Biotech Strategy Blog

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

Posts tagged ‘Pfizer’

ASCO 2014 blinatumomab in B cell ALL

A regular reader of BSB wrote in asking for an update on Amgen’s blinatumomab, an anti CD3/CD19 bispecific antibody being investigated in B cell adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and Non Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL). It has orphan designation for both indications.

Amgen acquired Micromet and their BiTE program way back in January 2012. At the time, the R&D head, Roger Perlmutter, referred to the exploratory phase II results as being a key driver for their interest in the technology. Like many, I too, was initially enthusiastic about the bispecific antibody when it was with Micromet, since those were very encouraging results in refractory adult ALL, a particularly hard to treat malignancy with a generally poor prognosis.

Unfortunately, since then we’ve heard very little about the program, which seems to have languished in the Amgen portfolio, a not uncommon occurrence when big Pharma/Biotech take over small biotech programs. In the meantime, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies have arrived to much fanfare, and with it, even more dramatic results that have caught people’s attention.

Is there still a future for blinatumomab and BiTE technology?

To learn more about our insights, you can log-in to read the article.

This content is restricted to subscribers

Pfizer’s palbociclib data in ER+ breast cancer – hit or miss?

Dr Richard Finn Source: UCLA

Dr Richard Finn Source: UCLA

At AACR this weekend, Dr Richard Finn (UCLA) presented the much anticipated front-line phase II data for Pfizer’s CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib (palbo) plus letrozole versus letrozole alone in ER+ HER2- breast cancer.

The PALOMA series of trials are designed to show that adding a specific CDK inhibitor to an aromatase inhibitor enhances efficacy and improves outcomes.

There are three metastatic breast cancer trials in all, with PALOMA–1 being the phase II study while PALOMA–2 and –3 are phase III randomised controlled registration studies aimed at confirming the initial phase II results in combination with letrozole and fulvestrant, respectively. In addition, palbociclib is also being evaluated in combination with standard endocrine therapy (PENELOPE-B) for certain early-stage breast cancers.

In short, an analysis demonstrated that the primary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS) was met, but the overall survival (OS) data was not significant at the time of the analysis.

What does this does this data mean and in what context should we look at the results?

Subscribers can log-in to read our latest insights or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

9 Comments

CDK inhibitors: will palbociclib and LEE011 make it to market in breast cancer?

The next few weeks will see quite a lot of activity here on Biotech Strategy Blog with the segue from Miami Breast Cancer Conference to the World Lung Conference in Geneva and then onto the annual AACR meeting in San Diego.

Over the last year, we’ve seen a lot of attention focused on immuno-oncology, but very little of the data has emerged yet in breast cancer. Instead, we’ve seen a new approval for pertuzumab (Perjeta) in neoadjuvant disease, based on pCR. You can read more about new developments in targeting HER2 in neoadjuvant breast cancer in the last post.

One area that has generated a lot of interest in metastatic breast cancer is CDK inhibition, whether that be the potential for targeting 1 and 2 in triple negative disease, or targeting 4 and 6, in ER positive situations, for example. Some inhibitors are more specific (Pfizer’s palbociclib and Novartis’s LEE011 target CDK4/6), whereas others hit a broader spectrum such as Merck’s dinaciclib, which inhibits CDK1/2/5/9. The challenge with pan inhibitors is that if the target is doesn’t matter to the tumour then there is potential for unwanted off-target side effects.

Last month Pfizer announced that the topline phase II results from the PALOMA –1 trial with their CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, were positive – no doubt we will see an ODAC meeting soon to discuss the FDA application and possible accelerated approval. The company received Breakthrough Therapy Designation in April last year and given the survival curves from the phase II study that have previously been presented at SABCS, I think they make a very good case for early approval.

Recall that the interim analysis demonstrated very compelling median progression free survival (PFS) of 26.1 months for palbociclib when combined with letrozole compared to only 7.5 months with letrozole alone in women who were post-menopausal with newly diagnosed ER+ HER2- breast cancer. obviously the final results will be important in influencing any FDA decision, but by whatever yardstick you use, those were very impressive data indeed.

The phase III trials, PALOMA–2 and PALOMA–3, are already open and enrolling patients.

Bill Sellers, Source: NIBR

Bill Sellers, Source: NIBR

Other companies also have CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical development, including Lilly and Novartis.

Today’s post focuses on progress in targeting CDK4/6, including highlights from an interview with William Sellers MD, PhD from the Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research (NIBR).

Subscribers can log-in to read our latest insights or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

7 Comments

The future of cancer research – Part 2

Boston: Fallowing on from yesterday’s post about learnings from the AACR-NCI-EORTC conference in immuno-oncology, today’s post focuses on learnings from non-immune R&D, namely monoclonal antibodies and TKIs.

We know that cancer is a very complex topic and that adaptive resistance is increasingly a huge focus, but where are the new developments in this area and what can we learn from them in order to improve outcomes?

Another key area to consider is therapeutic index, that is are we shutting down enough of an oncogenic target’s activity in order to ensure efficacy? We’ve seen this in the anti-angiogenesis field, for example, where many VEGF inhibitors failed before bevacizumab (Avastin) finally cracked the nut in colorectal cancer and shifted the needle in terms of improving overall survival. We are now seeing this happen in other areas too, which will be covered below.

To learn more insights on this intriguing topic, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

Letter from Boston

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.

AB Science – realizing the potential of masitinib in cancer and inflammation

Following on from yesterday’s news that Gilead had acquired Calistoga and CAL-101, another company that is exploring the interface between cancer and inflammation is Paris based AB Science.

Pharma Strategy Blog has an excellent interview with the CEO, Alain Moussy.  AB Science is an emerging French biopharmaceutical company, and I previously wrote about its IPO.

The company has adopted a unique market entry strategy of obtaining approval first in animal health for their tyrosine kinase inhibitor, masitinib.  In 2008, AB Science gained European approval for canine mast cell tumors and in December 2010 FDA approval.

The company recently announced that on February 8, 2011 it had its first US sale of masitinib to vets.

Masitinib is in fact a multi-kinase inhibitor that inhibits wild type and mutant forms of stem cell factor receptor (c-KIT, SCFR), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor 3 (FGFR3) and to a lesser degree, focal adhesion kinase (FAK).

Sally Church on the Pharma Strategy Blog has written about how AB Science’s strategy makes sense – if you look at Pfizer, they obtain more revenue from animal health than they do from oncology.  AB Sciences’ Masivet® in Europe, Kinavet® in the United States competes against Pfizer animal health’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, Palladia® (toceranib), which also targets mast cell cancer in dogs.

Not only does this growth strategy generate revenue for an early-stage company like AB Science, it also allows the company to build a sales and marketing infrastructure in the United States and Europe while waiting for the results of pivotal phase 3 studies in humans.

The phase 2 clinical trial data for masitinib in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer were impressive (28% survival at 18 months).  The phase 3 clinical trial results are expected this year.  The clintrials.gov listing shows the date for the estimated primary completion date (Overall Survival) as November 2010 with study completion in November 2011.  Obviously the exact timing depends on how fast subjects were accrued, but I would be surprised if we didn’t see some data presented at ASCO or ESMO, especially if positive.

In terms of targeting inflammation, masitinib is in phase III development for mastocytosis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and asthma.  AB Science announced on January 27, 2011 the first patient recruited into their phase 3 study in severe asthma.

The company’s new product development strategy is way ahead of many of its competitors in identifying the links between cancer and inflammation, and choosing to target market opportunities in both areas.

AB Science is an exciting company to watch, and I expect that we will see important new data come out at major scientific meetings this year.

error: Content is protected !!