Unum plays its first glimpse of hu­man da­ta in an $86M IPO, re­veal­ing two deaths and an FDA hold

Chuck Wil­son

Af­ter pro­mot­ing one of his top ex­ecs to pres­i­dent and bring­ing in two new board mem­bers, Unum Ther­a­peu­tics CEO Chuck Wil­son end­ed the week by putting the first snap­shot of pos­i­tive hu­man da­ta from their lead cell ther­a­py for can­cer on dis­play in an $86 mil­lion IPO fil­ing. But with just a hand­ful of pa­tients in the first round of clin­i­cal tri­als, Unum is al­so re­veal­ing pub­licly for the first time that it ran square­ly in­to lethal rates of dose-lim­it­ing tox­i­c­i­ty that killed two pa­tients in one arm and forced it to aban­don their high dose af­ter the FDA slapped a clin­i­cal hold on the study.

That hold was on­ly re­cent­ly lift­ed some­time last month, ac­cord­ing to the fil­ing. Unum kept word of the deaths and the hold out of the news for three months while it was on a road show for the IPO.

In re­sponse to a query, pres­i­dent and CFO Chris­tiana Sta­moulis said in an email:

As you know we are in the qui­et pe­ri­od and un­for­tu­nate­ly we can­not pro­vide any com­ments at this point.

The biotech — one of many that has built a rep around a top team and re­li­able ven­ture back­ers — has been build­ing a new cell ther­a­py that en­gi­neers pa­tient’s T cells in­to a dou­ble wham­my on can­cer cells. The cells are first de­signed to ex­press AC­TR, a chimeric pro­tein en­com­pass­ing pro­teins from T cells and nat­ur­al killer cells, then com­bined with an­oth­er tu­mor-spe­cif­ic drug, whip­ping up a cy­to­tox­ic as­sault on can­cer cells.

The lead drug is AC­TR087, and Unum is al­ready com­par­ing it to Gilead’s Yescar­ta and Kym­ri­ah, the two pi­o­neer­ing CAR-Ts on the mar­ket. A com­bi­na­tion with Rit­ux­an, re­searchers test­ed a low dose (0.5 x 106 AC­TR T cells/kg) in 7 NHL pa­tients and tracked 6 re­spons­es, in­clud­ing two com­plete and a par­tial re­sponse. That looks good com­pared to 39% and 32% com­plete re­sponse rates re­port­ed at three months for Yescar­ta and Kym­ri­ah. And they re­port­ed no se­ri­ous ad­verse events.

The high dose (1.5 x 106 AC­TR T cells/kg) was lethal, killing 2 of just 9 pa­tients in that arm. That’s not the first time se­vere tox­i­c­i­ty has killed pa­tients in an ex­plorato­ry ear­ly-stage cell ther­a­py study, but the lengthy de­lay be­tween the deaths and the SEC fil­ing is like­ly to spur in­tense crit­i­cism. The FDA re­spond­ed by putting the study on hold, some­thing Unum nev­er pre­vi­ous­ly dis­closed. From the S-1:

The se­vere AC­TR087-re­lat­ed SAEs we ob­served in Dose Lev­el Two re­sult­ed in the FDA plac­ing this tri­al on clin­i­cal hold in De­cem­ber 2017 pend­ing sub­mis­sion of cer­tain in­for­ma­tion re­lat­ing to the ATTCK-20-2 clin­i­cal tri­al. The clin­i­cal yy­hold was re­moved in Feb­ru­ary 2018, fol­low­ing re­view of this in­for­ma­tion by the FDA. Sev­er­al pro­to­col and dos­ing changes were made in ear­ly 2018, which we ex­pect to re­duce the in­ci­dence of ad­verse events and bet­ter man­age those events that do oc­cur.

Re­searchers con­clud­ed that there were two cas­es of AC­TR087-re­lat­ed se­vere CRS — one fa­tal — and one pa­tient died from AC­TR087-re­lat­ed neu­ro­tox­i­c­i­ty. There was one fa­tal case of en­te­ro­coc­cal sep­sis con­sid­ered re­lat­ed to AC­TR087 and “one pa­tient sub­se­quent­ly ex­pe­ri­enced a fa­tal case of sep­sis con­sid­ered not re­lat­ed to AC­TR087,” ac­cord­ing to the S-1.

Cy­tokine re­lease storms and neu­ro­tox­i­c­i­ty are not new in the cell ther­a­py world, as Juno found out through a string of deaths linked to their first dead­ly, and now dis­card­ed, CAR-T. Gilead’s Kite and No­var­tis, though, were able to com­plete reg­is­tra­tion stud­ies with­out rais­ing the same con­cerns.

Safe­ty con­cerns are a key fea­ture in cell ther­a­py re­search, but the FDA rules put a wall around in­for­ma­tion and pre­vent the agency from dis­cussing any of this, leav­ing biotechs some wide dis­cre­tion on how they han­dle this in­for­ma­tion. As we saw with Sol­id Bio­science’s 11th hour up­date about a par­tial tri­al hold for their Duchenne MD gene ther­a­py due to safe­ty con­cerns, pri­vate biotechs can re­ly on the FDA’s si­lence to keep safe­ty is­sues a se­cret, wait­ing un­til SEC rules re­quire a dis­clo­sure. And for promi­nent bioethi­cists in the field, that’s a prob­lem­at­ic is­sue.

I asked bioethi­cist Arthur Ca­plan at New York Uni­ver­si­ty’s Lan­gone Med­ical Cen­ter what his per­spec­tive was. His an­swer, by e-mail:

Don’t know Unum case, but I do know of nu­mer­ous in­stances in which com­pa­nies had deaths dur­ing ear­ly clin­i­cal tri­als that they chose not to pub­licly dis­close. They told the FDA but FDA does not re­veal in­for­ma­tion in­clud­ing deaths that are of­fered as part of com­mer­cial de­vel­op­ment.

Ab­surd­ly more weight is giv­en to keep­ing deaths a se­cret in or­der to bol­ster the fi­nan­cial prospects of new com­pa­nies and their in­vestors than to pro­tect­ing the wel­fare of hu­man sub­jects and ul­ti­mate­ly the safe­ty of the pub­lic should drugs or ther­a­pies be ap­proved in the USA or oth­er na­tions.

At a min­i­mum re­searchers ought to know if a path they are pur­su­ing has re­sult­ed in death(s) so as not to repli­cate the risks for their sub­jects.  How best to do this I am not sure but putting trade se­cre­cy over hu­man wel­fare is a sad or­der­ing of pri­or­i­ties.

Unum has three dif­fer­ent Phase I pro­grams in the clin­ic, with an­oth­er head­ed to hu­man stud­ies in the near fu­ture. The biotech has a col­lab­o­ra­tion deal in place with Seat­tle Ge­net­ics which com­bines a BC­MA ther­a­py with AC­TR087 for mul­ti­ple myelo­ma.

Seat­tle Ge­net­ics has paid over $32.5 mil­lion in the deal so far, with ven­ture back­ers com­ing up with $77.3 mil­lion.

One of the big ad­van­tages that Unum hopes to prove is that by con­cen­trat­ing on CD16 bind­ing they can use the same ba­sic ap­proach for all their ther­a­pies, mak­ing it sim­pler to de­sign and man­u­fac­ture than the break­through drugs now on or close to the mar­ket.

For a ven­ture-backed com­pa­ny, Unum al­so re­vealed an un­usu­al­ly high re­serve of stock for two key play­ers at the biotech: Dario Cam­pana, the sci­en­tif­ic founder and a well known cell ther­a­py ex­pert, and CEO Wil­son. Each owns 21.7% of the stock.

At­las, mean­while, owns 13.9% while F-Prime is in it for 9.9%.

Karen Fer­rante and Robert Perez joined Uum’s board last week, while CFO Chris­tiana Sta­moulis added the pres­i­dent’s ti­tle to her re­sume. Bruce Booth at At­las is chair­man of the board.

Pablo Legorreta, founder and CEO of Royalty Pharma AG, speaks at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Cap­i­tal­iz­ing Pablo: The world’s biggest drug roy­al­ty buy­er is go­ing pub­lic. And the low-key CEO di­vulges a few se­crets along the way

Pablo Legorreta is one of the most influential players in biopharma you likely never heard of.

Over the last 24 years, Legorreta’s Royalty Pharma group has become, by its own reckoning, the biggest buyer of drug royalties in the world. The CEO and founder has bought up a stake in a lengthy list of the world’s biggest drug franchises, spending $18 billion in the process — $2.2 billion last year alone. And he’s become one of the best-paid execs in the industry, reaping $28 million from the cash flow last year while reserving 20% of the cash flow, less expenses, for himself.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi CEO (Getty Images)

Sanofi CEO Paul Hud­son has $23B burn­ing a hole in his pock­et. And here are some hints on how he plans to spend that

Sanofi has reaped $11.1 billion after selling off a big chunk of its Regeneron stock at $515 a share. And now everyone on the M&A side of the business is focused on how CEO Paul Hudson plans to spend it.

After getting stung in France for some awkward politicking — suggesting the US was in the front of the line for Sanofi’s vaccines given American financial support for their work, versus little help from European powers — Hudson now has the much more popular task of managing a major cash cache to pull off something in the order of a big bolt-on. Or two.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The Advance Clinical leadership team: CEO Yvonne Lungershausen, Sandrien Louwaars - Director Business Development Operations, Gabriel Kremmidiotis - Chief Scientific Officer, Ben Edwards - Chief Strategy Officer

How Aus­tralia De­liv­ers Rapid Start-up and 43.5% Re­bate for Ear­ly Phase On­col­o­gy Tri­als

About Avance Clinical

Avance Clinical is an Australian owned Contract Research Organisation that has been providing high-quality clinical research services to the local and international drug development industry for 20 years. They specialise in working with biotech companies to execute Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials to deliver high-quality outcomes fit for global regulatory standards.

As oncology sponsors look internationally to speed-up trials after unprecedented COVID-19 suspensions and delays, Australia, which has led the world in minimizing the pandemic’s impact, stands out as an attractive destination for early phase trials. This in combination with the streamlined regulatory system and the financial benefits including a very favourable exchange rate and the R & D cash rebate makes Australia the perfect location for accelerating biotech clinical programs.

Dan O'Day, Gilead CEO (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Gilead leas­es part­ner rights to TIG­IT, PD-1 in a $2B deal with Ar­cus. Now comes the hard part

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has brokered his way to a PD-1 and lined up a front row seat in the TIGIT arena, inking a deal worth close to $2 billion to align the big biotech closely with Terry Rosen’s Arcus. And $375 million of that comes upfront, with cash for the buy-in plus equity, along with $400 million for R&D and $1.22 billion in reserve to cover opt-in payments and milestones..

Hotly rumored for weeks, the 2 players have formalized a 10-year alliance that starts with rights to the PD-1, zimberelimab. O’Day also has first dibs on TIGIT and 2 other leading programs, agreeing to an opt-in fee ranging from $200 million to $275 million on each. There’s $500 million in potential TIGIT milestones on US regulatory events — likely capped by an approval — if Gilead partners on it and the stars align on the data. And there’s another $150 million opt-in payments for the rest of the Arcus pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis jumps in­to Covid-19 vac­cine hunt, as Big Phar­ma and big biotech com­mit to bil­lions of dos­es

After spending most of the pandemic on the sidelines, Novartis is offering its aid in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

AveXis, the Swiss pharma’s gene therapy subsidiary, has agreed to manufacture the vaccine being developed by Massachusetts Eye and Ear and Massachusetts General Hospital. The biotech will begin manufacturing this month, while the vaccine undergoes further preclinical testing. They’ve agreed to provide the vaccine for free for clinical trials beginning in the second half of 2020, but have not disclosed financials for after.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bris­tol My­ers Squibb fi­nal­ly gets in the front­line NSCLC game dom­i­nat­ed by Mer­ck, adding a sec­ond Op­di­vo/Yer­voy-based op­tion

Bristol Myers Squibb may be trailing Merck and Roche in the checkpoint race to treat frontline cases of non-small cell lung cancer, but as it does, it makes sure to bring its best feet forward.

Just days after scoring a landmark NSCLC approval for Opdivo and Yervoy alone for PD-L1 positive patients, the company said the FDA has also OK’d using the two agents with a limited course of chemo regardless of the biomarker status.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bryan Roberts, Venrock

Ven­rock sur­vey shows grow­ing recog­ni­tion of coro­n­avirus toll, wan­ing con­fi­dence in ar­rival of vac­cines and treat­ments

When Venrock partner Bryan Roberts went to check the results from their annual survey of healthcare leaders, what he found was an imprint of the pandemic’s slow arrival in America.

The venture firm had sent their form out to hundreds of insurance and health tech executives, investors, officials and academics on February 24 and gave them two weeks to fill it out. No Americans had died at that point but the coronavirus had become enough of a global crisis that they included two questions about the virus, including “Total U.S. deaths in 2020 from the novel coronavirus will be:”.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck R&D chief (YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Backed by BAR­DA, Mer­ck jumps in­to Covid-19: buy­ing out a vac­cine, part­ner­ing on an­oth­er and adding an­tivi­ral to the mix

Merck execs are making a triple play in a sudden leap into the R&D campaign against Covid-19. And they have more BARDA cash backing them up on the move.

Tuesday morning the pharma giant simultaneously announced plans to buy an Austrian biotech that has been working on a preclinical vaccine candidate, added a collaboration on another vaccine with the nonprofit IAVI and inked a deal with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on an early-stage antiviral.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Hoey (Vaxxas)

In for the long vac­cine game, Mer­ck buys in­to patch de­liv­ery tech with pan­dem­ic po­ten­tial

When Merck dived into the R&D fray for a Covid-19 vaccine earlier this week, execs made it clear that they’re not necessarily looking to be first — with CEO Ken Frazier throwing cold water on the hotly-discussed 12- to 18-month timelines. But when it does emerge from behind, the pharma giant clearly expects to play a significant part.

Part of that will depend on next-generation delivery technology that reshapes the world’s imagination of a vaccine.