No­var­tis posts land­mark CAR-T da­ta as head-to-head ri­val­ry with Kite Phar­ma looms

Vas­ant Narasimhan, chief med­ical of­fi­cer of No­var­tis AG, looks on dur­ing a Jan­u­ary 2017 news con­fer­ence in Basel  Michele Lim­i­na/Bloomberg

No­var­tis’ pi­o­neer­ing CAR-T drug CTL019 (ti­s­agen­le­cleu­cel) scored high in treat­ing dif­fuse large B-cell lym­phoma (DL­B­CL), spot­light­ing num­bers that will like­ly al­low the phar­ma gi­ant to plunge head-to-head in the mar­ket against its main ini­tial ri­val, Kite Phar­ma. But No­var­tis al­so found it­self de­fend­ing its man­u­fac­tur­ing op­er­a­tions Wednes­day morn­ing, as an­a­lysts ze­roed in on a num­ber of pa­tients who couldn’t be treat­ed in the study.

The fig­ures — drawn from its ea­ger­ly an­tic­i­pat­ed Phase II JULI­ET study — that will at­tract every­one’s at­ten­tion first: At three months the over­all re­sponse rate hit 45% among 23 of 51 pa­tients eval­u­at­ed with an im­pres­sive 37% achiev­ing a com­plete re­sponse and 8% achiev­ing a par­tial re­sponse. And those CRs con­tin­ued be­yond the three months to the da­ta cut­off in prep­ping for the an­nounce­ment, of­fer­ing a glimpse of dura­bil­i­ty that will help make No­var­tis’ case.

“For us as a med­ical com­pa­ny and from my or­ga­ni­za­tion’s stand­point, we want to have a dra­mat­ic im­pact,” No­var­tis $NVS chief med­ical of­fi­cer Vas Narasimhan tells me. “This is, of course, trans­for­ma­tive… It gives us the con­vic­tion to move ahead.”

Narasimhan in par­tic­u­lar high­light­ed ear­ly ev­i­dence of per­sis­tence for this ther­a­py, which will be cru­cial to dif­fer­en­ti­at­ing their drug from all the CAR-T ther­a­pies to come, from any an­gle.

The best rea­son to sug­gest why CTL019 could be a stand­out, he says, points to their drug’s use of the 4-1BB cos­tim­u­la­to­ry do­main, dis­tin­guished from the CD28 do­main used by Kite’s ri­val drug and Juno’s ini­tial lead ther­a­py, now scrapped in fa­vor of a drug that us­es 4-1BB. That 4-1BB do­main may ex­plain why the ini­tial ramp up of T cell ex­pres­sion is slight­ly slow­er, adding to longterm per­sis­tence. And it may al­so ex­plain No­var­tis’ rel­a­tive­ly clean safe­ty pro­file, with no ma­jor is­sues (so far) re­lat­ed to neu­ro­tox­i­c­i­ty, which will like­ly be giv­en care­ful scruti­ny at the FDA.

All that, though, has yet to be de­ter­mined.

Purists hate cross-tri­al com­par­isons, not­ing hard-to-score com­par­isons in the pa­tients stud­ied. But Wall Street’s first re­sponse will be to line up the da­ta from the phar­ma gi­ant against the num­bers for Kite’s KTE-C19 (axi­cab­ta­gene ciloleu­cel) at 3 months. Their drug hit an ORR of 39% among 51 pa­tients, with 33% achiev­ing a com­plete re­sponse — com­pa­ra­ble, though, mar­gin­al­ly less sig­nif­i­cant re­sults that will leave these two com­pa­nies bat­tling it out.

Narasimhan de­clined to touch my ques­tion about com­par­ing num­bers in the piv­otal stud­ies, which was to be ex­pect­ed. But Twit­ter was abuzz this morn­ing.

As ex­pect­ed, cy­tokine re­lease syn­drome was com­mon, with 57% ex­pe­ri­enc­ing CRS — al­though no one died from it. No deaths were at­trib­uted to the drug.

Kite’s num­bers have ma­tured be­yond that to the 6-month mark, slip­ping slight­ly but re­main­ing strong­ly com­pet­i­tive, as Kite CEO Arie Bellde­grun pre­dict­ed it would. And af­ter the JULI­ET da­ta were ini­tial­ly re­leased in an ab­stract ear­ly Wednes­day, cir­cu­lat­ing on Twit­ter, Kite’s shares jumped 6% af­ter in­vestors got a chance to eval­u­ate how the two drugs stacked up.

No­var­tis will get the first crack at an ap­proval for chil­dren with acute lym­phoblas­tic leukemia, with an FDA ex­pert pan­el slat­ed for Ju­ly 12. And with a pri­or­i­ty re­view, the agency is com­mit­ted to a quick re­sponse with a de­ci­sion due lat­er this year. Kite is about two months be­hind with a PDU­FA date of No­vem­ber 29.

An­oth­er area that No­var­tis, Kite and any fu­ture ri­vals will com­pete on is man­u­fac­tur­ing time.

Says Narasimhan: “Vein-to-vein time (the stretch from ex­tract­ing cells to get­ting them back in as a ther­a­py) we ex­pect to have in the range of 20 days. We were slow­er in the clin­i­cal tri­als,” with the man­u­fac­tur­ing arm bring­ing that down from 29 days.

Cowen got the dis­cus­sion about man­u­fac­tur­ing start­ed Wednes­day morn­ing by not­ing the ab­stract’s fig­ures on pa­tients in the study who nev­er made it to the in­fu­sion point. No­var­tis re­spond­ed with a state­ment, not­ing that they had fac­tored in a high dropout rate due to the very ad­vanced stage of an ag­gres­sive dis­ease and the rapid de­te­ri­o­ra­tion you would ex­pect in their sta­tus.

An­a­lysts al­so not­ed that a num­ber of pa­tients nev­er were treat­ed be­cause of man­u­fac­tur­ing prob­lems — a po­ten­tial­ly se­ri­ous sna­fu. But No­var­tis says it is get­ting a bet­ter han­dle on that and down­played the is­sue, adding:

 On­ly 6% (9 of 141) of en­rolled pa­tients were dis­con­tin­ued due to in­abil­i­ty to man­u­fac­ture an ad­e­quate dose of CART cells. Over the course of JULI­ET, with con­tin­u­ous process im­prove­ments, man­u­fac­tur­ing suc­cess rate im­proved to 97% for the last 30 pa­tients.

In JULI­ET, pa­tients could re­ceive bridg­ing chemother­a­py, re­flect­ing the ag­gres­sive na­ture of dis­ease in pa­tients with r/r DL­B­CL, so even pa­tients in poor con­di­tion could be en­rolled and in­fused. The cry­op­re­served leuka­phere­sis used in JULI­ET gives physi­cians the flex­i­bil­i­ty to sched­ule aphere­sis at a time that is in the best in­ter­est of their pa­tients, in­clud­ing times far in ad­vance of man­u­fac­tur­ing. The tri­al de­sign and pop­u­la­tion in­fused re­flects the re­al world chal­lenges in treat­ing pa­tients with an ag­gres­sive can­cer such as r/r DL­B­CL.

As for man­u­fac­tur­ing, we are con­fi­dent we will be able to meet the re­quired man­u­fac­tur­ing de­mands mov­ing for­ward.

The ac­tu­al cell pro­cess­ing time is 10-12 days. We an­tic­i­pate that the time from man­u­fac­ture start to prod­uct re­lease (in­clud­ing Qual­i­ty as­sess­ments) will be 22 days at the time of com­mer­cial launch. We have a rig­or­ous qual­i­ty as­sess­ment process to en­sure a GMP com­pli­ant prod­uct is re­leased to pa­tients.

Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, Kite CMO David Chang told me at AS­CO that they have vein-to-vein down to about 17 days, and would still like to shave a few days off that.

No­tably, No­var­tis’ man­u­fac­tur­ing chief for CAR-T re­cent­ly re­signed to take a sim­i­lar job at Seat­tle Ge­net­ics, rais­ing con­cerns with­in the phar­ma gi­ant’s R&D op­er­a­tions that the con­tin­u­ing ex­o­dus of ex­ecs out of No­var­tis — par­tic­u­lar­ly fol­low­ing last sum­mer’s re­or­ga­ni­za­tion — could ham­per its per­for­mance.

No­var­tis ex­ecs, though, have in­sist­ed that the multi­na­tion­al com­pa­ny is com­plete­ly com­mit­ted to mak­ing this all work com­mer­cial­ly, not­ing their lead role in the field.

An­a­lysts have been de­bat­ing for months now how the com­pe­ti­tion will shake out. The lead CAR-T at Juno im­plod­ed last year af­ter it killed five pa­tients due to cere­bral ede­ma. Then Kite rat­tled the mar­ket re­cent­ly with the news that one of its pa­tients al­so died from cere­bral ede­ma. Some have the­o­rized that the added safe­ty threat could be due to the dif­fer­ent cos­tim­u­la­to­ry do­mains used in the drug, with Kite and Juno’s first lead us­ing CD28 and No­var­tis fo­cused on 4-1BB. It’s nev­er been es­tab­lished, though, as re­searchers con­tin­ue to gain new in­sights on the best way to de­sign these CAR-Ts.

No­var­tis has made CTL019 one of its top on­col­o­gy pro­grams, push­ing hard to gain first-mar­ket ad­van­tage for a new kind of can­cer treat­ment that reengi­neers pa­tients cells in­to a ther­a­py. Its best ear­ly promise lies in liq­uid tu­mors with in­ves­ti­ga­tors work­ing to tack­le a broad slate of these can­cers. Next stop: find­ing bet­ter ways to go af­ter sol­id tu­mors with this tech­nol­o­gy. Be­hind that, Cel­lec­tis and oth­ers will try to de­vel­op off-the-shelf ther­a­pies that can be di­rect­ly ad­min­is­tered to pa­tients.

Narasimhan al­so men­tioned that the phar­ma gi­ant has been work­ing on freez­ing cells for lat­er use, per­haps prepar­ing ther­a­pies that can be used at a lat­er stage, if a pa­tient needs them to bat­tle drug re­sis­tance. How that sort of op­er­a­tion could be squared with pay­ers, though, he freely ad­mits will be a com­plex chal­lenge.

This first round of da­ta marks the cut­ting edge of the com­pe­ti­tion. There’s much, much more to come.

Robert Bradway (Photographer: Scott Eisen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Am­gen snaps up can­cer drug play­er Five Prime, adding PhI­II-ready FGFR2b drug in $2B M&A play

Amgen is making a long-awaited move on the M&A side, buying South San Francisco-based Five Prime $FPRX for close to $2 billion and adding a slate of new cancer drugs to the pipeline.

Amgen is paying $38 a share, putting the deal value at $1.9 billion. The stock closed at $21.26 last night, giving investors a 78% premium.

The jewel in the crown of this deal is bemarituzumab, which Amgen describes as a first-in-class, Phase III-ready anti-FGFR2b antibody. Amgen was drawn to the bargaining table by Five Prime’s mid-stage data on gastric cancer, satisfied by PFS and OS data helping to validate FGFR2b as a target. Amgen researchers will now expand on the R&D program in other epithelial cancers, including lung, breast, ovarian and other cancers.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Liu (Casey Atkins Photography courtesy Broad Institute)

David Liu has a new big idea: pro­teome edit­ing. It could one day shred tau, RAS and some of the worst dis­ease-caus­ing pro­teins

Before David Liu became famous for inventing new forms of gene editing, he was known around academia in part for a more obscure innovation: a Rube Goldberg-esque system that uses bacteria-infecting viruses to take one protein and turn it into another.

Since 2011, Liu’s lab has used the system, called PACE, to dream up fantastical new proteins: DNA base editors far more powerful than the original; more versatile forms of the gene editor Cas9; insecticides that kill insecticide-resistant bugs; enzymes that slide synthetic amino acids into living organisms. But they struggled throughout to master one of the most common and powerful proteins in the biological world: proteases, a set of Swiss army knife enzymes that cut, cleave or shred other proteins in everything from viruses to humans.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

The 2021 top 100 bio­phar­ma in­vestors: As the pan­dem­ic hit and IPOs boomed, VCs swung in­to ac­tion like nev­er be­fore

The global pandemic may have roiled economies, killed hundreds of thousands and throttled entire industries, but the only effect it had on biopharma venture investing was to help turbocharge the field to giddy new heights.

Below you’ll find the new top 100 venture investors in the industry, ranked by the number of deals they were publicly involved in, as tracked by DealForma chief Chris Dokomajilar. The numbers master then calculated the estimated amount of money they put into each deal — divvying up the cash by the number of players — to indicate how they managed their syndicates.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Eli Lil­ly claims a TKO in its long-run­ning ti­tle fight with No­vo Nordisk for the block­buster di­a­betes mar­ket — but there’s a hitch

Eli Lilly isn’t just gunning for a better diabetes drug in tirzepatide. They want to cut ahead of Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster rival Ozempic (semaglutide) on the obesity front as well. But a newly-claimed win in a head-to-head Phase III showdown over reducing A1C while shedding pounds — complete with clear evidence of superiority over the approved rival — could prove a tough sell right now.

Let’s start with the latest data from Lilly.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hal Barron, Endpoints UKBIO19

GSK, Vir's hopes for a Covid-19 an­ti­body fall flat in NIH 'mas­ter pro­to­col' with no ben­e­fit in hos­pi­tal­ized pa­tients

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology were hopeful that one of their partnered antibodies would carve out a win after getting the invite to a major NIH study in hospitalized Covid-19 patients. But just like Eli Lilly, the pair’s drug couldn’t hit the mark, and now they’ll be left to take a hard look at the game plan.

The NIH has shut down enrollment for GSK and Vir’s antibody VIR-7831 in its late-stage ACTIV-3 trial after the drug showed negligible effect in achieving sustained recovery in hospitalized Covid-19 patients, the partners said Wednesday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As Brain­Storm con­tin­ues to tout ‘clear sig­nal’ on ALS drug, the FDA of­fers a rare pub­lic slap­down on the da­ta

A little more than a week after BrainStorm acknowledged that regulators at the FDA had informed them that the biotech needed more data before it could expect to gain an approval for its ALS treatment NurOwn — while still touting a “clear signal” of efficacy and not ruling out an application — the agency has decided to clarify the record in a most unusual statement.

The FDA statement amounts to a straight slapdown, offering a different set of efficacy numbers from the company’s public presentation last November and ruling out any chance of statistical significance.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Eli Lil­ly claims suc­cess in a new JAK in­di­ca­tion: hair loss

Over the last decade, drugmakers have proven JAK inhibitors can treat a smattering of immune-related diseases ranging from rheumatoid arthritis to Covid-19. Now Eli Lilly has pulled out a new one.

Lilly and its biotech partner Incyte announced Wednesday that their JAK inhibitor baricitinib effectively regrew patients’ hair in a Phase III trial for alopecia areata, an autoimmune condition that can cause sudden, severe and patchy hair loss. Lilly didn’t break down the results from the 546-patient trial, but the primary endpoint was improvement on a standard score for alopecia symptoms.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Cedric Francois, Apellis CEO (Apellis)

Apel­lis joins the grow­ing num­ber of bio­phar­mas scrap­ping a failed Covid-19 pro­gram af­ter an ear­ly flop

The global pandemic set off a frenzy of R&D activity as biotechs around the world scrambled to see if they could come up with a new medication or vaccine to help fight back. But even as the mRNA standouts are highlighting the market El Dorado open to successful teams, the failures are starting to pile up.

Thursday afternoon it was Apellis’ $APLS turn to deep-six a new drug.

The biotech reports that their C3 therapy APL-9 had failed to move the needle on mortality when combined with standard of care, as compared to SOC alone.

Norbert Bischofberger (Kronos)

Kro­nos seals pact with reg­u­la­tors to hunt AML with pre­vi­ous­ly off-lim­its bio­mark­er end­point

As head of R&D at Gilead, Norbert Bischofberger shelved the SYK inhibitor entospletinib after it proved to need too lengthy a development cycle to win approval. The FDA heard those concerns and will now give entospletinib, once again under Bischofberger’s watchful eye at Kronos, a faster shot on goal.

Kronos has reached an agreement with the FDA to conduct a Phase III trial with a unique primary endpoint, the company announced Thursday, one that it hopes will accelerate entospletinib’s path forward in a certain type of acute myeloid leukemia. The endpoint is measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity, which Kronos says can paint a clearer picture when it comes to the study’s complete response rate.