Biotech Strategy Blog

Commentary on Science, Innovation & New Products with a focus on Oncology, Hematology & Immunotherapy

About Pieter Droppert

Here are my most recent posts

Posts by Pieter Droppert

In a letter to the science journal Nature, published online on August 21, 2011, scientists from Northwestern University in Chicago report findings that could help develop drugs for patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

ALS is a progressive, fatal, degenerative motor neurone disease, which results in the inability to walk, get out of bed, move arms, hands, swallow or chew. Unlike Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive functions are not usually impaired, making it a particularly nasty disease when faced with awareness of disease progression.

According to Wikipedia, ALS is one of the most common neuromuscular diseases worldwide, with 1 or 2 people in every 100,000 developing ALS each year.

One of the characteristics of ALS and other neurodegenerative disease is the accumulation of protein aggregates or inclusions. Amyloid-ß plaques and intracellular tau neurofibrillary tangles are common in Alzheimer’s disease, for example.

By contrast, in ALS, a hallmark of the disease pathology is the presence of ubiquitin-positive, protein aggregates in spinal motor neurons.

The new research from Northwestern University shows how a mutation in UBQLN2, the gene that encodes ubiquilin 2, may be the cause of ALS in some patients.

The UBQLN2 mutation results in a failure to properly encode the protein, ubiquilin 2, a member of the ubiquitin-like protein family known as ubiquilins. The result is that normal protein degradation through the ubiquilin pathway is impaired, leading to cellular deposits and abnormal protein aggregation.

How did the team at Northwestern discover this insight?

Using DNA sequencing they looked at a five-generation family with 19 affected by ALS and sought to identify the causative gene in the transmission of this disease.  They found that a mutation in UBQLN2, the gene that encodes ubiquilin 2 was the key difference in those family members with or without ALS.

They subsequently tested the hypothesis that UBQLN2 mutations were causative of ALS using clinical data from 40 individuals in 5 families with UBQLN2 mutations. Interestingly in eight patients with the UBQLN2 mutation and ALS, dementia was also present suggesting a possible link between ubquilin 2 inclusions and dementia.

The team explored this correlation by examining brain autopsy samples of 15 cases without UBQLN2 mutations, of which 5 had experienced dementia as well as ALS. They found no ubiquilin 2 pathology in the hippocampus of the 10 ALS patients without dementia, but did find it in the 5 that had experienced both ALS and dementia. They noted:

The correlation of hippocampal ubiquilin 2 pathology to dementia in ALS cases with or without UBQLN2 mutations indicates that ubiquilin 2 is widely involved in ALS-related dementia, even without UBQLN2 mutations.

They also observed that:

We did not observe obvious differences in the distributions of wild-type and mutant ubiquilin2.

The authors concluded:

These data provide robust evidence for an impairment of protein turnover in the pathogenesis of ALS and ALS/dementia, and possibly in other neurodegenerative disorders as well.

These interesting findings by the Northwestern group were reported in Nature, and while promising, must be treated with caution for several reasons:

  1. It is still early-stage preliminary research on a small group of subjects.
  2. The exact function of ubiquilin 2 is not well understood.
  3. Not all ALS patients have the UBQLN2 mutation
  4. If the UBQLN2 mutation is not present in all ALS patients, then this mutation is not the sole means by which ALS develops.
  5. UBQLN2 may not be the only mutation involved in the pathophysiology of ALS.

The data from Northwestern does, however, offer hope that in the future, gene therapy or new treatments could be developed that stop or slow disease progression. Targeting the ubquilin pathway and the UBQLN2 mutation may, for example, prevent the abnormal protein turnover and aggregation that leads to impaired signaling and loss of function seen in ALS.

Further research into pathogenic pathways could lead to new targets for drug development, not only for the treatment of ALS but also dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders.

ResearchBlogging.orgDeng, H., Chen, W., Hong, S., Boycott, K., Gorrie, G., Siddique, N., Yang, Y., Fecto, F., Shi, Y., Zhai, H., Jiang, H., Hirano, M., Rampersaud, E., Jansen, G., Donkervoort, S., Bigio, E., Brooks, B., Ajroud, K., Sufit, R., Haines, J., Mugnaini, E., Pericak-Vance, M., & Siddique, T. (2011). Mutations in UBQLN2 cause dominant X-linked juvenile and adult-onset ALS and ALS/dementia Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature10353

Story source:  LA Times & Fierce Biotech

Today, my attention was caught by The New York Academy of Sciences forthcoming seminar on “Angiogenesis: Breakthroughs in Basic Science and Therapeutic Applications.”

Sponsored by Johnson & Johnson and the Dr Paul Janssen Award for Biomedical Research, the seminar (free registration) features some distinguished speakers including Napoleone Ferrara, MD who is giving a presentation on the “Discovery of Anti-Angiogenesis Therapies for Cancer and Ocular Disease.

I’m particularly interested in hearing the panel discussion in the afternoon on the “future of angiogenic medicine,” and the potential of gene transfer therapy as a treatment option.

Those following this area will already know that ocular gene therapy was a topic of discussion at the FDA Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee meeting in June this year.

The briefing document for the meeting discusses how a number of inherited retinal diseases such as Leber Congenital Amaurosis, Stargardt Disease and Retinitis Pigmentosa might benefit from gene therapy.  Given the standard of care is largely supportive in many of these disorders, the potential benefits are huge.

Gene therapy may also offer benefits in the treatment of acquired retinal disorders such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of blindness in people aged 50 years of older in the developed world.

In a presentation to the meeting by Professor Peter Campochiaro of the Wimer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins, he noted the burden of regular introcular injections.

Potential gene therapy products for retinal disease, such as those using viral vectors and plasmid DNA vectors into which a transgene can be inserted, will be an interesting area to watch.

It’s a fact of human life that we lose physical and mental function as we get older. In the information age that we currently live in, this translates into a decline in our ability to function and perform the activities of daily living. Can we halt or delay age-related memory loss?

Min Wang and colleagues from Yale University School of Medicine in the August 11 issue of Nature, have published some elegant research that suggests we may be able to, at some point in the future.

It’s important to distinguish the cognitive loss associated with normal ageing from that associated with dementias such as Alzheimer’s disease where major changes to the brain structure and function occur. The Yale researchers accomplished this by using aged monkeys that have a highly developed prefrontal cortex (PFC), the part of the brain associated with working memory. Monkeys, unlike humans, do not develop age-related dementias!

Working memory that allows you to keep things “in mind” e.g. where you put the car keys down, relies on a network of pyramidal neurons in the dorsolateral PFC that excite each other.

The strength of this excitatory network depends on the neurochemical environment e.g. elevated cAMP signaling reduces nerve firing. Wang and colleagues reversed the age-related decline in PFC activity by restoring an optimal neurochemical environment. Through a series of experiments they found that:

The memory-related firing of aged DELAY neurons was partially restored to more youthful levels by inhibiting cAMP signalling, or by blocking HCN or KCNQ channels.

These findings reveal the cellular basis of age-related cognitive decline in dorsolateral PFC, and demonstrate that physiological integrity can be rescued by addressing the molecular needs of PFC circuits.

This research, although preliminary and based on animal models, is promising. It offers the hope that in the future we may be able to reverse or slow-down the age-related memory loss and cognitive defects we would otherwise experience.

Many biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are focusing on Alzheimer’s disease as a target. What this research suggests is that developing therapies that may delay or slow-down age-related memory decline could also be a valid target for drug development, with a significant market opportunity.

ResearchBlogging.orgWang, M., Gamo, N., Yang, Y., Jin, L., Wang, X., Laubach, M., Mazer, J., Lee, D., & Arnsten, A. (2011). Neuronal basis of age-related working memory decline Nature, 476 (7359), 210-213 DOI: 10.1038/nature10243

Earlier this week Bayer & Algeta announced that Alpharadin™ (radium-223 chloride) had received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

Bayer signed an agreement with Norwegian based Algeta in 2009 for the global commercial rights to Alpharadin™, with Algeta retaining a 50/50 co-promotion and profit-sharing in the United States.

According to the Algeta August 23, 2011 press release, in light of the FDA fast track designation they plan on filing for United States approval in mid-2012, ahead of previous expectations.

At the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago this year, phase II clinical trial data for Alpharadin™ was presented during the poster session (Abstract #4620).  You can obtain a copy of the poster here.

ASCO Alpharadin™ Phase 2 Data showed increase in Overall Survival

What impressed me when I saw the poster and talked to Gillies O’Brien-Tear, the Chief Medical Officer for Algeta, was the increase in overall survival (OS) seen. In the phase 2 study presented, Alpharadin™ improved OS by 4.5 months versus placebo when added to the standard of care in patients with CRPC and bone metastases.

To me this stands out from other drugs that are targeting bone metastases in CRPC, such as cabozantinib (XL184) and denosumab (Xgeva®), where to my knowledge no overall survival benefits have yet been seen.

Despite the lack of OS benefit, Amgen announced earlier this week on Aug 22nd, they had made a supplemental BLA application for denosumab to expand the indication to include the prevention of bone metastases in CRPC. The PDUFA date is April 12, 2012.

Will Xgeva® and Alpharadin™ be viewed as potential competitors or used synergistically? It will be interesting to see any data that shows the impact of Alpharadin™ on bone pain and quality of life, and how physicians view the new treatment options that may be available to them.

How does Radium-223 chloride act? 

It is a calcium mimetic that is taken up by bone, where the radium then emits alpha-particles that act on the prostate cancer bone metastases.  The radiation is only short range (2-10 cell diameters) which limits its toxicity to healthy tissue and results in localized and focused radiation that kills metastatic cancer cells in the bone.

The day after the phase 2 results were presented at ASCO, Algeta and Bayer announced on June 6, positive data from the interim analysis of the phase 3 ALSYMPCA (ALpharadin in SYMptomatic Prostate CAncer patients) trial.

This study began in June 2008, with enrollment of 922 patients completed in January 2011. According to the June 6 press release, the interim analysis of the ALSYMPCA trial showed a statistically significant increase in overall survival in CRPC patients receiving Alpharadin™ compared to placebo.

Median overall survival was 14.0 months for Alpharadin™ and 11.2 months for placebo (two-sided p-value = 0.0022, HR = 0.699)

As a result of the interim analysis, the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the trial be stopped and patients on the placebo arm offered treatment with Alpharadin™. Dr Chris Parker, from the Royal Marsden Hospital, and Principal Investigator of ALSYMPCA, said:  

“Based on the observed survival benefit and its safety profile, Alpharadin may become an important treatment for patients with bone metastases from advanced prostate cancer.”

At the forthcoming European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress in Stockholm (co-sponsored by ECCO, ESMO and ESTRO), the phase III Alpharadin data for the ALSYMPCA trial will be presented as a late breaking abstract on September 24, 2011 in the Presidential Session.

The abstracts for the meeting are not yet available, but in the light of the FDA Fast Track designation earlier this week, and the fact the ALSYMPCA trial results will be presented in a plenary session at Stockholm, positive data is expected.

The prostate cancer market is certainly heating up with the approval earlier this year of Zytiga™ (abiraterone acetate) and several products in late stage development such as Alpharadin™, MDV3100, TAK-700 and custirsen (OGX-011). It’s good news for patients that new treatment options may be available before too long.  As to how these new therapies are used, sequenced and combined, that is set to be the topic of conversation at medical and scientific meetings over the coming year.

Yesterday, it was announced that Google had reached a settlement with the United States Department of Justice and would forfeit $500M in gross revenue received from Canadian online pharmacies advertising to US consumers through the Google AdWords program.

According to the Government, these advertisements then led US consumers to buy and illegally import prescription drugs from Canada.

The settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) was in many ways inevitable.  Once the Government decided to go after Google to the extent of submitting fake online ads on behalf of fake online pharmacies, that Google ran and provided customer support to, the question was not if Google would settle, but for how much?

$500 million sounds a lot, but in the context of 2010 revenue of $29.3 billion, it’s only 1.7% of last year’s sales (if my calculations are correct).  It comes across as a slap on the wrist as Google is only required to forfeit to the Government the “illegal” revenue they obtained over the course of several years.

When Google advised investors earlier this year that they had accrued $500M in anticipation of a possible settlement, the company noted (emphasis added):

“Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe it will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

There is no fine or punitive damages. Reaching a settlement to avoid a criminal prosecution makes sound business sense.

In the Google AdWords case, the reality is that many prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada. Many senior citizens living close to the border go to Canada to obtain their drugs. Although open to abuse, there is nothing inherently wrong in consumers wanting to buy the same product cheaper, if they can readily do so. The power of the internet to reach consumers wherever they may be has brought the power of economics and market forces to all of us.

What the Google/DOJ settlement doesn’t do is address the underlying reason why are many prescription drugs more expensive in the United States compared to Canada?  In other words, it shoots the messenger rather than deal with the underlying problem. If prescription drugs were the same price in both countries, this problem simply would not exist – there would be no market for online pharmacies in Canada.

The settlement announced yesterday and all the compliance features included within it will not stop the practice of US consumers looking to Canada for cheaper drugs. It just means that one advertising and marketing channel has been eliminated.

As Sally Church noted recently on Pharma Strategy Blog, the increasing price of new oncology drugs in the United States is unsustainable.

Why should US consumers pay more for drugs than their neighbors in Canada? After all the currencies are similar in value, and I’d argue the countries are comparable in terms of industrialization, wages and society i.e. we are comparing similar countries in terms of economic development. We are not comparing the price of drugs in a developed country to the price in the third world.

As the world’s largest market for pharmaceuticals, why does the US have the highest prices for prescription drugs? The difference is in the health care systems – the US is a free market where the price is what the market will sustain. Drug prices are not regulated, imports from cheaper countries are prohibited, and the payors (insurance companies) are able to pass on the cost of higher drugs direct to the consumer through higher insurance premiums.

In Canada, the Provincial governments are the payors and they regulate and control the price of drugs.  The United States is a great market for pharmaceutical companies (maximum profits) but poor for the consumer who picks up the price of branded prescription drugs whether through high co-pays or higher insurance costs.

As a result the healthcare system in the United States remains fundamentally broken, despite recent attempts at reform, and to me the Google/DOJ settlement is yet another reminder of this.

Richard Hsu (@hsutubeesq), a Silicon Vally technology lawyer and partner at King & Spalding has a new blog that I’d like to recommend.

Named “The One Page Blog”, it aims to showcase Richard’s knowledge of IP and technology law using one page posts. Most of the posts have a downloadable PDF with a useful framework or summary. A picture tells a thousand words.

I particularly like Richard’s recent post on how to analyze a confidentiality agreement. The model Richard proposes will be useful to lawyers who are not IP-experts or those who need to talk to their lawyers about some of the issues that should be considered.

The challenge I find with a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement is always one of negotiating an agreement that is fair and reasonable to both parties. Typically the boilerplate I receive from biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies is far too much in their favor. Redlining and negotiation then follows!

Richard’s blog also has a 48 second video entitled “making my own magnetic rubik’s cube.” It is excellent and a standard I aspire to as I seek to do more video blog posts:

I look forward to more posts and video from the “The One Page Blog.”

With the collapse of the Dendreon share price today following poor sales data (Adam Feuerstein on The Street has an excellent write up about this), attention has again focused on the prostate cancer market.

Zytiga (abiraterone acetate) was recently approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), following FDA approval earlier this year.

The EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use granted the marketing authorization for Zytiga at it’s July 2011 meeting.  The approval noted,

“The poor prognosis of the target patient population represents a high unmet medical need while the novel mechanism of action of abiraterone has the potential to offer an alternative therapeutic option for these patients.”

What does this mean for sales of sanofi-aventis’ cabazitaxel (Jevtana), which was approved in Europe earlier this year?

Given that both drugs have approval in the same indication for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) post-docetaxel chemotherapy, and the price is likely to be comparable, my guess would be that Jevtana sales will take a big hit.

After a sick prostate cancer patient has undertaken several cycles of chemotherapy with docetaxel, why would they not want to take an oral pill as opposed to another chemotherapy drug, which does have a less than stellar adverse-event profile.  The answer is they will probably take a chemo-holiday and use Zytiga.

Jevtana simply came to the market too late in Europe, and Zytiga gained accelerated approval.  It’s a reminder that we live in a dynamic pharmaceutical market place, as the news last night from Dendreon has also reminded us.

Thanks to Christian Assad (@Christianassad), Cardiology Fellow at TMHS/UTMB, for tweeting the press release from researchers at the Technical University in Munich (Technische Universitaet Munchen) on how artificial nanoparticles may influence heart rate:

Using a Langendorff heart, which is an isolated heart from an animal, flushed with a nutrient solution instead of blood, researchers were able to show that certain nanoparticles caused an increased heart rate, cardiac arrhythmia and modified ECG.

Researchers hypothesized that nanoparticles cause the release of noradrenaline. However, there is no clinical data associated with the press release that can be analyzed, so the implications of this research are limited.

In particular, there is no discussion of the extent to which the nanoparticles tested with the heart model are in fact used for drug delivery.  The press release mentions the team used nanoparticles made of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide and carbon black. These are commonly found in sun screens and industrial products. The extent to which these might be likely to find their way to a human heart is questionable.

Nanoparticles are increasingly being used for drug delivery, yet safety concerns persist, so having an animal model of the heart could be helpful to investigate the effect of the artificial nanoparticles on an organ.

However, more research is needed to validate this model with nanoparticles that are in fact used for human drug delivery.

According to a forthcoming article published in Forbes, excerpts of which appear on Matthew Herper’s blog “The Medicine Show,” big pharma should take bigger risks and outsource R&D to smaller, innovative companies.

At least that’s the philosophy of Bernard Munos, the former Lilly sales executive who has focused on the innovation problems faced by the pharmaceutical industry. According to Forbes, he believes that big pharma should “cut research and development” and “rather than do research in house, companies should close their labs and outsource the work to tiny, nimble startups that can explore bigger, crazier ideas.”

However, as Munos goes on to say in an excerpt published by Matthew Herper:

“You cannot script innovation,” Munos says. “You cannot boil it down to a code of best practices. Because it is unpredictable and the opportunities in science do not match the opportunities in markets.”

That is why Munos’ strategy of outsourcing drug discovery may not be the right one – there is no formula that you can give a vendor on how to be innovative.  Indeed, leveraging the innovation of small biotechnology companies is nothing new – isn’t that what big pharma already does with its licensing deals and alliances?

The question that comes to mind from the provocative Forbes article is whether innovation of drug development is a service like clinical trials that can be outsourced? Contract Research Organizations (CRO) are now the route by which the majority of companies conduct clinical research. They possess the efficiency and economies of scale to do what is a mundane, process driven task of setting-up, monitoring and processing data associated with a clinical trial on a global basis.  Those models works reasonably well and are now the norm.  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) exist for everything a CRO does in what is a heavily regulated process of gathering data for regulatory submissions.

Is this the same for drug discovery? I am not so sure.  Firstly, if you outsource you have to give direction. You have to have a commercial or scientific target, and resources have to be allocated accordingly. Who decides where R&D investment should be spent? Ultimately in any outsourced venture, the company spending the money makes that decision.  So all you are doing is shifting the execution of the task, not the development of the strategy, which is where the innovation needs to take place.

Indeed, if one looks at the clinical trial service model, what has happened is that consolidation of small and medium size CRO’s continues to take place.  Small companies simply lack the resources to get the job done. I am not convinced that small is necessarily best when it comes to drug discovery.

What’s more, Munos, in the recent Science Translational Medicine (STM) commentary on innovation that he wrote with William Chin, appears to argue for a different model than the one he proposes in Forbes.  He states that:

“pharmaceutical companies cannot mitigate risk adequately by pursuing “safe” incremental innovation, instead the industry should reengage in high risk discovery research on a broad scale and only take genuine breakthroughs to the clinic.”

This is easy to say in practice, and may not be a realistic strategy when there is money and sales to be made from me-too and follow-on compounds. How many companies are going to say we are not going to continue with this business model?

According to Munos in Science Translational Medicine (STM) the options open to big pharma are to:

  • Participate more decisively in collaborative networks
  • Form precompetitive consortia and other partnerships to share costs
  • Adopt new research models such as public-private partnerships

To me, there seems to be a disconnect between what Munos says in the Forbes article and what he says in his STM commentary.  If he has a clear vision for the future of pharma innovation, he should at least be consistent.

Where I do agree with Munos is the conclusion of his STM commentary that success starts with breakthrough science. This message was also clearly stated at BIO 2011 by the panel on innovation that included GSK’s Moncef Slaoui.

Pharma R&D $ needs to be spent more wisely. In my opinion there is a role for incremental, as well as breakthrough, innovation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Is cutting R&D and outsourcing discovery the route to success as Munos suggests in Forbes?  Only time will tell as pharma R&D retools and refocuses for the future.

ResearchBlogging.orgMunos, B., & Chin, W. (2011). How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry Science Translational Medicine, 3 (89), 89-89 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002273

I recently returned from a few days in Boston & Cambridge, so today, in memory of the late Alastair Cooke and his Letter from America, broadcast for 58 years from 1946 to 2004, I wanted to share with you my “Letter from Boston”.

New England is the No 1 biotechnology region on the East Coast of the United States and the Boston/Cambridge area of Massachusetts is the hub.

What makes Boston/Cambridge so attractive as a biotech region?  Amongst many, I’d suggest 3 factors stand out to me:

  1. Access to World-Class Science with an Entrepreneurial Focus.  With over 50,000 students in the Boston/Cambridge area it is a city with a focus on higher education.  Harvard, MIT, Boston University, Northeastern, Tufts, Massachusetts General Hospital are but a few of the many research institutions.  However, what strikes me about the researchers in Boston/Cambridge area is the entrepreneurial focus they have.  The idea of starting up a company, commercializing an innovation or finding the application of science is something a lot of people want to do.  This entrepreneurial focus is key to the success of industry/academic colloboration in the area.
  2. Critical Mass of Industry infrastructure. There’s a range of companies in the Boston/Cambridge area. From start-ups such as Blueprint Medicines to more established companies such as Ariad, Vertex and Millennium-Takeda, what Boston/Cambridge offers is a critical mass of talent and people. Those working in the area have sufficient opportunities to move to new companies and positions, that it’s not a major career risk to move to the area.  There’s also a lot of early stage infrastructure such as the Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research that bridges the gap between basic research and early stage commercial development.
  3. Geographic Location. Finally, what stands out for me is the excellent location that Boston has. You can easily reach New York’s investors and analysts, Washington Policy Makers or New Jersey big pharma without too much difficulty. At the same time, Boston is easily accessible for European companies, and the travel time to London can be less than going to the West Coast.

Pfizer recently announced further R&D investment in the Longwood Medical area, Harvard are building a new science campus in Allston and Vertex recently broke ground on a new headquarters in the South Boston innovation district.

For biotechnology companies at all stages of development there are a lot of opportunities in the Boston/Cambridge area.

error: Content is protected !!