Shkre­li out, Cuban in: Twit­ter proves es­sen­tial for biotech rebel Ethan Perl­stein

Im­age: Ethan Perl­stein


En­tre­pre­neurs in the tech world of­ten tell fundrais­ing founders to look to Twit­ter for mak­ing con­nec­tions with in­vestors. It’s less com­mon to see biotech in­vest­ments arise from wit­ty tweets.

Not true for Ethan Perl­stein, the founder of a small biotech in San Fran­cis­co called Per­lara. To­day, he shared de­tails of a ran­dom Twit­ter en­counter with celebri­ty in­vestor Mark Cuban that led to Cuban’s fund Rad­i­cal In­vest­ments chip­ping in $250,000 to Per­lara’s $7.4 mil­lion Se­ries A round.

Cuban’s con­tri­bu­tion was the re­sult of a con­ver­sa­tion on Twit­ter with Perl­stein, who’s quite ac­tive on the bio­phar­ma twit­ter­sphere. As Perl­stein re­calls, he had teased the Shark Tank in­vestor for Cuban’s tweet about drug pric­ing dur­ing the de­bate over Spin­raza’s price tag.

The con­ver­sa­tion turned se­ri­ous af­ter Perl­stein shared more de­tails about ear­ly-stage drug dis­cov­ery in bio­phar­ma.

“His tweet in­di­cat­ed that he hadn’t spent a lot of time think­ing about the ins and outs of bio­phar­ma and tech trans­fer,” Perl­stein said. “The next thing I know, I get a mes­sage from him ask­ing for my pitch deck. I was like, ‘is this a joke?’”

A month lat­er, Cuban’s in­vest­ment firm was on board. Ac­cord­ing to Cuban, he likes the idea of sup­port­ing drug dis­cov­ery for rare dis­ease.

“I want to see more peo­ple helped by or­phan drugs,” Cuban said in an email.

The Mar­tin Shkre­li dol­lars

But this wasn’t the first time a Twit­ter con­ver­sa­tion led to an in­vest­ment for Perl­stein’s com­pa­ny. Be­fore Mar­tin Shkre­li’s pub­lic flay­ing (and felony con­vic­tion), Perl­stein and Shkre­li were al­so ex­chang­ing tweets.

“I wasn’t ask­ing peo­ple for in­vest­ment on Twit­ter or any­thing, I was just com­ment­ing on sci­ence for rare dis­ease,” Perl­stein said. “It caught Mar­tin’s at­ten­tion.”

Af­ter the Twit­ter con­ver­sa­tion, Shkre­li in­vest­ed in Per­lara and was in­volved with the com­pa­ny for a short time. But Perl­stein said he asked Shkre­li to ex­tri­cate him­self from the busi­ness in ear­ly 2016.

“I asked him to be bought out by oth­er share­hold­ers,” Perl­stein said. “Now he’s out of the cap ta­ble and out of the com­pa­ny. He can de­stroy your rep­u­ta­tion just by as­so­ci­a­tion. Plus, I had learned he wasn’t a good per­son to do busi­ness with.”

A biotech born from Twit­ter

Perl­stein said Twit­ter has ac­tu­al­ly played an in­te­gral role in the de­vel­op­ment of Per­lara.

“Af­ter the post­do­ca­lypse, I left acad­e­mia,” Perl­stein said. “Twit­ter was the place I was re­born pro­fes­sion­al. I can hon­est­ly say that Per­lara wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for Twit­ter.”

Per­lara is work­ing on six drug pro­grams for ul­tra-rare dis­eases, in­clud­ing lyso­so­mal stor­age dis­eases. Since the com­pa­ny’s 2014 in­cep­tion, it’s large­ly re­lied on part­ner­ships with pa­tient groups. Last year, how­ev­er, it land­ed a re­search part­ner­ship with No­var­tis. Af­ter hit­ting its mile­stones on that deal, Per­lara just re­ceived some ex­tra fi­nan­cial sup­port from No­var­tis in its lat­est Se­ries A round, an­nounced this morn­ing.

The to­tal eq­ui­ty round ($7.4 mil­lion) in­clud­ed with cash from in­vestors Piv­otal Cap­i­tal Al­pha, Al-Ham­ra Group, Home­brew Ven­tures, Haystack Fund and ex­ist­ing in­vestors.

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Aymeric Le Chatelier, Ipsen

A $1B-plus drug stum­bles in­to an­oth­er big PhI­II set­back -- this time flunk­ing fu­til­i­ty test -- as FDA hold re­mains in ef­fect for Ipsen

David Meek

At the time Ipsen stepped up last year with more than a billion dollars in cash to buy Clementia and a late-stage program for a rare bone disease that afflicts children, then CEO David Meek was confident that he had put the French biotech on a short path to a mid-2020 launch.

Instead of prepping a launch, though, the company was hit with a hold on the FDA’s concerns that a therapy designed to prevent overgrowth of bone for cases of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva might actually stunt children’s growth. So they ordered a halt to any treatments for kids 14 and under. Meek left soon after to run a startup in Boston. And today the Paris-based biotech is grappling with the independent monitoring committee’s decision that their Phase III had failed a futility test.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead claims Tru­va­da patents in HHS’ com­plaint are in­valid

Back in November, the Department of Health and Human Services took the rare step of filing a complaint against Gilead for infringing on government-owned patents related to the HIV drug Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

But on Thursday, Gilead filed its own retort, making clear that it does not believe it has infringed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Truvada patents because they are invalid.

Gilead dusts off a failed Ebo­la drug as coro­n­avirus spreads; Ex­elix­is boasts pos­i­tive Ph I/II da­ta

→ Less than a year ago Gilead’s antiviral remdesivir failed to make the cut as investigators considered a raft of potential drugs that could be used against an Ebola outbreak. But it may gain a new mission with the outbreak of the coronavirus in China, which is popping up now around the world.

Gilead put out a statement saying that they’re now in discussions with health officials in the US and China about testing their NUC against the virus. It’s the latest in a growing lineup of biopharma companies that are marshaling R&D forces to see if they can come up with a vaccine or therapy to blunt the spread of the virus, which has now sickened hundreds, killed at least 17 people and led the Chinese government to start quarantining cities.

Alex Karnal (Deerfield)

Deer­field vaults to the top of cell and gene ther­a­py CD­MO game with $1.1B fa­cil­i­ty at Philadel­phi­a's newest bio­phar­ma hub

Back at the beginning of 2015, Deerfield Management co-led a $10 million Series C for a private gene therapy startup, reshaping the company and bringing in new leaders to pave way for an IPO just a year later.

Fast forward four more years and the startup, AveXis, is now a subsidiary of Novartis marketing the second-ever gene therapy to be approved in the US.

For its part, Deerfield has also grown more comfortable and ambitious about the nascent field. And the investment firm is now putting down its biggest bet yet: a $1.1 billion contract development and manufacturing facility to produce everything one needs for cell and gene therapy — faster and better than how it’s currently done.

Tri­fec­ta of sick­le cell dis­ease ther­a­pies ex­tend life ex­pectan­cy, but are not cost-ef­fec­tive — ICER

Different therapeutic traits brandished by the three approved therapies for sickle cell disease all extend life expectancy, but their impact on quality of life is uncertain and their long-term cost-effectiveness is not up to scratch according to the thresholds considered reasonable by ICER, the non-profit concluded in a draft guidance report on Thursday.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), which encompasses a group of inherited red blood cell disorders that typically afflict those of African ancestry, impacts hemoglobin — and is characterized by episodes of searing pain as well as organ damage.

Ku­ra co-founder heads to Asian mul­ti-na­tion­al as biotech eyes the goal posts for lead drug

Six years after Kura Oncology snagged a farnesyl transferase inhibitor from J&J and leapt straight into clinical development, one of the biotech’s founders is leaving to start a new chapter in his career.

CMO and development chief Antonio Gualberto is exiting the company, and Kura — led by longtime biotech entrepreneur Troy Wilson — is on the hunt for a replacement. Wilson credited the CMO for some key biomarker work, including the discovery of the CXCL12 pathway as a target of their lead drug tipifarnib. Those biomarkers are being relied on to define the patient population most likely to benefit from the drug.