Test re­sults in hand, Thrive rais­es $257M to push liq­uid biop­sy to­ward ap­proval

Three months af­ter an­nounc­ing the re­sults of a land­mark tri­al, Thrive Ear­li­er De­tec­tion has raised $257 mil­lion to put their liq­uid biop­sy can­cer test in­to a piv­otal tri­al.

Thrive start­ed rais­ing for the Se­ries B im­me­di­ate­ly af­ter the study re­sults were pub­lished in Sci­ence at the end of April. That study, run across 10,000 women at the Geisinger Health Sys­tem, showed for the first time that a blood test could help doc­tors di­ag­nose cer­tain types of can­cer in pa­tients who did not yet show symp­toms, more than dou­bling the per­cent­age of can­cers that were de­tect­ed.

Isaac Ro

“We want­ed that da­ta in hand as a big cat­a­lyst to dri­ve the process,” Thrive CFO Isaac Ro told End­points. 

The round, led by Cas­din Cap­i­tal and Sec­tion 32, will go in­to com­plet­ing de­vel­op­ment of that test this year, so it can then go in­to a piv­otal tri­al — which would like­ly make it the first liq­uid biop­sy test to do so. Thrive, though, is so far qui­et on de­tails, say­ing they’re still wait­ing to hear from the FDA what the stan­dards will be for ap­proval. The com­pa­ny will al­so use funds to be­gin lay­ing the ground­work for com­mer­cial­iza­tion.

“The clin­i­cal tri­al piece is not triv­ial, it’s go­ing to be a clin­i­cal un­der­tak­ing,” Ro said. “It’s one of the rea­sons we raised how much we raised.”

Still, the round, though large, pales in com­par­i­son to the vast cap­i­tal Thrive’s lead­ing com­peti­tor, Grail, has raised in re­cent years. Backed most promi­nent­ly by ARCH, that biotech has raised $2 bil­lion since it was spun out of Il­lu­mi­na, in­clud­ing a $390 mil­lion Se­ries D in the spring, al­though they re­main be­hind Thrive in de­vel­op­ment. By con­trast, Thrive, launched last May, had raised its $110 mil­lion Se­ries A this year.

David J Daly

With­out in­vok­ing Grail specif­i­cal­ly, Ro told End­points that Thrive would be “one of the most cap­i­tal-ef­fi­cient com­pa­nies out there.” More broad­ly, he ar­gued that ul­ti­mate­ly the field would have mul­ti­ple win­ners, with the smat­ter­ing of star­tups now at work nar­row­ing in­to a few. “It’s go­ing to be high­ly un­like­ly that this is go­ing to be a win­ner-take-all mar­ket,” he said.

The field has come a long way since Ther­a­nos made liq­uid biop­sy in­fa­mous — Ro said no in­vestors men­tioned the fall­en uni­corn — but out­side ex­perts cau­tion it still has a ways to go. The tests, in many ways, face the same set of hur­dles as the ear­ly Covid-19 an­ti­body tests: How do you make it sen­si­tive enough that it picks up the scant bi­o­log­i­cal traces of ear­ly ma­lig­nan­cy, while al­so be­ing spe­cif­ic enough that false pos­i­tives are at a tol­er­a­ble min­i­mum? It’s nev­er great to in­cor­rect­ly tell a per­son they have can­cer.

Thrive may like­ly have to prove it can do both in its up­com­ing tri­al to win ap­proval. The scant de­tails they dis­closed from the study plans in­clude that, un­like the first tri­al, it will be across nu­mer­ous hos­pi­tal sys­tems and it will in­clude men.

Grail, mean­while, is now con­duct­ing a study sim­i­lar to the one Thrive pub­lished in April. The two biotechs use dif­fer­ent tech­nolo­gies. Grail looks for slight changes to cir­cu­lar pieces of DNA in the blood, while Thrive looks for changes to par­tic­u­lar genes and a hand­ful of pro­teins.

CEO David Daly said he’s hap­py to see the com­pe­ti­tion.

“We ac­tu­al­ly wel­come the in­vest­ment that oth­ers are mak­ing,” Daly told End­points. “With so much fo­cus and re­sources go­ing in­to ear­ly de­tec­tion, it’s an ex­cit­ing time.”

BY­OD Best Prac­tices: How Mo­bile De­vice Strat­e­gy Leads to More Pa­tient-Cen­tric Clin­i­cal Tri­als

Some of the most time- and cost-consuming components of clinical research center on gathering, analyzing, and reporting data. To improve efficiency, many clinical trial sponsors have shifted to electronic clinical outcome assessments (eCOA), including electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools.

In most cases, patients enter data using apps installed on provisioned devices. At a time when 81% of Americans own a smartphone, why not use the device they rely on every day?

Image: Shutterstock

Eli Lil­ly asks FDA to re­voke EUA for Covid-19 treat­ment

Eli Lilly on Friday requested that the FDA revoke the emergency authorization for its Covid-19 drug bamlanivimab, which is no longer as effective as a combo therapy because of a rise in coronavirus variants across the US.

“With the growing prevalence of variants in the U.S. that bamlanivimab alone may not fully neutralize, and with sufficient supply of etesevimab, we believe now is the right time to complete our planned transition and focus on the administration of these two neutralizing antibodies together,” Daniel Skovronsky, Lilly’s CSO, said in a statement.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Osman Kibar (Samumed, now Biosplice)

Os­man Kibar lays down his hand at Sa­mumed, step­ping away from CEO role as his once-her­ald­ed an­ti-ag­ing biotech re­brands

Samumed made quite the entrance back in 2016, when it launched with some anti-aging programs and a whopping $12 billion valuation. That level of fanfare was nowhere to be found on Thursday, when the company added another $120 million to its coffers and quietly changed its name to Biosplice Therapeutics.

Why the sudden rebrand?

“We did that for obvious reasons,” CFO and CBO Erich Horsley told Endpoints News. “The name Biosplice echoes our science much more than Samumed does.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mer­ck scraps their $425M Covid-19 drug in lat­est pan­dem­ic set­back

Seven months after paying $425 million cash to acquire it, Merck is scrapping a Covid-19 drug they hoped could provide one of the only treatments for severe hospitalized patients.

Merck’s decision comes after they faced significant and unexpected regulatory delays in getting the drug, known as MK-7110 or CD24Fc, across the finish line. The Big Pharma licensed the drug under the belief that it had already shown sufficient benefit in severe patients and they could help scale it up far faster than OncoImmune, its former owner, could. But in February, the company reported that the FDA insisted Merck run a new trial before seeking authorization.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Severin Schwan, Roche CEO (Georgios Kefalas/Keystone via AP Images)

Look­ing to ce­ment its lead in packed MS mar­ket, Roche's Ocre­vus un­corks new da­ta in ear­ly-stage pa­tients

Among a positively jam-packed multiple sclerosis market, Roche’s Ocrevus has managed to stand out for what the Swiss drugmaker is calling the most successful launch in its long history. But in order to press its advantage, Ocrevus is looking to earlier-stage patients, and new interim data should help build its case there.

After 48 weeks on Roche’s Ocrevus, 85% of newly diagnosed primary progressing or relapsing MS patients without a history of disease modifying therapy posted no disease activity, including disease progression or relapse, according to interim data set to be presented this weekend at the virtual American Academy of Neurology meeting.

J&J faces CDC ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee again next week to weigh Covid-19 vac­cine risks

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices punted earlier this week on deciding whether or not to recommend lifting a pause on the administration of J&J’s Covid-19 vaccine, but the committee will meet again in an emergency session next Friday to discuss the safety issues further.

The timing of the meeting likely means that the J&J vaccine will not return to the US market before the end of next week as the FDA looks to work hand-in-hand with the CDC to ensure the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks for all age groups.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ex­clu­sive in­ter­view: Pe­ter Marks on why full Covid-19 vac­cine ap­provals could be just months away

Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, took time out of his busy schedule last Friday to discuss with Endpoints News all things related to his work regulating vaccines and the pandemic.

Marks, who quietly coined the name “Operation Warp Speed” before deciding to stick with his work regulating vaccines at the FDA rather than join the Trump-era program, has been the face of vaccine regulation for the FDA throughout the pandemic, and is usually spotted in Zoom meetings seated in front of his wife’s paintings.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Near­ly a year af­ter Au­den­tes' gene ther­a­py deaths, the tri­al con­tin­ues. What hap­pened re­mains a mys­tery

Natalie Holles was five months into her tenure as Audentes CEO and working to smooth out a $3 billion merger when the world crashed in.

Holles and her team received word on the morning of May 5 that, hours before, a patient died in a trial for their lead gene therapy. They went into triage mode, alerting the FDA, calling trial investigators to begin to understand what happened, and, the next day, writing a letter to alert the patient community so they would be the first to know. “We wanted to be as forthright and transparent as possible,” Holles told me late last month.

The brief letter noted two other patients also suffered severe reactions after receiving a high dose of the therapy and were undergoing treatment. One died a month and a half later, at which point news of the deaths became public, jolting an emergent gene therapy field and raising questions about the safety of the high doses Audentes and others were now using. The third patient died in August.

“It was deeply saddening,” Holles said. “But I was — we were — resolute and determined to understand what happened and learn from it and get back on track.”

Eleven months have now passed since the first death and the therapy, a potential cure for a rare and fatal muscle-wasting disease called X-linked myotubular myopathy, is back on track, the FDA having cleared the company to resume dosing at a lower level. Audentes itself is no more; last month, Japanese pharma giant Astellas announced it had completed working out the kinks of the $3 billion merger and had restructured and rebranded the subsidiary as Astellas Gene Therapies. Holles, having successfully steered both efforts, departed.

Still, questions about precisely what led to the deaths of the 3 boys still linger. Trial investigators released key details about the case last August and December, pointing to a biological landmine that Audentes could not have seen coming — a moment of profound medical misfortune. In an emerging field that’s promised cures for devastating diseases but also seen its share of safety setbacks, the cases provided a cautionary tale.

Audentes “contributed in a positive way by giving a painful but important example for others to look at and learn from,” Terry Flotte, dean of the UMass School of Medicine and editor of the journal Human Gene Therapy, told me. “I can’t see anything they did wrong.”

Yet some researchers say they’re still waiting on Astellas to release more data. The company has yet to publish a full paper detailing what happened, nor have they indicated that they will. In the meantime, it remains unclear what triggered the events and how to prevent them in the future.

“Since Audentes was the first one and we don’t have additional information, we’re kind of in a holding pattern, flying around, waiting to figure out how to land our vehicles,” said Jude Samulski, professor of pharmacology at UNC’s Gene Therapy Center and CSO of the gene therapy biotech AskBio, now a subsidiary of Bayer.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Alex Leech, Alchemab CEO (SV Health Investors)

Alchemab bags fresh round of in­vestor for tar­get-ag­nos­tic an­ti­body de­vel­op­ment for Hunt­ing­ton's, Covid-19

With a “target-agnostic” approach to antibody development, the UK’s Alchemab has used lessons learned from patients with resistance to certain diseases to chase after conditions as far apart as Huntington’s and Covid-19. Now, investors are jumping on board the concept with an $86 million Series A.

The proceeds will go toward advancing the company’s target-agnostic drug discovery program, a release said. That approach looks at the antibody repertoires of patients who show resistance to typically destructive diseases regardless of genetic disposition.