Tesaro makes its case for a clean sweep with ni­ra­parib - and shares soar again

Lon­nie Moul­der

We al­ready knew go­ing in­to the big ES­MO meet­ing that Tesaro’s PARP in­hibitor ni­ra­parib had demon­strat­ed stel­lar re­sults for a range of ovar­i­an can­cer pa­tients with BR­CA mu­ta­tions. But when in­ves­ti­ga­tors stood up to dis­play the re­sults of their piv­otal study, a full set of da­ta demon­strat­ed a ben­e­fit not on­ly for tu­mors that were pos­i­tive for HRD, an im­por­tant bio­mark­er, but al­so for HRD-neg­a­tive tu­mors.

The ben­e­fit nar­rows pro­gres­sive­ly by that last step, but even at a 3.1-month pro­gres­sion sur­vival ben­e­fit for the HRD-neg­a­tive group in the Phase III — 6.9 months ver­sus 3.8 months — in­ves­ti­ga­tors laid the ground­work for ad­vanc­ing this drug for use with­out a di­ag­nos­tic test de­vel­oped by Myr­i­ad Ge­net­ics.

“Even in the HRD-neg­a­tive com­mu­ni­ty, there’s a sub­stan­tial ben­e­fit,” CEO Lon­nie Moul­der told me in the lead­up to the ES­MO con­fer­ence. And he’s pre­pared to make the case for ni­ra­parib with a full set of “ran­dom­ized, con­trolled da­ta we think is quite pow­er­ful.”

“Our con­clu­sion is that all pa­tients have a ben­e­fit and all pa­tients must be treat­ed,” chief in­ves­ti­ga­tor Man­soor Raza Mirza said at the Copen­hagen meet­ing, ac­cord­ing to Reuters’ re­port.

Their study in the New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine adds that one in 5 of those HRD-neg­a­tive pa­tients demon­strat­ed a ben­e­fit of greater than 18 months of pro­gres­sion-free sur­vival, a point Tesaro will be mak­ing with reg­u­la­tors. The over­all sur­vival (OS) re­sults have yet to be de­ter­mined, leav­ing reg­u­la­tors to make their de­ci­sions based on PFS re­sults.

Tesaro’s bull­ish po­si­tion was cheered on by in­vestors Mon­day morn­ing, dri­ving up the biotech’s shares by 21% on the added per­spec­tive. And some an­a­lysts, like Leerink’s Sea­mus Fer­nan­dez, helped fu­el the ral­ly with com­ments like this:

Avastin was ap­proved in com­bi­na­tion with chemother­a­py in plat­inum-re­sis­tant ovar­i­an can­cer based on 3.4 month ben­e­fit (6.8 vs. 3.4 months for chemo alone; HR=0.38; p<0.0001). While there are sev­er­al caveats to this com­par­i­son (Avastin was used in com­bi­na­tion in a treat­ment set­ting for plat­inum-re­sis­tant pa­tients and pro­duced a low­er haz­ard ra­tio with a larg­er n), we be­lieve this demon­strates that the FDA can view a 3+ month im­prove­ment in mPFS as clin­i­cal­ly mean­ing­ful.

Johnathan Lan­cast­er, Myr­i­ad’s chief med­ical of­fi­cer, dis­agreed with Tesaro’s as­sess­ment, telling Bloomberg that the HRD-neg­a­tive PFS rate is not clin­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant. He backed that up by not­ing that As­traZeneca’s Lyn­parza, which man­aged to get ap­proved even af­ter a pan­el vot­ed the drug down on weak ear­ly re­sults, was not OK’d for use in BR­CA neg­a­tive pa­tients with a PFS of 3.6 months.

Myr­i­ad Ge­net­ics had this to add in a state­ment to End­points News:

The NO­VA study demon­strat­ed the ef­fi­ca­cy of both the drug and Bio­mark­er. De­spite the su­per sen­si­tive plat­inum re­spon­ders se­lect­ed for the study, my­Choice HRD was able to strat­i­fy based on ben­e­fit. The FDA will need to de­cide whether the 3.1 month ben­e­fit in HRD neg­a­tive pa­tients is suf­fi­cient. This is par­tic­u­lar­ly im­por­tant in the con­text of drugs that have tox­i­c­i­ty in the main­te­nance set­ting where the al­ter­na­tive is no ther­a­py at all.

For pa­tients with non-germline BR­CA mu­ta­tions that were HRD pos­i­tive, the PFS ben­e­fit was much more dis­tinct, a me­di­an 12.9 months ver­sus 3.8 months. The drug was test­ed as a main­te­nance ther­a­py in plat­inum-sen­si­tive, re­cur­rent ovar­i­an can­cer. You can see the full set of da­ta and the dis­cus­sion in the New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine.

Re­gard­less of the out­come of the de­bate over HRD sta­tus, Tesaro is lin­ing up for a near term ap­proval that should leave them in a strong mar­ket po­si­tion rel­a­tive to Lyn­parza or Clo­vis On­col­o­gy, which saw its stock price take a hit yes­ter­day over da­ta drawn from a dif­fer­ent set of ovar­i­an can­cer pa­tients. The com­pa­ny has been in­sist­ing that you can’t com­pare stud­ies, but it’s done every day. And as Clo­vis’s stock dropped 18% over the course of Fri­day, it wasn’t far­ing very well.

Pfiz­er, mean­while, plans to ad­vance their ri­val PARP drug ta­la­zoparib, new­ly ac­quired in its $14 bil­lion Medi­va­tion ac­qui­si­tion.

Eli Lil­ly’s first PhI­II show­down for their $1.6B can­cer drug just flopped — what now?

When Eli Lilly plunked down $1.6 billion in cash to acquire Armo Biosciences a little more than a year ago, the stars seemed aligned in its favor. The jewel in the crown they were buying was pegilodecakin, which had cleared the proof-of-concept stage and was already in a Phase III trial for pancreatic cancer.

And that study just failed.

Lilly reported this morning that their cancer drug flopped on overall survival when added to FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-FU, oxaliplatin), compared to FOLFOX alone among patients suffering from advanced pancreatic cancer.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mi­rati preps its first look at their KRAS G12C con­tender, and they have to clear a high bar for suc­cess

If you’re a big KRAS G12C fan, mark your calendars for October 28 at 4:20 pm EDT.

That’s when Mirati $MRTX will unveil its first peek at the early clinical data available on MRTX849 in presentations at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics in Boston.

Mirati has been experiencing the full effect of a rival’s initial success at targeting the G12C pocket found on KRAS, offering the biotech some support on the concept they’re after — and biotech fans a race to the top. Amgen made a big splash with its first positive snapshot on lung cancer, but deflated sky-high expectations as it proved harder to find similar benefits in other types of cancers.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The FDA will hus­tle up an ex­pe­dit­ed re­view for As­traZeneca’s next shot at a block­buster can­cer drug fran­chise

AstraZeneca paid a hefty price to partner with Daiichi Sankyo on their experimental antibody drug conjugate for HER2 positive breast cancer. And they’ve been rewarded with a fast ride through the FDA, with a straight shot at creating another blockbuster oncology franchise.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sean Parker, AP

Sean Park­er helps cre­ate a CRISPRed cell ther­a­py 2.0 play — and he’s got a high-pro­file set of lead­ers on the team

You can rack up one more high-profile debut effort in the wave of activity forming around cell therapy 2.0. It’s another appealing Bay Area group that’s attracted some of the top hands in the business to a multi-year effort to create a breakthrough. And they have $85 million in hand to make that first big step to the clinic.

Today it’s Ken Drazan and the team at South San Francisco-based ArsenalBio that are coming from behind the curtain for a public bow, backed by billionaire Sean Parker and a collection of investors that includes Beth Seidenberg’s new venture investment operation based in LA.
Drazan — a J&J Innovation vet with a long record of entrepreneurial endeavors — exited the stage in 2018 when his last mission ended as he stepped aside as president of Grail. It wasn’t long, though, before he was helping out with a business plan for ArsenalBio that revolved around the work of a large group of interconnected scientists supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunology.
The biotech started by putting together an “arsenal” of technologies aimed at making cell therapies for cancer much, much better than the rather crude first-generation drugs that hit the market from Novartis and Kite.
Their drugs have become the baseline against which all others are being measured.
“The technology set we’re developing is independent of the chassis,” Drazan tells me. “It doesn’t have to be autologous (extracted from the patient) or allogeneic (off the shelf). It doesn’t have to be a T cell, it could be a B cell.” But they are starting out on the autologous side, where they have the most knowledge and insight into manufacturing techniques.
It also doesn’t have to be close to the clinic.
Drazan expects the biotech will be working its way through preclinical operations for “a few years,” with enough money from the $85 million launch round to get into humans.
By today’s superheated fundraising standards, that’s not a huge amount of cash. Lyell, another cell therapy 2.0 startup we featured last week, raised $600 million in a year, including a big chunk of cash from GlaxoSmithKline. Drazan is interested in dealmaking as well, but he also knows he has the cash necessary to support the company for a good run — a key part of what it takes to bring together a stellar team of top players.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hal Barron, GSK's president of R&D and CSO, speaks to Endpoints News founder and editor John Carroll in London at Endpoints' #UKBIO19 summit on October 8, 2019

[Video] Cel­e­brat­ing tri­al fail­ures, chang­ing the cul­ture and al­ly­ing with Cal­i­for­nia dream­ers: R&D chief Hal Bar­ron talks about a new era at GSK

Last week I had a chance to sit down with Hal Barron at Endpoints’ #UKBIO19 summit to discuss his views on R&D at GSK, a topic that has been central to his life since he took the top research post close to 2 years ago. During the conversation, Barron talked about changing the culture at GSK, a move that involves several new approaches — one of which involves celebrating their setbacks as they shift resources to the most promising programs in the pipeline. Barron also discussed his new alliances in the Bay Area — including his collaboration pact with Lyell, which we covered here — frankly assesses the pluses and minuses of the UK drug development scene, and talks about his plans for making GSK a much more effective drug developer.

This is one discussion you won’t want to miss. Insider and Enterprise subscribers can log-in to watch the video.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

UCB tries to win some re­spect in the crowd­ed pso­ri­a­sis mar­ket with a dual IL-17 ap­proach — and it won't be easy

For a pharma company with about $5 billion in revenue, a couple of respectably sized blockbuster drugs on the market and some high-profile partners like Amgen, Belgium’s UCB has kept an unusually low profile on the pipeline side of things over the years.
Until now.
Just days after striking a $2.1 billion deal to buy Ra Pharmaceuticals and its C5 rival to Soliris, UCB is posting positive top-line Phase III results for a dual IL-17 inhibitor that it’s steering into one of the most competitive commercial spaces in the industry. And despite plenty of obvious challenges as they struggle to roll out Evenity with Amgen and patent expirations loom on its franchise drugs, including Cimzia, the company just may be ready to tackle some of the biggest players on the planet.
In their first of 3 Phase III studies for bimekizumab, researchers touted top-line wins on statistically significant results on clearing plaque psoriasis, including a victory over J&J’s IL-23 contender Stelara on key endpoints. The drug targets both IL-17A and IL-17F, a modification on the IL-17A strategy laid out for Taltz (Eli Lilly) and Cosentyx (Novartis). And the new group also includes J&J’s Tremfya and AbbVie’s Skyrizi.
We don’t know the PASI90 and IGA scores — but UCB knows that with the kind of heavyweight competition it faces with Novartis and others, marginal gains for patients won’t stack up. So we’ll be watching for the hard numbers. And there’s another head-to-head with Cosentyx that will play a big role in pushing up analysts’ projections on peak sales, which currently fall well short of blockbuster status.
UCB hasn’t exactly been in the spotlight for the last few years, but it’s in a position now that the company has to win some respect in R&D, with blockbuster projects that can keep investors’ attention at a time the industry is experiencing booming R&D development efforts around the planet.
It hasn’t been easy. There was a setback on a lupus drug partnered with Biogen. But there have been some advances, with a deal to buy Proximagen’s NDA-ready nasal spray therapy USL261, designed as a rescue therapy for acute repetitive seizures, for $150 million in cash and another $220 million in sales and regulatory milestones. There was even a report that the company was kicking the deflated tires at Acorda, though nothing came of that.
Late last year UCB also committed to spend up to £200 million on a new R&D hub in the UK.
That may not translate into a lot of excitement right now, but they’re trying. And there’s a subtle promise that more deals may be in the works.

Swamy Vijayan. Plexium

San Diego up­start de­buts dis­cov­ery en­gine that puts a twist to pro­tein degra­da­tion

For years, the idea of protein degradation — utilizing the cell’s natural garbage disposal system to mark problematic proteins for destruction — remained an elegant but technically difficult concept. But now established as a promising clinical strategy, with major biopharma players such as Bayer, Gilead and Vertex trying to grab a foothold via partnership deals, a San Diego startup is looking to exploit it and push its limits.

Med­ical an­i­ma­tion: Mak­ing it eas­i­er for the site and the pa­tient to un­der­stand

Medical animation has in recent years become an increasingly important tool for conveying niche information to a varied audience, particularly to those audiences without expertise in the specialist area. Science programmes today, for example, have moved from the piece-to-camera of the university professor explaining how a complex disease mechanism works, to actually showing the viewer first-hand what it might look like to shrink ourselves down to the size of an ant’s foot, and travel inside the human body to witness these processes in action. Effectively communicating a complex disease pathophysiology, or the novel mechanism of action of a new drug, can be complex. This is especially difficult when the audience domain knowledge is limited or non-existent. Medical animation can help with this communication challenge in several ways.
Improved accessibility to visualisation
Visualisation is a core component of our ability to understand a concept. Ask 10 people to visualise an apple, and each will come up with a slightly different image, some apples smaller than others, some more round, some with bites taken. Acceptable, you say, we can move on to the next part of the story. Now ask 10 people to visualise how HIV’s capsid protein gets arranged into the hexamers and pentamers that form the viral capsid that holds HIV’s genetic material. This request may pose a challenge even to someone with some virology knowledge, and it is that inability to effectively visualise what is going on that holds us back from fully understanding the rest of the story. So how does medical animation help us to overcome this visualisation challenge?

CSL ac­cus­es ri­val Pharm­ing of par­tic­i­pat­ing in a scheme to rip off IP on HAE while re­cruit­ing se­nior R&D staffer

Pharming has landed in the middle of a legal donnybrook after recruiting a senior executive from a rival R&D team at CSL. The Australian pharma giant slapped Pharming with a lawsuit alleging that the Dutch biotech’s new employee, Joseph Chiao, looted a large cache of proprietary documents as he hit the exit. And they want it all back.
Federal Judge Juan Sanchez in the Eastern District Pennsylvania court issued an injunction on Tuesday prohibiting Chiao from doing any work on HAE or primary immune deficiency in his new job and demanding that he return any material from CSL that he may have in his possession. And he wants Pharming to tell its employees not to ask for any information on the forbidden topics.
For its part, Pharming fired off an indignant response this morning denying any involvement in extracting any kind of IP from CSL, adding that it’s cooperating in the internal probe that CSL has underway.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.