Nov­el he­pati­tis B virus nu­cle­o­cap­sid for­ma­tion in­hibitor CB-HBV-001 demon­strates ex­cel­lent an­ti-HBV ac­tiv­i­ty

Spon­sored — This post rec­om­mend­ed by Pharm­cube.

Al­though it’s pos­si­ble to pre­vent HBV in­fec­tion with the HBV vac­cine, the glob­al pop­u­la­tion of in­fect­ed pa­tients still ex­ceeds 250 mil­lion, with more than 60 mil­lion of those at risk for cir­rho­sis and liv­er can­cer. There­fore, vi­ral he­pati­tis B has be­come one of the sig­nif­i­cant threats fac­ing glob­al pub­lic health.

The cure for pa­tients in­fect­ed with he­pati­tis C virus has al­ready been achieved, but un­like HCV’s sin­gle strand­ed RNA struc­ture, HBV is a DNA virus that ex­ists in the nu­cle­us of cells, with a more sta­ble struc­ture and more com­plex func­tion. It is thus more dif­fi­cult to elim­i­nate. In the repli­ca­tion process of HBV, the vi­ral DNA en­ters the host’s cell nu­cle­us and forms a su­per­coil co­va­lent­ly closed cir­cu­lar DNA (cc­cD­NA) — the source for HBV prog­e­ny RNAs. The com­mon be­lief is that on­ly by re­mov­ing the HBV cc­cD­NA with­in the cell nu­cle­us can we erad­i­cate the vi­ral car­ri­er sta­tus of pa­tients. This was al­so the goal of an­ti-HBV ther­a­pies.

HBV cap­sid pro­tein (al­so known as core pro­tein) plays mul­ti­ple func­tions in the repli­ca­tion and sta­bil­i­ty of the virus. Through in­hibit­ing HBV vi­ral as­sem­bly, dis­as­sem­bly, and tran­scrip­tion, cap­sid in­hibitors in­ter­fere with the repli­ca­tion of the virus. That pre­vents new in­fec­tion in liv­er cells, re­duc­ing and even­tu­al­ly elim­i­nat­ing in­fect­ed cells, thus rais­ing cure rates.

On No­vem­ber 9, 2018, at the an­nu­al meet­ing of the Amer­i­can As­so­ci­a­tion for the Study of Liv­er Dis­eases in San Fran­cis­co, Shang­hai Zhi­meng Bio­phar­ma Com­pa­ny show­cased an HBV nu­cle­o­cap­sid for­ma­tion in­hibitor with a nov­el chem­i­cal struc­ture, CB-HBV-001. The cur­rent HBV cap­sid pro­tein in­hibitors un­der de­vel­op­ment glob­al­ly can be di­vid­ed in­to two big groups ac­cord­ing to their chem­i­cal struc­ture: het­eroaryldihy­dropy­rim­i­dine (HAP, rep­re­sent­ed by clin­i­cal com­pounds from Roche and HEC Pharm) and sul­fon­amide (rep­re­sent­ed by John­son’s clin­i­cal com­pound). Mean­while, CB-HBV-001 is a pyra­zole with a nov­el struc­ture.


As Zhi­meng Bio­phar­ma’s da­ta show, com­pared to HAPs and sul­fon­amides, CB-HBV-001 pos­sess­es fa­vor­able an­ti-HBV ac­tiv­i­ty (EC50=12nM, test­ed in pri­ma­ry hu­man liv­er cells) and ex­cel­lent phar­ma­co­ki­net­ics and safe­ty pro­files (mice NOAEL: 800mg/kg/day, mice MTD >2000mg/kg). Fur­ther­more, CB-HBV-001 al­so demon­strates fa­vor­able an­tivi­ral ac­tiv­i­ty against virus­es that show re­sis­tance to nu­cle­o­side drugs in the clin­ic. When used in com­bi­na­tion with nu­cle­o­sides and in­ter­fer­on, CB-HBV-001 demon­strates fa­vor­able ad­di­tive ef­fect in in­hibit­ing both HBV DNA and HB­sAg, sug­gest­ing that CB-HBV-001 has po­ten­tial in over­com­ing re­sis­tance to nu­cle­o­sides and achiev­ing bet­ter ther­a­peu­tic ef­fect when used in com­bi­na­tion with ex­ist­ing HBV treat­ments.

Worth not­ing is that CB-HBV-001 demon­strates strong an­tivi­ral ac­tiv­i­ty against dif­fer­ent vari­ants car­ry­ing mu­ta­tions in HBV cap­sid pro­tein — in par­tic­u­lar the T33Q and I105F mu­ta­tions, which are re­sis­tant to both HAPs het­eroaryldihy­dropy­rim­idines and sul­fon­amides, the oth­er types of nu­cle­o­cap­sid in­hibitors.


Zhi­meng Bio­phar­ma is cur­rent­ly con­duct­ing pre-IND re­search on CB-HBV-001. It plans to sub­mit an IND in the sec­ond-half of 2019 and launch clin­i­cal stud­ies in ear­ly 2020.

An­ti-HBV drugs main­ly in­clude im­munomod­u­la­tors and nu­cle­o­side ana­logues. Com­mon im­munomod­u­la­tors in­clude in­ter­fer­ons (IFN); nu­cle­o­sides in­clude lamivu­dine, tel­bivu­dine, en­te­cavir and teno­fovir diso­prox­il. Al­though these drugs can ef­fec­tive­ly in­hib­it the repli­ca­tion of the virus, they have ob­vi­ous lim­i­ta­tions. For in­stance, among im­munomod­u­la­tors, long act­ing poly­eth­yl­ene gly­col-in­ter­fer­on-α are ef­fec­tive for on­ly 30% of hep B pa­tients, and its cure rate is around 7% to 8%. Its flaws are al­so pro­nounced: It re­quires in­jec­tions, is ex­pen­sive, and leads to side ef­fects like flu-like syn­drome and in­som­nia. On the oth­er hand, nu­cle­o­sides don’t pos­sess a mech­a­nism to erad­i­cate the virus, so once pa­tients stop tak­ing the drugs they re­lapse rapid­ly, but sus­tained dos­ing could lead to prob­lems like re­sis­tance.

Since cur­rent ther­a­peu­tic ap­proach­es are clear­ly in­ad­e­quate to ad­dress the clin­i­cal need for hep B ther­a­peu­tics, the re­search and de­vel­op­ment of new an­ti-HBV drugs have be­come a ma­jor re­search di­rec­tion for mul­ti­ple big phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies. Nu­cle­o­cap­sid for­ma­tion in­hibitors, im­munomod­u­la­tors, siR­NA, and ther­a­peu­tic vac­cines have all be­come ways to ex­plore the goal of cur­ing hep B.

Dr. Huan­ming Chen, founder of Zhi­meng Bio­phar­ma, said: “Dis­cov­er­ing new tar­gets and de­vel­op­ing drugs with new mech­a­nisms of ac­tion are the pre­req­ui­sites of achiev­ing a cure for hep B. But it is very dif­fi­cult to erad­i­cate a virus with a monother­a­py. Com­bi­na­tion treat­ment is more wide­ly en­dorsed in the in­dus­try as a strat­e­gy in achiev­ing a hep B cure.”

Brent Saunders [Getty Photos]

UP­DAT­ED: Ab­b­Vie seals $63B deal to buy a trou­bled Al­ler­gan — spelling out $1B in R&D cuts

Brent Saunders has found his way out of the current fix he’s in at Allergan $AGN. He’s selling the company to AbbVie for $63 billion in the latest example of the hot M&A market in biopharma.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tasly Bio­phar­ma pitch­es long-await­ed IPO — will it trig­ger an­oth­er $1B gold rush on HKEX?

In the run up to the Hong Kong stock ex­change’s an­tic­i­pat­ed rule change — open­ing the door for Chi­nese pre-rev­enue biotechs to go pub­lic clos­er to home — more than a year ago, Tasly Bio­phar­ma was one of the big play­ers whose ru­mored in­ter­est helped stoke en­thu­si­asm for the new list­ing venue. The com­pa­ny has since kept the drum­roll rum­bling in the back­ground, rais­ing a pre-IPO round and con­vinc­ing part­ner Trans­gene to swap own­er­ship in a joint ven­ture for eq­ui­ty. Now the oth­er shoe has fi­nal­ly dropped as ex­ecs out­line plans for a pipeline dom­i­nat­ed by car­dio­vas­cu­lar drugs.

Richard Gonzalez testifying in front of Senate Finance Committee, February 2019 [AP Images]

Ab­b­Vie's $63B buy­out spot­lights the re­turn of ma­jor M&A deals — de­spite the back­lash

Big time M&A is back. But for how long?

Over the past 18 months we’ve now seen three ma­jor buy­outs an­nounced: Take­da/Shire; Bris­tol-My­ers/Cel­gene and now Ab­b­Vie/Al­ler­gan. And with this lat­est deal it’s in­creas­ing­ly clear that the sharp fall from grace suf­fered by high-pro­file play­ers which have seen their share prices blast­ed has cre­at­ed an open­ing for the growth play­ers in big phar­ma to up their game — in sharp con­trast to the pop­u­lar bolt-on deals that have been dri­ving the growth strat­e­gy at No­var­tis, Mer­ck, Roche and oth­ers.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: In sur­prise switch, Bris­tol-My­ers is sell­ing off block­buster Ote­zla, promis­ing to com­plete Cel­gene ac­qui­si­tion — just lat­er

Apart from revealing its checkpoint inhibitor Opdivo blew a big liver cancer study on Monday, Bristol-Myers Squibb said its plans to swallow Celgene will require the sale of blockbuster psoriasis treatment Otezla to keep the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at bay.

The announcement — which has potentially delayed the completion of the takeover to early 2020 — irked investors, triggering the New York-based drugmaker’s shares to tumble Monday morning in premarket trading.

Celgene’s Otezla, approved in 2014 for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, is a rising star. It generated global sales of $1.6 billion last year, up from the nearly $1.3 billion in 2017. Apart from the partial overlap of Bristol-Myers injectable Orencia, the company’s rival oral TYK2 psoriasis drug is in late-stage development, after the firm posted encouraging mid-stage data on the drug, BMS-986165, last fall. With Monday’s decision, it appears Bristol-Myers is favoring its experimental drug, and discounting Otezla’s future.

The move blindsided some analysts. Credit Suisse’s Vamil Divan noted just days ago:

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Novotech CEO Dr. John Moller

Novotech CRO Award­ed Frost & Sul­li­van Best Biotech CRO Asia-Pa­cif­ic 2019

Known in the in­dus­try as the Asia-Pa­cif­ic CRO, Novotech is now lead CRO ser­vices provider for the grow­ing num­ber of in­ter­na­tion­al biotechs se­lect­ing the re­gion for their stud­ies.

Re­flect­ing this Asia-Pa­cif­ic growth, Novotech staff num­bers are up 20% since De­cem­ber 2018 to 600 in-house clin­i­cal re­search peo­ple across a full range of ser­vices, across the re­gion.

Novotech’s ca­pa­bil­i­ties have been rec­og­nized by an­a­lysts like Frost & Sul­li­van, most re­cent­ly with the pres­ti­gious Asia-Pa­cif­ic CRO Biotech of the year award for best prac­tices in clin­i­cal re­search for biotechs for the fifth year. See oth­er awards here.

SQZ, Ery­tech kick off $57M cell ther­a­py part­ner­ship; Jean-Paul Kress lands new CEO gig at Mor­phoSys

→ In a mar­riage of two tech­nolo­gies meant to make cell ther­a­pies more pow­er­ful, SQZ Biotech is team­ing up with France’s Ery­tech Phar­ma for a col­lab­o­ra­tion, with $57 mil­lion re­served for the first project and $50 mil­lion for each sub­se­quent ap­proval (prod­uct or in­di­ca­tion). Hav­ing ac­cess to Ery­tech’s method of fash­ion­ing ther­a­peu­tics from red blood cells, the Cam­bridge, MA-based com­pa­ny said, will am­pli­fy SQZ’s cell en­gi­neer­ing ca­pa­bil­i­ties and al­low them to de­vleop a new class of im­munomod­u­la­to­ry ther­a­pies. Its own tech — so far ap­plied in can­cer but al­so has po­ten­tial in di­a­betes — tem­po­rary dis­rupts the cell mem­brane by squeez­ing the cell, thus cre­at­ing a brief win­dow for tar­get ma­te­ri­als such as anti­gens to en­ter.

FDA re­jects Ac­er's rare dis­ease drug, asks for new tri­al — shares crater

Ac­er Ther­a­peu­tics’ bid to re­pur­pose celipro­lol — a be­ta-block­er on the mar­ket for hy­per­ten­sion — as a treat­ment for a rare, in­her­it­ed con­nec­tive tis­sue dis­or­der has hit a se­vere set­back. The New­ton, Mass­a­chu­setts-based com­pa­ny on Tues­day said the FDA re­ject­ed the drug and has asked for an­oth­er clin­i­cal tri­al.

The com­pa­ny’s shares $AC­ER cratered near­ly 77% to $4.47 in Tues­day morn­ing trad­ing.

Dean Hum. Nasdaq via YouTube

Gen­fit goes to Chi­na with a deal worth up to $228M for NASH drug

Fresh off the high of its Nas­daq IPO de­but, and the low of com­par­isons to Cymabay — whose NASH drug re­cent­ly stum­bled — Gen­fit on Mon­day un­veiled an up to $228 mil­lion deal with transpa­cif­ic biotech Terns Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals to de­vel­op its flag­ship ex­per­i­men­tal liv­er drug — elafi­bra­nor — in Greater Chi­na.

The deal comes weeks af­ter Gen­fit $GN­FT is­sued a fiery de­fense of its dual PPAR ag­o­nist elafi­bra­nor, when com­peti­tor Cymabay’s PPARδ ag­o­nist, se­ladel­par, fiz­zled in a snap­shot of da­ta from an on­go­ing mid-stage tri­al. The main goal at the end of 12 weeks was for se­ladel­par to in­duce a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant im­prove­ment in liv­er fat con­tent, but da­ta showed that pa­tients on the place­bo ac­tu­al­ly per­formed bet­ter.

With 4 more biotech IPOs due to wrap up Q2, how is the class of 2019 far­ing?

With 22 biotech IPOs on the books and four more set to price in the last week of June, in­vest­ment ad­vis­er Re­nais­sance Cap­i­tal has tak­en the pulse of the re­cent rush.

By the IPO ex­perts’ count, 25 out of 32 health­care of­fer­ings this year have been from biotechs — dif­fer­ing slight­ly from Brad Lon­car’s tal­ly — and the over­all pic­ture is one of un­der­per­for­mance. While they av­er­aged a first-day re­turn of 9.0%, col­lec­tive­ly they have trad­ed down to a 5.9% re­turn. Turn­ing Point $TP­TX and Cor­texyme $CRTX emerged on top at the half-year mark, ris­ing 135% and 109% re­spec­tive­ly.