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

In­side Track: Be­hind the Scenes of a Ma­jor Biotech SPAC

Dr. David Hung and Michelle Doig are no strangers to the SPAC phenomenon. As Founder and CEO of Nuvation Bio, a biotech company tackling some of the greatest unmet needs in oncology, Dr. Hung recently took the company public in one of this year’s biggest SPAC related deals. And as Partner at Omega Funds, Doig not only led and syndicated Nuvation Bio’s Series A, but is now also President of the newly formed, Omega-sponsored, Omega Alpha SPAC (Nasdaq: OMEG; oversubscribed $138m IPO priced January 6, 2021).

Aduhelm OK 'bit­ter­sweet' for ALS ad­vo­cates; Con­trast­ing Covid-19 vac­cine read­outs; GSK joins TIG­IT bat­tle; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

With the busiest days of June now behind us, we’re starting to think seriously about the second half of the year. In August, we have scheduled a special report where Endpoints will compile a list of the 20 most influential R&D executives in biopharma. Know a luminary who should definitely be included? Nominate them now.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Who are the lu­mi­nar­ies dri­ving the biggest ad­vances in bio­phar­ma R&D? End­points News is ask­ing for your nom­i­na­tions for a spe­cial re­port

In biopharma, driving a drug to market is the ultimate goal — but none of that happens without a strong research and development program. At the most successful companies, those R&D efforts are spearheaded by true innovators in the field who are always looking for that next novel mechanism of action or breakthrough safety profile.

Now, Endpoints News is asking you to tell us who those guiding lights are.

Leen Kawas, Athira CEO

Biotech founder placed on leave as $400M Alzheimer's start­up idea comes un­der scruti­ny

Athira Pharma, the Alzheimer’s biotech that emerged out of obscurity last year and raised nearly $400 million for a dark-horse approach to treating neurodegeneration, has found itself in sudden turmoil.

On Tuesday evening, the company released a terse statement announcing that CEO and founder Leen Kawas had been placed on administrative leave while an independent review board investigated “actions stemming” from her doctoral research at Washington State University. Mark Litton, who joined the company as COO two years ago, will take over day-to-day operations, they said.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bris­tol My­ers breaks the bank on Ei­sai's fo­late re­cep­tor ADC drug, lay­ing out more than $3B+ for rights

For years, innovation in oncology has been a crapshoot with Big Pharma — the whales at the table — dropping the big bucks for the key to the next generation of tumor fighters. Bristol Myers Squibb hasn’t exactly made a name for being an innovator in the space, but that doesn’t mean it won’t splash in when it sees a potential winner.

Now, with a massive check in hand, the drugmaker is willing to put its intuition to the test.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Michael Chambers (L) and John Ballantyne

Dana­her strikes deal to buy boom­ing next-gen man­u­fac­tur­er Alde­vron for $9.6B

Life sciences conglomerate Danaher Corp. $DHR has struck a deal to buy the fast-growing Aldevron, one of the world’s top manufacturers of hotly sought-after plasmid DNA, mRNA and recombinant proteins for the burgeoning world of vaccine and drugmakers pushing some game-changing technologies.

Buyout talks set the stage for Danaher to settle on a $9.6 billion cash pact to acquire the private Fargo, ND-based company — a key supplier for a disruptive new Covid vaccine as well as a host of gene and cell therapy and CRISPR gene editing players — founded by Michael Chambers and CSO John Ballantyne as a crew of 2 back in 1998.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

FDA's con­tro­ver­sial Aduhelm de­ci­sion leaves ALS pa­tients feel­ing spurned

The FDA’s controversial approval of Biogen’s Aduhelm drug for Alzheimer’s disease has been met with fierce resistance from all corners of the biopharma industry, but few seem to be as upset with the decision as ALS patients and advocacy groups.

For all that’s already been written and discussed about the agency’s announcement, from the drug’s exorbitantly high price of $56,000 per year to criticism over lowered standards, ALS patients see something more. ALS patients and associations say they largely regarded Aduhelm’s approval as a bittersweet double standard: happy that those with Alzheimer’s have a new drug available, but questioning how the FDA evaluated Biogen’s drug compared to the experimental programs being studied for their own disease.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As drug­mak­ers spend $6B an­nu­al­ly on DTC ads, sen­a­tors re­vive bill to in­clude list prices in ads

A new GAO report on biopharma companies’ $6 billion annual spending on direct-to-consumer advertising is pushing US Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to reintroduce legislation that would require price disclosures in the ads.

The GAO found that drugmakers spent almost half—$8.2 billion of the $17.8 billion from 2016 to 2018—on DTC ads for drugs in three therapeutic categories, including inflammatory conditions (e.g., arthritis, gout), endocrine and metabolic disorders (e.g., type 2 diabetes, hypothyroidism), and conditions affecting the central nervous system (e.g., depression, multiple sclerosis), according to the new report.

Med­ic­aid com­mis­sion to Con­gress: In­crease re­bates for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval drugs

As the FDA continues to approve more new drugs under its accelerated approval pathway, the non-partisan Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) is telling Congress to increase the statutory Medicaid rebates for such drugs until their clinical benefits have been verified.

Higher rebates for drugs with accelerated approvals, a move opposed by the biopharma industry, would mean lower net prices, lessening their financial burden on the health care system while incentivizing the companies to speed the verification of the drugs’ clinical benefits in confirmatory trials. Once those benefits are confirmed, the companies would return to the lower rebates when the accelerated approval is converted into a full approval, MACPAC suggests.