cho­sen be­cause it was both close to hu­mans and easy to mass pro­duce — would re­quire, while the dis­cov­ery of a porcine virus vague­ly rem­i­nis­cent of HIV alarmed pub­lic health au­thor­i­ties deal­ing with the dead­liest days of the AIDS cri­sis.

Since then, a hand­ful of com­pa­nies have in­tro­duced a slew of new mod­i­fi­ca­tions and strate­gies and test­ed the re­sult­ing or­gans in non-hu­man pri­mates, in some cas­es get­ting the mon­keys to sur­vive for years.

The field, stocked with big and com­pet­i­tive per­son­al­i­ties, be­gan to buzz about who would be the first to do it in hu­mans. The ques­tion is whether or not Mont­gomery’s pro­ce­dure ac­tu­al­ly helped to­ward the goal of do­ing it in a liv­ing pa­tient who will have to be able to sur­vive off the or­gan.

“Peo­ple are chas­ing — who will be first? ‘I want to be first!’ ‘I want to be first!'” said Kaz Ya­ma­da, di­rec­tor of sur­gi­cal re­search, Co­lum­bia Cen­ter for Trans­la­tion­al Im­munol­o­gy. But “our goal is to cure the pa­tient, not to say, ‘I’m first.'”

Mont­gomery’s pro­ce­dure arose out of dis­cus­sions be­tween the trans­plant team at NYU and the uni­ver­si­ty’s renowned bioethi­cist de­part­ment, led by Art Ca­plan, who proac­tive­ly out­lined how, in the right con­di­tions, a brain-dead pa­tient could be the best first test for a xeno­trans­plant. (They al­so ad­vised against grant­i­ng ex­clu­siv­i­ty to any news out­let, fear­ing the me­dia fren­zy that in­deed en­sued when NYU did so. “I don’t win all my fights,” Ca­plan told me.)

But the idea of us­ing the re­cent­ly de­ceased as a test case for xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion goes back to at least Thomas Star­zl, of­ten con­sid­ered the fa­ther of the field, who first pro­posed it in the ear­ly 2000s, said Uni­ver­si­ty of Mi­a­mi sur­geon Joe Tec­tor.

Joe Tec­tor

Long one of the field’s most promi­nent fig­ures, Tec­tor had con­sid­ered do­ing it him­self. But by the 2010s, it no longer seemed nec­es­sary. Al­though Mont­gomery con­sult­ed with him pri­or to the op­er­a­tion, Tec­tor him­self had lost in­ter­est.

“We knew the bi­ol­o­gy,” he said. “We weren’t as com­fort­able that that would give us use­ful in­for­ma­tion.”

A lot had changed since the ear­ly 2000s, when Star­zl first pro­posed the idea.

Mont­gomery said his ex­per­i­ment showed that pa­tients wouldn’t in­stant­ly re­ject the mod­i­fied pig. But the lone ge­net­ic mod­i­fi­ca­tion Unit­ed gave the pig was first done suc­cess­ful­ly 20 years ago. And Ya­ma­da showed back in 2004 that the mod­i­fi­ca­tion — knock­ing out a sug­ar called al­pha-gal that all pri­mates, in­clud­ing hu­mans, have an­ti­bod­ies against — pre­vents pri­mates from in­stant­ly re­ject­ing the or­gans, al­low­ing them to live in that ex­per­i­ment for 83 days.

That find­ing has been held up re­peat­ed­ly, ex­perts say, with some mon­keys liv­ing for hun­dreds of days af­ter re­ceiv­ing or­gans from pigs mod­i­fied with that ed­it alone.

There’s dis­agree­ment with­in the xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion on how many ed­its will ul­ti­mate­ly be need­ed: Tec­tor’s pigs have three; eGe­n­e­sis, the well-backed Har­vard-spin­out, and Qi­han Biotech, its Chi­nese off­shoot that Holtz­man now chairs, have test­ed dozens; at Co­lum­bia, Ya­ma­da and Sykes use on­ly the one ed­it but al­so trans­plant a pig’s thy­mus, along­side the kid­ney, to try to get long-term T cell tol­er­ance.

The groups are now com­pet­ing to get the right FDA-ap­proved fa­cil­i­ties and sup­ply chains to make do­na­tions from a pig to a liv­ing pa­tient pos­si­ble, to show they can get con­sis­tent long-term sur­vival in mon­keys. All agreed that there were am­ple da­ta show­ing hu­mans wouldn’t re­ject a mod­i­fied pig or­gan in­stant­ly, or in the 54 hours Mont­go­mo­ery stud­ied.

For Tec­tor, it was “com­fort­ing,” he said, to now have val­i­da­tion in hu­mans, even if he wouldn’t have done it him­self. Oth­ers were less san­guine.

“I can’t imag­ine that things would be so much dif­fer­ent in hu­mans to think that this was re­al­ly in­for­ma­tive,” said Jim Mark­mann, chief of trans­plant at Mass­a­chu­setts Gen­er­al. (Mark­mann is al­so a sci­en­tif­ic ad­vi­sor for eGe­n­e­sis.) “I think it was more sen­sa­tion­al­ism.”

Unit­ed Ther­a­peu­tics, a com­pa­ny that has long court­ed both hype and se­cre­cy, did not re­spond to an in­ter­view re­quest or de­tailed ques­tions. At a press con­fer­ence Thurs­day, Mont­gomery said he used a pig that on­ly had the sin­gle ed­it be­cause al­pha-gal is the most im­por­tant knock­out for pre­vent­ing im­me­di­ate re­jec­tion and be­cause the FDA had al­ready cleared pigs with the ed­it for con­sump­tion and some re­search pur­pos­es.

He ar­gued that you could nev­er be sure the an­i­mal re­sults will trans­late in­to hu­mans un­til it’s ac­tu­al­ly done. And he said a full peer-re­viewed pub­li­ca­tion out­lin­ing the pro­ce­dure and its re­sults was com­ing.

“There have been many oth­er ex­am­ples of pre­clin­i­cal pri­mate stud­ies that have not trans­lat­ed well in­to what hap­pens in hu­mans,” he said. “We do have quite a bit of non­hu­man pri­mate da­ta but whether we’re go­ing to see the same things when we go to hu­man tri­als is re­al­ly not some­thing that we can re­ly up­on.”

Still, there was at least one point he and many of the out­side ex­perts agreed up­on. Al­though Holtz­man feared that the hype around the op­er­a­tion could de­tract from “peo­ple with in­tegri­ty and sci­en­tif­ic chops … who are the best hope for mak­ing this stuff hap­pen,” Sykes and Mark­mann ar­gued that it could ac­tu­al­ly help xeno­trans­plan­ta­tion, even if it con­tributed noth­ing to the sci­ence.

Mak­ing pig-to-hu­man trans­plants a re­al­i­ty will re­quire not on­ly strong re­sults in mon­key stud­ies, but al­so the trust of reg­u­la­tors and the pub­lic.

That has not al­ways been easy to win, but know­ing that noth­ing cat­a­stroph­ic hap­pened for at least the first 54 hours might help. Sykes, asked if she would have done the ex­per­i­ment, said that might be not be the right ques­tion.

“I’m hap­py to reap the ben­e­fits of it hav­ing been done,” Sykes said. “Of peo­ple hav­ing as­sur­ance that some­thing bad is not go­ing to hap­pen. I think that’s help­ful.”

Forge Bi­o­log­ics’ cGMP Com­pli­ant and Com­mer­cial­ly Vi­able Be­spoke Affin­i­ty Chro­matog­ra­phy Plat­form

Forge Biologics has developed a bespoke affinity chromatography platform approach that factors in unique vector combinations to streamline development timelines and assist our clients in efficiently entering the clinic. By leveraging our experience with natural and novel serotypes and transgene conformations, we are able to accelerate affinity chromatography development by nearly 3-fold. Many downstream purification models are serotype-dependent, demanding unique and time-consuming development strategies for each AAV gene therapy product1. With the increasing demand to propel AAV gene therapies to market, platform purification methods that support commercial-scale manufacturing of high-quality vectors with excellent safety and efficacy profiles are essential.

Mathai Mammen, FogPharma's next CEO

Math­ai Mam­men hands in J&J's R&D keys to lead Greg Ver­dine’s Fog­Phar­ma 

In the early 1990s, Mathai Mammen was a teaching assistant in Greg Verdine’s Science B46 course at Harvard. In June, the former R&D head at Johnson & Johnson will succeed Verdine as CEO, president and chair of FogPharma, the same month the seven-year-old biotech kickstarts its first clinical trial.

After leading R&D at one of the largest drugmakers in the world, taking the company through more than half a dozen drug approvals in the past few years, not to mention a Covid-19 vaccine race, Mammen departed J&J last month and will take the helm of a Cambridge, MA biotech attempting to go after what Verdine calls the “true emperor of all oncogenes” — beta-catenin.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sen­ate Fi­nance Com­mit­tee lobs more bi­par­ti­san pres­sure on­to PBMs

Congress is honing in on how it wants to overhaul the rules of the road for pharmacy benefit managers, with a Senate Finance Committee hearing Thursday serving as the latest example of the Hill’s readiness to make changes to how pharma middlemen operate.

While pledging to ensure patients and pharmacies “don’t get a raw deal,” Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) laid out the beginning of what looks like a major bipartisan effort — moves the PBM industry is likely to challenge vigorously.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Feng Zhang (Susan Walsh/AP Images)

In search of new way to de­liv­er gene ed­i­tors, CRISPR pi­o­neer turns to mol­e­c­u­lar sy­ringes

Bug bacteria are ruthless.

Some soil bacteria have evolved tiny, but deadly injection systems that attach to insect cells, perforate them and release toxins inside — killing a bug in just a few days’ time. Scientists, on the other hand, want to leverage that system to deliver medicines.

In a paper published Wednesday in Nature, MIT CRISPR researcher Feng Zhang and his lab describe how they engineered these syringes made by bacteria to deliver potential therapies like toxins that kill cancer cells and gene editors. With the help of an AI program, they developed syringes that can load proteins of their choice and selectively target human cells.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

J&J bows out of RSV vac­cine race, end­ing PhI­II study and ced­ing to Pfiz­er, GSK

Johnson & Johnson announced Wednesday morning it is ending development of its adult RSV vaccine that was in the middle of a 27,200-patient trial, giving up a big slice of what’s expected to be the next multibillion-dollar pharma market.

The decision came down to the shifting RSV “competitive landscape,” a company spokesperson tells Endpoints News, adding the “breadth of options” was much different than when J&J first started its pivotal study. The spokesperson declined to comment on the Phase III data, saying only the shot is undergoing an “ongoing assessment.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No longer ‘dead or just hi­ber­nat­ing,’ drug­mak­ers re­turn to heart med­i­cines

In 2015, now-FDA Commissioner Robert Califf joined industry, academic and regulatory representatives in Washington to discuss why more drugs weren’t in development for cardiovascular diseases, the leading US cause of death and once a mainstay of pharmaceutical industry blockbusters.

The group pointed to many reasons. Clinical trials could take years and testing was expensive. Wide availability of generic drugs made the commercial prospects uncertain. Their paper title summed up the mood: “Cardiovascular Drug Development: Is it Dead or Just Hibernating?”

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Nicklas Westerholm, Egetis Therapeutics CEO

Ac­qui­si­tion talks on­go­ing for Swedish rare dis­ease biotech Egetis, shares up al­most 40%

Shares of the Sweden-based rare disease biotech Egetis Therapeutics skyrocketed on Thursday afternoon as the company said it’s engaged in “ongoing discussion” with external parties regarding a “potential acquisition.”

Egetis confirmed rumors with a statement on Thursday while noting that there is no certainty that a takeover offer will be made.

Nonetheless, the possibility of an acquisition has shot up Egetis’ share price. By the afternoon on Thursday, its stock price was {$EGTX.ST} up over 38%. An Egetis spokesperson told Endpoints News in an email that it has no further comments.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lu­pus drug de­vel­op­ment mar­ket heat­ing up, while FDA links with ad­vo­ca­cy group to fur­ther ac­cel­er­ate re­search

The long-underserved systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) market is suddenly buzzing with treatment possibilities. Less than two years after AstraZeneca’s approval for Saphnelo — the first new SLE drug in a decade and joining just one other approved in GSK’s Benlysta – the pipeline of potential drugs numbers in the dozens.

Although most are very early stage — Spherix Global Insights estimates five in Phase II/III — the pharma R&D enthusiasm is catching on among doctors, patients and advocacy groups. On Wednesday, the Lupus Research Alliance and the FDA formed a novel private-public partnership called Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) to help advance lupus clinical trial success.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 163,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter safe­ty re­view, EMA mir­rors FDA with up­dat­ed rec­om­men­da­tions for JAK in­hibitors

The EMA released updated recommendations today for the use of JAK inhibitors (JAKi) after reviewing data from several clinical trials that showed increased incidents of issues in certain patients who have rheumatoid arthritis and other risk factors.

The EMA noted malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious infections, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and mortality in some patients.