Sahm Ad­ran­gi’s Ker­ris­dale knifes Pro­teosta­sis’ 'break­through' cys­tic fi­bro­sis da­ta in a bru­tal biotech short at­tack

Sahm Ad­ran­gi and his SWAT team at Ker­ris­dale Cap­i­tal have put an­oth­er biotech in their cross hairs.

The high-pro­file biotech in­vestor — who’s tak­en on a group of biotechs that range from Bavar­i­an Nordic to Prothena with a se­ries of bru­tal short at­tacks — is now ready to call Pro­teosta­sis’ $PTI work on cys­tic fi­bro­sis a bomb in the mak­ing.

“We looked at it,” Ad­ran­gi tells me, “and de­cid­ed to take a clos­er look af­ter it spiked” in the wake of the FDA’s break­through drug des­ig­na­tion.

Reg­u­la­tors put the Cam­bridge, MA-based com­pa­ny on its in­side reg­u­la­to­ry track, promis­ing to pro­vide an open-door ap­proach to help­ing speed it along, af­ter the biotech post­ed da­ta for its CFTR am­pli­fi­er PTI-428, part of a cock­tail it’s been de­vel­op­ing in hopes of cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the mar­ket that Ver­tex has been build­ing for it­self.

The biotech re­port­ed Phase II da­ta demon­strat­ing that their drug was linked with a 5.2% jump in a mea­sure of lung per­for­mance.

Shane Wil­son

In Ker­ris­dale’s view, though, that is non­sense. What re­al­ly hap­pened, Ker­ris­dale an­a­lyst Shane Wil­son claims, is that the tiny place­bo arm in­volv­ing just 4 pa­tients in the study had a sharp, sud­den and un­ex­pect­ed drop in lung per­for­mance dur­ing the 28-day tri­al that cre­at­ed a gap fa­vor­ing the drug. And when you com­pare it with what you would ex­pect for these pa­tients, there should not nor­mal­ly have been any­thing like that gulf be­tween the two small arms of the study.

“If place­bo was flat and the drug was up 1%,” says Wil­son, “no one would think that was good.”

From the re­port:

On av­er­age, we cal­cu­late that the PTI-428 group im­proved by just 2.5%, while the (4-per­son) place­bo group wors­ened by 6.7% – ex­act­ly repli­cat­ing Pro­teosta­sis’s stat­ed place­bo-ad­just­ed rel­a­tive im­prove­ment of 9.2%. In terms of ab­solute changes, we es­ti­mate that the PTI-428 group im­proved on av­er­age by just 1 per­cent­age point, while the place­bo group wors­ened by 4 per­cent­age points.

And that’s not some­thing that can be repli­cat­ed in a larg­er tri­al.

The rest of the da­ta points — like sweat chlo­ride — are ei­ther messy or be­ing ig­nored by Pro­teosta­sis, adds the Ker­ris­dale team.

“They don’t give the ac­tu­al re­sults, which means al­most cer­tain­ly that the re­sults aren’t good; prob­a­bly be­cause they didn’t do any­thing.”

From their re­port:

Giv­en the scarci­ty of CFTR mR­NA and pro­tein even in the air­way ep­ithe­li­um, we doubt that Pro­teosta­sis can re­li­ably mea­sure its fa­vored bio­mark­ers, call­ing in­to ques­tion its fun­da­men­tal un­der­stand­ing of its own drug. In­deed, we find it dif­fi­cult to trust the com­pa­ny’s da­ta, giv­en its ten­den­cy to gloss over po­ten­tial­ly neg­a­tive facts. For in­stance, while a group of par­tial­ly in­de­pen­dent re­searchers have re­cent­ly found that, in one in vit­ro mod­el, PTI-428 failed to in­crease CFTR pro­tein lev­els or func­tion­al­i­ty to a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant de­gree, ei­ther on its own or when added to stan­dard-of- care drugs, Pro­teosta­sis man­age­ment has ig­nored the un­pleas­ant re­sults, even though three Pro­teosta­sis em­ploy­ees were co-au­thors on the pa­per.

With­out a lead drug or a pipeline, Ker­ris­dale says the com­pa­ny can on­ly be worth cash, a 70% to 90% drop in val­ue.

There is lit­tle val­ue in PTI’s mis­lead­ing­ly spun da­ta, bizarrely noisy bio­mark­ers, and se­lec­tive­ly dis­closed re­sults. Alas, it’s far eas­i­er to in­flate weak da­ta than it is to in­flate ail­ing lungs.

The short at­tack ar­rives just hours af­ter Pro­teosta­sis laid out plans to take ad­van­tage of its swelled share price by sell­ing 9 mil­lion shares, with Leerink and RBC Cap­i­tal act­ing as joint book run­ners. Its shares were down 13% in pre-mar­ket trad­ing and then kept slid­ing af­ter the Ker­ris­dale re­port hit. By mid-morn­ing shares were down 20%.

Neil Wood­ford

While quite a few short at­tacks tend to arise from anony­mous re­ports or by way of a Tro­jan horse, Ker­ris­dale likes to do their work pub­licly and up close. They re­cent­ly earned some con­sid­er­able crit­i­cism from in­vestor Neil Wood­ford, who said:

Their job is to scare the mar­ket when the mar­ket is pre­pared to be scared. It doesn’t mat­ter if what they said about Al­lied Minds and Prothena is to­tal­ly in­ac­cu­rate and un­sub­stan­ti­at­ed. What mat­ters is Bloomberg and oth­ers giv­ing them the oxy­gen of pub­lic­i­ty and hey presto there is a self-ful­filled prophe­cy and the share price falls.

Prothena’s da­ta are com­ing up in the sec­ond quar­ter.


Sahm Ad­ran­gi. KER­RIS­DALE CAP­I­TAL

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.

Roche's check­point play­er Tecen­triq flops in an­oth­er blad­der can­cer sub­set

Just weeks after Merck’s star checkpoint inhibitor Keytruda secured FDA approval for a subset of bladder cancer patients, Swiss competitor Roche’s Tecentriq has failed in a pivotal bladder cancer study.

The 809-patient trial — IMvigor010 — tested the PD-L1 drug in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (MIUC) who had undergone surgery, and were at high risk for recurrence.

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.