Biopharmconsortium Blog

Expert commentary from Haberman Associates biotechnology and pharmaceutical consulting.

Breakthrough of the year 2013–Cancer Immunotherapy

Happy New Year! Source: Roblespepe. http://bit.ly/1cpkyHX

Happy New Year! Source: Roblespepe. http://bit.ly/1cpkyHX

As it does every year, Science published its “Breakthrough of the Year” for 2013 in the 20 December 2013 issue of the journal.

Science chose cancer immunotherapy as its Breakthrough of the Year 2013.

In its 20 December 2013 issue, Science published an editorial by its Editor-in-Chief, Marcia McNutt, Ph.D., entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy”. The same issue has a news article  by staff writer Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, also entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy”.

As usual, the 20 December 2013 issue of Science contains a Breakthrough of the Year 2013 news section, which in addition to the Breakthrough of the Year itself, also contains articles about several interesting runners-up, ranging from genetic microsurgery using CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat) technology to mini-organs to human cloning to vaccine design.

In the Science editorial and news article, the authors focus on the development and initial successes of two types of immunotherapy:

  • Monoclonal antibody (MAb) drugs that target T-cell regulatory molecules, including the approved CTLA4-targeting MAb ipilimumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Yervoy), and the clinical-stage anti-PD-1 agents nivolumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb) and lambrolizumab (Merck).
  • Therapy with genetically engineered autologous T cells, known as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapy, such as that being developed by a collaboration between the University of Pennsylvania and Novartis.

The rationale for Science’s selection of cancer immunotherapy as the breakthrough of the year is that after a decades-long process of basic biological research on T cells, immunotherapy products have emerged and–as of this year–have achieved impressive results in clinical trials. And–as pointed out by Dr. McNutt–immunotherapy would constitute a new, fourth modality for cancer treatment, together with the traditional surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

However, as pointed out by Dr. McNutt and Ms. Couzin-Frankel, these are still early days for cancer immunotherapy. Key needs include the discovery of biomarkers that can help predict who can benefit from a particular immunotherapy, development of combination therapies that are more potent than single-agent therapies, and that might help more patients, and means for mitigating adverse effects.

Moreover, it will take some time to determine how durable any remissions are, especially whether anti-PD1 agents give durable long-term survival. Finally, although several MAb-based immunotherapies are either approved (in the case of  ipilimumab) or well along in clinical trials, CAR T-cell therapies and other adoptive immunotherapies remain experimental.

In addition to the special Science “Breakthrough 2013″ section, Nature published a Supplement on cancer immunotherapy in its 19/26 December 2013 issue. This further highlights the growing importance of this field.

Cancer immunotherapy on the Biopharmconsortium Blog

Readers of our Biopharmconsortium Blog are no strangers to recent breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy. In the case of MAb-based immunotherapies, we have published two summary articles, one in 2012 and the other in 2013. These articles noted that cancer immunotherapy was the “star” of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting in both years.

Our blog also contains articles about CAR therapy, as being developed by the University of Pennsylvania and Novartis and by bluebird bio and Celgene. Moreover, the Biopharmconsortium Blog contains articles on other types of cancer immunotherapies not covered by the Science articles, such as cancer vaccines.

We look forward to further progress in the field of cancer immunotherapy, and to the improved treatments and even cures of cancer patients that may be made possible by these developments.
__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Neuroscience companies sprout up in Boston

Pyramidal neurons. Source: Magnus Manske http://bit.ly/1gUo6GM

Pyramidal neurons. Source: Magnus Manske http://bit.ly/1gUo6GM

In our December 10, 2013 blog article that focused on Novartis’ new neuroscience division, we briefly mentioned two young Cambridge MA neuroscience specialty companies–Rodin Therapeutics and Sage Therapeutics.

Rodin Therapeutics

Rodin was founded by Atlas Venture and the German protein structure-focused biotech Proteros biostructures in June 2013. It is focused on applying epigenetics to discovery and development of novel therapeutics for CNS disorders, especially cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. Rodin secured funding from Atlas and Johnson & Johnson Development Corporation (JJDC). The company plans to collaborate with the Johnson & Johnson Innovation Center in Boston and Janssen Research & Development to advance its R&D programs. In addition to several partners at Atlas (led by acting Rodin Chief Executive Officer Bruce Booth, Ph.D.), Rodin’s team includes as its Chief Scientific Officer Martin Jefson Ph.D., former head of Neuroscience Research at Pfizer.

There is little information available on Rodin, because the company is operating in stealth mode.

Sage Therapeutics

Sage was founded by venture capital firm Third Rock Ventures, and officially launched on October 2011. At the time of its launch, Third Rock provided Sage with a $35 million Series A round of financing. Third Rock founded Sage together with scientific founders Steven Paul, M.D. (formerly the Executive Vice President for science and technology and President of Lilly Research Laboratories, and a former scientific director of the National Institute of Mental Health) and Douglas Covey, Ph.D. (professor of biochemistry at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO).

We at Haberman Associates have known Dr. Paul mainly for his work in R&D strategy while at Lilly. We cited Dr. Paul in our 2009 book-length report, Approaches to Reducing Phase II Attrition, published by Cambridge Healthtech Institute.

In October 2013, Sage received $20 million in Series B financing from Third Rock and from ARCH Venture Partners.

Sage’s technology platform is based on targeting certain classes of neurotransmitter receptors. As we discussed in our December 10, 2013 blog article, targeting neurotransmitter receptors was a successful approach to drug discovery and development decades ago, but has proven nearly fruitless ever since.

Nevertheless, Sage is taking a novel and interesting approach to targeting neurotransmitter receptors. The company is focusing on receptors for gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate. GABA and glutamate are, respectively, the primary inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitters that mediate fast synaptic transmission in the brain. Specifically, Sage is focusing on GABAreceptors (a major class of GABA receptors) and N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptors (a major class of glutamate receptors).

Both GABAA receptors and NMDA receptors are ligand-gated ion channels. These multi-subunit proteins are transmembrane ion channels that open to allow ions such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, or Cl- to pass through the membrane in response to the binding of a ligand, such as a neurotransmitter. [In addition to ligand-gated ion channels, neurotransmitter receptors include members of the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) family. One example is the GABAB receptor.]

The GABAA receptor is a pentameric (five-subunit) chloride channel whose endogenous ligand is GABA. In addition to its binding site for GABA, this receptor has several allosteric sites that modulate its activity indirectly. Among the drugs that target an allosteric site on GABAA receptors are the benzodiazepines. Examples of benzodiazepines include the tranquilizer (anxiolytic) diazepam (Valium), and the short-term anti-insomnia drug Triazolam (Halcion).

The NMDA receptor is a heterotetrameric cation channel. It is a type of glutamate receptor. NMDA is a selective agonist that binds to NMDA receptors but not to other glutamate receptors. Calcium flux through NMDA receptors is thought to be critical for synaptic plasticity, a cellular mechanism involved in learning and memory. NMDA receptors require co-activation by two ligands: glutamate and either D-serine or glycine. (NMDA itself is a partial agonist that mimics glutamate, but is not normally found in the brain.) Among the drugs that act as NMDA receptor antagonists are the cough suppressant (antitussive) dextromethorphan and the Alzheimer’s drug memantine.

Imbalance in the levels of GABA and glutamate, or alterations in activity of their receptors can result in dysregulation of neural circuits. Such imbalance has been implicated in neuropsychiatric disorders such as epilepsy, autism, schizophrenia and pain. While GABAA receptors and NMDA receptors are considered to be validated drug targets, a major challenge has been to modulate these receptors safely and effectively. Current drugs that act at these receptors have major adverse effects (e.g., sedation, seizures, tolerance, dependence, and excitotoxicity) that strongly impair patient quality of life. For example, long-term treatment with benzodiazepines can cause tolerance and physical dependence, and dextromethorphan can act as a dissociative hallucinogen.

Sage’s proprietary technology platform is know as the Positive and Negative Allosteric Modulator (PANAM) chemistry platform. This platform is based on the identification of members of a family of small-molecule endogenous allosteric modulators, which selectively and potently modulate GABAA or NMDA receptors. Sage is developing proprietary derivatives of these compounds. The goal of Sage’s R&D is to discover and develop  positive and negative allosteric modulators of GABAA and NMDA receptors that can be used to restore the balance between GABA and glutamate receptor activity that is disrupted in several important CNS disorders. These compounds will be designed to “fine tune” GABAA and NMDA receptor activity, resulting in a greater degree of both efficacy and safety than current CNS therapeutics.

For example, in October 2013, Sage announced the publication of a research report in the October 30, 2013 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience. The report detailed the results of research at Sage, on the identification of an endogenous brain neurosteroid, the cholesterol metabolite 24(S)-hydroxycholesterol (24(S)-HC).  This compound is a potent (submicromolar), direct, and selective positive allosteric regulator of NMDA receptors. The researchers found that 24(S)-HC binds to a modulatory allosteric site that is unique to oxysterols. Subsequent drug discovery efforts resulted in the identification of several potent synthetic drug-like derivatives of 24(S)-HC that act as the same allosteric site, and serve as positive modulators of NMDA receptors. Treatment with one of these derivatives, Sage’s propriety compound SGE-301, reversed behavioral and cognitive deficits in a variety of preclinical models.

Sage’s pipeline

Sage has four pipeline drug candidates, including two compounds in the clinic. The company says that its initial pipeline focus is on “acute and orphan CNS indications with strong preclinical to clinical translation and accelerated development timelines” that enable the rapid development of important therapeutics to treat these conditions. In addition, Sage is pursuing early-stage programs that utilize the company’s PANAM platform. The goal of the early-stage programs (which target GABAA and NMDA receptors as we discussed earlier in this article) is to address “prevalent, chronic neuropsychiatric indications.”

Sage’s pipeline drug candidates include compounds in Phase 2 trials to treat status epilepticus and traumatic brain injury, and two preclinical-stage compounds–an anesthetic a treatment for patients with fragile X syndrome.

Status epilepticus (SE) is an acute life-threatening form of epilepsy, which is currently defined as a continuous seizure lasting longer than 5 minutes, or recurrent seizures without regaining consciousness between seizures for over 5 minutes. It occurs in approximately 200,000 U.S. patients each year, and has a mortality rate of nearly 20%. Refractory SE occurs in around a third of SE patients for whom first and second line treatment options are ineffective. These patients are moved to the ICU, and have little or no treatment options.

Sage’s SAGE-547, which is a proprietary positive GABAA receptor allosteric modulator, is aimed at treatment of the orphan indication of refractory SE. This compound has been selected by Elsevier Business Intelligence as one of the Top 10 Neuroscience Projects to Watch.

In addition to SAGE-547, Sage is developing next-generation treatments for SE and other forms of seizure and epilepsy. These early-stage compounds are novel positive allosteric modulators of GABAA receptors. Sage presented data on its early-stage therapeutics for SE in a poster session at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) Annual Meeting, Cambridge MA, December 9, 2013.

Sage’s drug candidate for traumatic brain injury is listed on the company’s website as “a proprietary, positive allosteric modulator”.

Sage’s preclinical anesthetic, SGE-202, is moving toward a Phase 1 clinical trial in 2014. It is an intravenous anesthetic for procedural sedation that designed to compete with the standard therapy, propofol. SGE-202 is designed to offer improved efficacy and safety as compared to propofol.

Fragile X syndrome (FSX) is an X chromosome-linked genetic syndrome that is the most widespread monogenic cause of autism and inherited cause of intellectual disability in males. FSX is an orphan condition that affects 60,000 – 80,000 people in the U.S. It causes such impairments as anxiety and social phobia, as well as cognitive deficits. There are no currently approved therapies for FXS, but patients are often prescribed treatments for anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or epilepsy.

Sage is developing a proprietary positive GABAA receptor allosteric modulator for treatment of FSX. It is expected to provide symptomatic and potentially disease-modifying therapeutic benefits to patients with FXS, and to ameliorate anxiety and social deficits. The company is moving its FXS program toward a Phase 1 clinical trial in 2014.

EnVivo Pharmaceuticals

Sage is not the only Boston-area biotech that is developing novel classes of compounds to target specific types of neurotransmitter receptors. We discussed EnVivo Pharmaceuticals (Watertown, MA), and its program to develop agents to target subclasses of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), in a November 2007 report published by Decision Resources.

nAChRs, like GABAA and NMDA receptors, are ligand-gated ion channels. In normal physiology, nAChRs are opened by the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh). However, nicotine can also open these receptors. Certain subtypes of nAChRs in the brain are involved in cognitive function, and nicotine, by targeting these receptors, has long been known to improve cognitive function. However, the adverse effects of nicotine (especially its well-known addictive properties) make this drug problematic for use as a cognitive enhancer. Therefore, several companies have been working on discovering and developing subtype-specific nAChR agonists for use in such conditions as Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, ADHD, and mild cognitive impairment.

EnVivo’s alpha-7 nAChR program, which targets a subtype of nChRs that have been implicated in cognitive function, has made considerable progress since 2007. Their lead compound, EVP-6124, is now in Phase 3 clinical trials for treatment of schizophrenia, and Phase 3 trials in Alzheimer’s disease are planned. This follows positive Phase 2 results in both conditions.

Outlook

Sage Therapeutics has a sophisticated approach to discovery of compounds that modulate GABAA and NMDA receptors, and has managed to both attract significant venture financing and to move compounds into the clinic rapidly. However, none of Sage’s compounds has yet achieved clinical proof of concept, so it is too early to determine whether Sage’s approach will bear fruit.

EnVivo’s alpha-7 nAChR program is based on a more straightforward technology strategy than Sage’s. It has made considerable progress since we first covered it in 2007. EnVivo’s lead compound, EVP-6124, has had successful Phase 2 clinical trials in both Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. However, both of these diseases have proven very difficult for drug developers to tackle. This is particularly true for Alzheimer’s disease–we have covered several cases in which drugs failed in Phase 3 on this blog. Therefore, it is best to reserve judgment on the outlook for EnVivo’s alpha-7 nAChR program pending the results of the Phase 3 trials.

Moreover, as we discussed on this blog, many Alzheimer’s experts believe that it would be best to target very early-stage or pre-Alzheimer’s disease rather than even “mild-to-moderate” disease as in the EnVivo Phase 2 trials.

Novartis’ new neuroscience program is a foundational, early-stage biology-driven effort, and clinical compounds are not expected for five years or so. Therefore, if Sage’s and especially EnVivo’s programs bear fruit, we should know about it long before any Novartis CNS programs progress very far at all. However, it is because of the abject failure of neurotransmitter-targeting approaches to CNS drug discovery and development over several decades that Novartis is resorting to a long-term foundational CNS R&D strategy.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Will Novartis lead a pharma industry return to neuroscience R&D?

Pyramidal neurons. Source: Retama. http://bit.ly/18j9iOP

Pyramidal neurons. Source: Retama. http://bit.ly/18j9iOP

A prominent feature of pharmaceutical company strategy in recent years has been massive cuts in R&D. These cutbacks have hit especially hard in areas that have not been productive in terms of revenue-producing drugs.

Chief among the targets for R&D cuts and layoffs has been neuroscience. As outlined in a 2011 Wall Street Journal article, such companies as AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Merck have cut back on neuroscience R&D, especially in psychiatric diseases. (Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, despite the frustrations of working in this area, have continued to hold some companies’ interest.)

The retreat from psychiatric disease R&D has been occurring despite the fact that mental health disorders are the most costly diseases in Western countries. For example, according to the same Wall Street Journal article, mental disorders were number one in the European Union in terms of direct and indirect health costs in recent years. In 2007, the total cost of these conditions in Europe was estimated at €295 billion ($415 billion). Indirect costs, especially lost productivity, accounted for most of these costs.

The Novartis return to neuroscience R&D

Now comes a Nature News article by Alison Abbott, Ph.D. (Nature’s Senior European Correspondent in Munich)–dated 08 October 2013, entitled “Novartis reboots brain division”.

As discussed in that article, Novartis closed its neuroscience facility at its headquarters in Basel, Switzerland in 2012. However, as was planned at the time of this closure, Novartis is now starting a new neuroscience research program at its global R&D headquarters, the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research (NIBR) (Cambridge, MA).

The old facility’s research was based on conventional approaches, centered on the modulation of neurotransmitters. This approach had been successful in the 1960s and 1970s, especially at Novartis’ predecessor companies. In that era, Sandoz developed clozapine, the first of the so-called “atypical antipsychotic” drugs, and Ciba developed imipramine, the first tricyclic antidepressant.

Since the development of these and other then-breakthrough psychiatric drugs, the market has become inundated with cheap generic antidepressants, antipsychotics and other psychiatric drugs. These drugs act on well-known targets–mainly neurotransmitter receptors.

Neurotransmitter receptor-based R&D has become increasingly ineffective. What has been needed are new paradigms of R&D strategy to address the lack of actionable knowledge of CNS biology. As a result of this knowledge deficit, pharmaceutical industry CNS research has become increasingly ineffective, which is the motivation for the cutbacks and layoffs in this area. Moreover, there have been no substantial improvements in therapy. For example, there are no disease-modifying drugs for autism, or for the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia.

Novartis’ return to neuroscience is based on a fresh approach to R&D strategy, based on exciting developments in academic neurobiology. This strategy is based on study of such areas as:

  • Neural circuitry, and how it may malfunction in psychiatric disease
  • The genetics of psychiatric diseases
  • The technology of optogenetics, which enables researchers to identify the neural circuits that genes involved in psychiatric disorders affect.
  • The use of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) technology, which enables researchers to take skin cells from patients, induce them to pluripotency, differentiate the iPS cells into neurons, and study aspects of their cell biology that may contribute to disease.

In support of this strategy, Novartis has hired an academic, Ricardo Dolmetsch, Ph.D. (Stanford University) to lead its new neuroscience division. Dr. Dolmetsch’s research has focused on the neurobiology of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. His laboratory has been especially interested in how electrical activity and calcium signals control brain development, and how this may be altered in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).

The projects in the Dolmetsch laboratory have included:

  • Use of iPS technology–as well as mouse and Drosophila models–to study the underlying basis of ASDs.
  • Studies of calcium channels and calcium signaling in neurons, their role in development, and how they may be altered in neural diseases.
  • The development of new technologies to study neural development, and developing new pharmaceuticals that regulate calcium channels and that may be useful for treating ASDs and other diseases.

Novartis’ new approach to neuroscience is completely consistent with the company’s overall biology-driven (and more specifically pathway-driven) approach to drug discovery and development. We discussed this strategy in our July 20, 2009 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog. We also discussed more recent development with Novartis’ overall strategy in our September 4, 2013 article on this blog.

Interestingly, the idea of hiring an academic to head Novartis’ new neuroscience division replicates the hiring of an academic–Mark Fishman, M.D. (formerly at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA)–as the overall head of the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research in 2002.

Novartis’ timeline for neuroscience drug development

Novartis neuroscience program intends to work toward discovery and development of therapeutics for such neurodevelopmental conditions as ASD, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, as well as for neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.

All of the technologies and research strategies that Novartis plans to use in its neuroscience division are novel ones, and mainly reside in academic laboratories. Novartis therefore plans to collaborate with academia in its neuroscience research efforts–as it does in other areas.

The collaboration between Novartis and academic labs will be facilitated by accepting the norms of academic research. Research results will be published, and academic institutions will be allowed to patent targets and technologies that emerge from the research. However, Novartis will have the right to develop drugs based on the targets, and will have the right of first refusal to license the patents.

According to Dr. Dolmetsch, and to Novartis advisor Steven E. Hyman, M.D (director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA), Novartis’ new approach to neuroscience will take a long time (perhaps around 5 years) before the first drugs start entering the clinic. As with other project areas  based on Novartis’ pathway-driven drug discovery strategy, it is likely that the first clinical studies will be in rare diseases (e.g., types of autism driven by specific genetic determinants).

Is Novartis leading the way to a broader industry return to neuroscience?

An important question is whether other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies will follow Novartis into a return to neuroscience R&D, based on biology-driven strategies. According to Alison Abbott’s article, Roche is planning such a program. However, other Big Pharmas are so far staying out.

Meanwhile, the European Commission, via its Innovative Medicines Initiative, is attempting to foster academic/pharma industry collaboration to study genetics and neural circuitry in autism, schizophrenia and depression. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health has launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, focused on study of neural circuitry.

Entrepreneurial start-up biotech companies, backed by leading venture capitalists, have also been exploring novel neuroscience-based approaches to drug discovery and development. For example, in Cambridge MA, there are Sage Therapeutics (backed by Third Rock Ventures and ARCH Ventures), and Rodin Therapeutics (backed by Atlas Venture). However, another Cambridge MA neuroscience company, Satori Pharmaceuticals, which had been focused on Alzheimer’s, had to close its doors in May 30, 2013, after the preclinical safety failure of its lead compound. This illustrates the risky nature of neuroscience-based drug development, especially in small biotech companies.

Nevertheless, after the decades-long failure of neurotransmitter receptor-based R&D to yield breakthrough drugs for devastating psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases, biology-driven drug discovery R&D appears to be the way to go.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Zafgen makes progress in development of obesity drug beloranib

Methionine aminopeptidase 2. Source: PDBbot. http://bit.ly/IP0hBW

Methionine aminopeptidase 2. Source: PDBbot. http://bit.ly/IP0hBW

On November 15, 2013 obesity specialty company Zafgen (Cambridge, MA) announced the results of its Phase 2 study of beloranib in a press release.

We discussed beloranib (ZGN-433) in our May 23, 2012 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog. Beloranib is a methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2) inhibitor. Beloranib targeting of MetAP2 in vivo results in downregulation of signal transduction pathways within the liver that are involved in the biosynthesis of fat. Animals or humans treated with the drug oxidize fat to form ketone bodies, which can be used as energy or are excreted from the body. The result is breakdown of fat cells and weight loss. Obese individuals do not usually have the ability to form ketone bodies.

The results of the Phase 2 study of beloranib

The Phase 2 study of beloranib (clinical trial number NCT01666691) was presented at Obesity Week 2013 in Atlanta, GA. It was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a range of doses of beloranib administered as twice-weekly subcutaneous injections for 12 weeks. The trial enrolled 147 subjects, of which 122 completed the study. They were mainly obese women with a mean age 48.4 years, a mean body weight of 100.9 kilograms (222.45 pounds), and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 37.6 kg/m2. (On the average, these subjects had grade 2 obesity, as measured by BMI.) The subjects in this four-armed study were treated with one of three doses of the drug, or with placebo. They were given no instructions regarding diet or exercise.

After 12 weeks of treatment, subjects lost from an average of 5.5 kilograms (12.1 pounds) (on 0.6 mg of drug twice-weekly) to 10.9 kilograms (24.03 pounds) (on 2.4 mg of drug twice-weekly), as compared to 0.4 kilograms (0.88 pounds) in the placebo group. These results were statistically significant. The study also showed that weight loss with beloranib was progressive and continuing at week 12. Subjects experienced a reduced sense of hunger, with improved cardiometabolic risk markers (e.g., lowered LDL, triglycerides, and blood pressure, and increased HDL). The drug was generally well-tolerated.

The study showed no serious adverse effects that were deemed to be related to beloranib treatment. The most common adverse effects with a higher incidence rate in those taking beloranib vs. placebo were nausea, diarrhea, headache, injection site bruising, and insomnia. These adverse effects were generally mild, transient and self-limiting.

The researchers who conducted the study concluded that the Phase 2 results suggest that beloranib has the potential to be an effective and promising treatment for severe obesity.

Zafgen secures $45 million in Series E financing

On December 4, 2013 Zafgen announced in another press release that it has secured $45 million in a Series E equity financing. New investors include RA Capital Management, Brookside Capital, Venrock, Alta Partners, an undisclosed blue chip investor, and a private investor.  These investors join the Zafgen’s previous backers, which include Atlas Venture and Third Rock Ventures. With the new financing, Zafgen has brought its total funding to date to $114 million.

Proceeds from Zafgen’s Series E financing will be used to support the continued development of beloranib.

Conclusions

As we have discussed earlier on this blog, despite the approvals of several antiobesity agents that work via the central nervous system, obesity treatments remain inadequate. This is especially true in the case of severe obesity. With the rapid worldwide acceleration in incidence of obesity and its complications, the need for more effective therapies is also accelerating. Moreover, our understanding of the pathogenesis of obesity is limited. Thus both continuing basic research and development of agents with novel mechanisms are sorely needed.

The results of the Phase 2 study with beloranib are promising, but as usual must be confirmed by Phase 3 clinical studies.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Agios Pharmaceuticals becomes a clinical-stage company!

Agios Efstratios, Greece. Source:  Christef http://bit.ly/HK636F

Agios Efstratios, Greece. Source: Christef http://bit.ly/HK636F

In a news release on September 23, 2013, Agios Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, MA) announced that it had initiated its first clinical study. The company further discussed its early clinical and preclinical programs in its press release on its Third Quarter financial report, dated November 7, 2013.

Specifically, the company initiated a Phase 1 muticenter clinical trial of AG-221 in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies bearing an isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutation. The study is designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy of orally-administered AG-221 in this patient population. The first stage of the Phase 1 study is a dose-escalation phase, which is designed  to determine the maximum tolerated dose and/or the recommended dose to be used in Phase 2 studies. After the completion of this phase, several cohorts of patients will receive AG-221 to further evaluate the safety, tolerability and clinical activity of the maximum tolerated dose.

We discussed AG-221 in our June 17, 2013 article on this blog. AG-221 is an orally available, selective, potent inhibitor of the mutated IDH2 protein. It is thus a targeted (and personalized) therapy for patients with cancers with an IDH2 mutation.

As we summarized in our June 17, 2013 article, wild-type IDH1 and IDH2 catalyze the NADP+-dependent oxidative decarboxylation of isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate. Mutant forms of IDH1 and IDH2, which are found in certain human cancers, no longer catalyze this reaction, but instead catalyzes the NADPH-dependent reduction of α-ketoglutarate to R(-)-2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). Agios researchers hypothesized that 2HG is an oncometabolite. They further hypothesized that developing mutant-specific small molecule inhibitors of IDH1 and IDH2 might inhibit the growth or reverse the oncogenic phenotype of cancer cells that carry the mutant enzymes.

As we further discussed in our article, Agios researchers published two articles in the journal Science in May 2013 that support these hypotheses. The researchers showed that drugs that inhibit the mutant forms of IDH1 and IDH2 can reverse the oncogenic effects of the mutant enzymes in patient-derived tumor samples. These results constitute preclinical support for the hypothesis that the two mutant enzymes are driving disease, and that drugs that target the mutant forms of the enzymes can reverse their oncogenic effects.

In the results reported in one of these research articles, Agios researchers tested a mutant-IDH2 inhibitor in hematologic malignancies (including one model leukemia and one patient-derived leukemia), and showed that treatment with the inhibitor caused differentiation of the leukemic cells to normal blood cells. This preclinical study thus supports the initiation of Agios’ new Phase 1 study of AG-221 in patients with mutant-IDH2 bearing hematologic malignancies.

Additional pipeline news in Agios’ Third Quarter 2013 Report

In addition to the report of the initiation of Phase 1 studies of AG-221, Agios reported  that it had advanced AG-120, a mutant-IDH1 inhibitor, toward Investigational New Drug (IND) filing. The company plans to initiate Phase 1 clinical trials of AG-120 in early 2014, in  patients with advanced solid and hematological malignancies that carry an IDH1 mutation.

Agios also reported in their Third Quarter 2013 Report that the company had advanced AG-348 into IND-enabling studies. AG-348 is an activator of pyruvate kinase R (PKR). Germline mutation of PKR can result in pyruvate kinase deficiency (PK deficiency), a form of familial hemolytic anemia. Agios’ in vitro studies indicate that PKR activators can enhance the activity of most common PKR mutations, and suggest that these compounds may be potential treatments for PK deficiency.

Agios’ AG-348 program is part of its R&D aimed at development of treatments for inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). We discussed this program in our November 30, 2011 article on this blog.

Agios to present preclinical research at the ASH meeting in December 2013

In a second November 7, 2013 press release, Agios announced that it would present the results of the preclinical studies of its lead programs in cancer metabolism and in IEM at the 2013 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting, December 7-10, 2013 in New Orleans, LA.

Agios researchers will give one presentation on a study of AG-221 treatment in a primary human IDH2 mutant bearing acute myeloid leukemia (AML) xenograft model. They will also present two posters–one on a mutant-IDH1 inhibitor in combination with Ara-C (arabinofuranosyl cytidine) in a primary human IDH1 mutant bearing AML xenograft model, and another on the effects of a small molecule activation of pyruvate kinase on metabolic activity in red cells from patients with pyruvate kinase deficiency-associated hemolytic anemia.

Can Agios Pharmaceuticals become a new Genentech?

On October 13, 2013, XConomy published an article on Agios’ CEO, David Schenkein. The article is entitled “David Schenkein, Cancer Doc Turned CEO, Aims to Build New Genentech”.

As many industry experts point out, the business environment is much different from that in which Genentech (and Amgen, Genzyme and Biogen) were founded, and grew to become major companies. As one illustration of the difference between the two eras, neither Genentech nor Genzyme are independent companies today. Biogen exists as a merged company, Biogen Idec, which between 2007 and 2011 had to fend off attacks by shareholder activist Carl Icahn.

Moreover, this has been the era of the “virtual biotech company”. These are lean companies with only a very few employees that outsource most of their functions, and that are designed to be acquired by a Big Pharma or large biotech company. The virtual company strategy has been designed to deal with the inability of most young biotech companies to go public in the current financial environment. (However, there has been a surge in biotech IPOs in the past year, including Agios’ own IPO on June 11, 2013. So it is possible that the environment for young biotech companies going public is changing.)

Nevertheless, the XConomy article states that when Dr. Schenkein was in discussions with venture capitalist Third Rock on becoming the CEO of one of their portfolio companies, he stated that he wanted “a company with a vision, and investor support, to be a long-term, independent company”. As we have discussed in this blog, and also in an interview for Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), Agios’ strategy is to build a company that can endure as an independent firm over a long period of time, and that can also demonstrate sustained performance. This strategy has been characterized (especially in the 1990s and early 2000s) as “Built to Last”, a term that I used in the interview.

Later, Agios posted a reprint of the C&EN article on its website, which it retitled “Built to Last”. This illustrates Agios’ commitment to “Built to Last”, as is more importantly shown by the company’s financial and R&D strategy.

Even if Agios cannot become the next Genentech, it–as well as a few other young platform companies mentioned in the CE&N article–might become an important biotech or pharmaceutical company like Vertex. However, all depends on the success of Agios’ products in the clinic and at regulatory agencies like the FDA, as well as the future shape of the corporate, financial and health care environment.

________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or an initial one-to-one consultation on an issue that is key to your company’s success, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Chemokine receptor inhibitors for prevention of cancer metastasis

CXCR-1 N-terminal peptide bound to IL-8

CXCR-1 N-terminal peptide bound to IL-8

In our October 31, 2013 blog article, we discussed recent structural studies of the chemokine receptors CCR5 and CXCR4. We discussed the implications of these studies for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, especially using the CCR5 inhibitor maraviroc (Pfizer’s Selzentry/Celsentri). As discussed in the article, researchers are utilizing the structural studies of CCR5 and CXCR4 to develop improved HIV entry inhibitors that target these chemokine receptors.

Meanwhile, other researchers have been studying the role of chemokine receptors in cancer biology, and the potential use of chemokine receptor antagonists in cancer treatment.

CCR5 antagonists as potential treatments for metastatic breast cancer

One group of researchers, led by Richard G. Pestell, M.D., Ph.D. (Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA) has been studying expression of CCR5 and its ligand CCL5 (also known as RANTES) and their role in breast cancer biology and pathogenesis. Their report of this study was published in the August 1, 2012 issue of Cancer Research.

These researchers first studied the combined expression of CCL5 and CCR5 in various subtypes of breast cancer, by analyzing a microarray database of over 2,000 human breast cancer samples. (The database was compiled from 27 independent studies). They found that CCL5/CCR5 expression was preferentially expressed in the basal and HER-2 positive subpopulations of human breast cancer.

Because of the high level of unmet medical need in treatment of basal breast cancer, the authors chose to focus their study on this breast cancer subtype. As the researchers point out, patients with basal breast cancer have increased risk of metastasis and low survival rates. Basal tumors in most cases do not express either androgen receptors, estrogen receptors (ERs), or HER-2. They thus cannot be treated with such standard receptor-targeting breast cancer therapeutics as tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, or trastuzumab. The only treatment options are cytotoxic chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. However, these treatments typically results in early relapse and metastasis.

The basal breast cancer subpopulation shows a high degree of overlap with triple-negative (TN) breast cancer. We discussed TN breast cancer, and research aimed at defining subtypes and driver signaling pathways, in our August 2, 2011 article on this blog. In that article, we noted that TN breast cancers include two basal-like subtypes, at least according to one study. Other researchers found that 71% of TN breast cancers are of basal-like subtype, and that 77% of basal-like tumors are TN. A good part of the problem is that there is no accepted definition of basal-like breast cancers, and how best to define such tumors is controversial. However, both the TN and the basal subpopulations are very difficult to treat and have poor prognoses. It is thus crucial to find novel treatment strategies for these subpopulations of breast cancer.

Dr. Pestell and his colleagues therefore investigated the role of CCL5/CCR5 signaling in three human basal breast cancer cell lines that express CCR5. They found that CCL5 promoted intracellular calcium (Ca2+) signaling in these cells. The researchers then determined the effects of CCL5/CCR5 signaling in promoting in vitro cell invasion in a 3-dimensional invasion assay. For this assay, the researchers assessed the ability of cells to move from the bottom well of a Transwell chamber, across a membrane and through a collagen plug, in response to CCL5 as a chemoattractant. The researchers found that CCR5-positive cells, but not CCR5-negative cells, showed CCL5-dependent invasion.

The researchers then studied the ability of CCR5 inhibitors to block calcium signaling and in vitro invasion. The agents that they investigated were maraviroc and vicriviroc. Maraviroc (Pfizer’s Selzentry/Celsentri) is the marketed HIV-1 entry inhibitor that we discussed in our October 31, 2013 articleVicriviroc is an experimental HIV-1 inhibitor originally developed by Schering-Plough. Schering-Plough was acquired by Merck in 2009. Merck discontinued development of vicriviroc because the drug failed to meet primary efficacy endpoints in late stage trials.

Pestell et al. found that maraviroc and vicriviroc inhibited calcium responses by 65% and 90%, respectively in one of their CCR5-positive basal cell breast cancer lines, and gave similar results in another cell line. The researchers then found that  in two different CCR5-positive basal breast cancer cell lines, both maraviroc and vicriviroc inhibited in vitro invasion.

The researchers then studied the effect of maraviroc in blocking in vivo metastasis of a CCR5-positive basal cell breast cancer line, which had been genetically labeled with a fluorescent marker to facilitate noninvasive visualization by in vivo bioluminescence imaging (BLI). They used a standard in vivo lung metastasis assay, in which cells were injected into the tail veins of immunodeficient mice, and mice were treated by oral administration with either maraviroc or vehicle. The researchers then looked for lung metastases. They found that maraviroc-treated mice showed a significant reduction in both the number and the size of lung metastases, as compared to vehicle-treated mice.

In both in vitro and in vivo studies, the researchers showed that maraviroc did not affect cell viability or proliferation. In mice with established lung metastases, maraviroc did not affect tumor growth. Maraviroc inhibits only metastasis and homing of CCR5-positive basal cell breast cancer cells, but not their viability or proliferation.

As the result of their study, the researchers propose that CCR5 antagonists such as maraviroc and vicriviroc may be useful as adjuvant antimetastatic therapies for breast basal tumors with CCR5 overexpression.  They may also be useful as adjuvant antimetastatic treatments for other tumor types where CCR5 promotes metastasis, such as prostate and gastric cancer.

As usual, it must be emphasized that although this study is promising, it is only a preclinical proof-of-principle study in mice, which must be confirmed by human clinical trials.

In an October 25, 2013 Reuters news story, it was revealed that Citi analysts believe that Merck will take vicriviroc into the clinic  in cancer patients in 2014. Citi said that it expected vicriviroc to be tested in combination with “a Merck cancer immunotherapy” across multiple cancer types, including melanoma, colorectal, breast, prostate and liver cancer. (We discussed Merck’s promising cancer immunotherapy agent lambrolizumab/MK-3475 in our June 25, 2013 blog article. But the Merck agent to be tested together with vicriviroc was not disclosed in the Reuters news story.)

Despite this news story, Merck said that it had not disclosed any plans for clinical trials of vicriviroc in cancer.

The CXCR1 antagonist reparixin as a potential treatment for breast cancer

In our In April 2012 book-length report, “Advances in the Discovery of Protein-Protein Interaction Modulators” (published by Informa’s Scrip Insights), we discussed the case of the allosteric chemokine receptor antagonist reparixin (formerly known as repertaxin). Reparixin has been under developed by Dompé Farmaceutici (Milan, Italy). This agent targets both CXCR1 and CXCR2, which are receptors for interleukin-8 (IL-8). IL-8 is a well-known proinflammatory chemokine that is a major mediator of inflammation. As we discussed in our report, reparixin had been in Phase 2 development for the prevention of primary graft dysfunction after lung and kidney transplantation. However, it failed in clinical trials.

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Michigan (led by Max S. Wicha, M.D., the Director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center) and at the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) in France were working to define a breast cancer stem cell signature using gene expression profiling. They found that CXCR1 was among the genes almost exclusively expressed in breast cancer stem cells, as compared with its expression in the bulk tumor.

IL-8 promoted invasion by the cancer stem cells, as demonstrated in an in vitro invasion assay. The CXCR1-positive, IL-8 sensitive cancer stem cell population was also found to give rise to many more metastases in mice than non-stem cell breast tumor cells isolate from the same cell line. This suggested the hypothesis that a CXCR1 inhibitor such as reparixin might be used as an anti-stem cell, antimetastatic agent in the treatment of breast cancer.

Dr. Wicha and his colleagues then studied the effects of blockade of CXCR1 by either reparixin or a CXCR1-specific blocking antibody on  bulk tumor and cancer stem cells in two breast cancer cell lines. The researchers found in in vitro studies that treatment with either of these two CXCR1 antagonists selectively depleted the cell lines of cancer stem cells (which represented 2% of the tumor cell population in both cell lines).

This depletion was followed by the induction of massive apoptosis of the bulk, non-stem tumor cells. This was mediated via a bystander effect, in which CXCR1-inhibited stem cells produce the soluble death mediator FASL (FAS ligand). FASL binds to FAS receptors on the bulk tumor cells, and induces an apoptotic pathway in these cells that results in their death.

In in vivo breast cancer xenograft models, the researchers treated tumor-bearing mice with either the cytotoxic agent docetaxel, reparixin, or a combination of both agents. Docetaxel treatment–with or without reparixin–resulted in a significant inhibition of tumor growth, while reparixin alone gave only a modest reduction in tumor growth. However, treatment with docetaxel alone gave no reduction (or an increase) in the percentage of stem cells in the tumors, while reparixin–either alone or in combination with docetaxel–gave a 75% reduction in the percentage of cancer stem cells. Moreover, in in vivo metastasis studies in mice, reparixin treatment gave a major reduction in systemic metastases. These results suggest that reparixin may be useful in eliminating breast cancer stem cells and in inhibiting metastasis and thus preventing recurrence of cancer in patients treated with chemotherapy.

As we discussed in our 2012 report, Dr. Wicha’s research on reperixin might represent an opportunity for Dompé to repurpose reperixin for cancer treatment. Since the publication of the 2012 report, Dompé has been carrying out a Phase 2 pilot study of reparixin in patients diagnosed with early, operable breast cancer, prior to their treatment via surgery. The goal of this study is to investigate if cancer stem cells decrease in two early breast cancer subgroups (estrogen receptor-positive and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER-2-negative, and estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor negative/HER-2-negative). The goal is to compare any differences between the two subgroups in order to better identify a target population.

Dompé has thus begun the process of clinical evaluation of reparixin for the new indication–treatment of breast cancer in order to inhibit metastasis and prevent recurrence.

Conclusions

Researchers have found promising evidence that at least two chemokine/chemokine receptor combinations may be involved in cancer stem cell biology and thus in the processes of metastasis and cancer recurrence. In at least one case–and perhaps both–companies are in the early stages of developing small-molecule chemokine receptor antagonists for inhibiting breast cancer metastasis and recurrence. Such a strategy might be applicable to other types of cancer as well.

As discussed by Wicha et al., in immune and inflammatory processes, chemokines serve to facilitate the homing and migration of immune cells. In the case of cancer, chemokines may act as “stemokines”, by facilitating the homing of cancer stem cells in the process of metastasis. Other chemokines and their receptors than those discussed in this article may be involved in other types of cancer, and may carry out similar “stemokine” functions.

Since around 90% of cancer deaths are due to metastasis, and since effective treatments for metastatic cancers are few, this is a potentially important area of cancer research and drug development.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company,  please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Chemokine receptors and the HIV-1 entry inhibitor maraviroc

Maraviroc

Maraviroc

In April 2012, Informa’s Scrip Insights published our book-length report, “Advances in the Discovery of Protein-Protein Interaction Modulators.” We also published a brief introduction to this report, highlighting the strategic importance of protein-protein interaction (PPI) modulators for the pharmaceutical industry, on the Biopharmconsortium Blog.

The report included a discussion on discovery and development of inhibitors of chemokine receptors. Chemokine receptors are members of the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily. GPCRs are seven-transmembrane (7TM) domain receptors (i.e. integral membrane proteins that have seven membrane-spanning domains). Compounds that target GPCRs represent the largest class of drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. However, in the vast majority of cases, these compounds target GPCRs that bind to natural small-molecule ligands.

Chemokine receptors, however, bind to small proteins, the chemokines. These proteins constitute a class of small cytokines that guide the migration of immune cells via chemotaxis. Chemokine receptors are thus a class of GPCRs that function by forming PPIs. Direct targeting of interactions between chemokines and their receptors (unlike targeting the interactions between small-molecule GPCR ligands and their receptors) thus involves all the difficulties of targeting other types of PPIs.

However, GPCRs–including chemokine receptors–appear to be especially susceptible to targeting via allosteric modulators. Allosteric sites lie outside the binding site for the protein’s natural ligand. However, modulators that bind to allosteric sites change the conformation of the protein in such a way that it affects the activity of the ligand binding site. (Direct GPCR modulators that bind to the same site as the GPCR’s natural ligands are known as orthosteric modulators.) In the case of chemokine receptors, researchers can in some cases discover small-molecule allosteric modulators that activate or inhibit binding of the receptor to its natural ligands. Discovery of such allosteric activators is much easier than discovery of direct PPI modulators.

Chemokines bind to sites that are located in the extracellular domains of their receptors. Allosteric sites on chemokine receptors, however, are typically located in transmembrane domains that are distinct from the chemokine binding sites. Small-molecule allosteric modulators that bind to these sites were discovered via fairly standard medicinal chemistry and high-throughput screening, sometimes augmented with structure-based drug design. This is in contrast to attempts to discover small molecule agents that directly inhibit binding of a chemokine to its receptor, which has so far been extremely challenging.

Our report describes several allosteric chemokine receptor modulators that are in clinical development, as well as the two agents that have reached the market. One of the marketed agents, plerixafor (AMD3100) (Genzyme’s Mozobil), is an inhibitor of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. It is used in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood for autologous transplantation in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. The other agent, which is the focus of this blog post, is maraviroc (Pfizer’s Selzentry/Celsentri).

Maraviroc is a human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) entry inhibitor. This compound is an antagonist of the CCR5 chemokine receptor. CCR5 is specific for the chemokines RANTES (Regulated on Activation, Normal T Expressed and Secreted) and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP) 1α and 1β.  In addition to being bound and activated by these chemokines, CCR5 is a coreceptor (together with CD4) for entry of the most common strain of HIV-1 into T cells. Thus maraviroc acts as an HIV entry inhibitor; this is the drug’s approved indication in the U.S. and in Europe. Maraviroc was discovered via a combination of high-throughput screening and optimization via standard medicinal chemistry.

New structural biology studies of the CCR5-maraviroc complex

Now comes a report in the 20 September 2013 issue of Science on the structure of the CCR5-maraviroc complex. This report was authored by a mainly Chinese group led by Beili Wu, Ph.D. (Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai); researchers at the University of California at San Diego and the Scripps Research Institute, San Diego were also included in this collaboration. A companion Perspective in the same issue of Science was authored by P. J. Klasse, M.D., Ph.D. (Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY).

As described in the Perspective, the outer surface of the HIV-1 virus displays numerous envelope protein (Env) trimers, each including the outer gp120 subunit anchored in the viral membrane by gp41. When gp120 binds to the cell-surface receptor CD4, this enables interaction with a specific chemokine receptor, either CCR5 or CXCR4. Interaction with both CD4 and the chemokine receptor triggers complex sets of changes in the Env complex, eventually resulting in the fusion of the viral membrane and the cell membrane, and the entry of the virus particle into the host cell.

HIV-1 gp120 makes contact with CCR5 at several points. The interactions between CCR5 and the variable region of gp120 called V3 are especially important for the tropism of an HIV-1 strain, i.e., whether the virus is specific for CCR5 (the “R5 phenotype”) or CXCR4 (the “X4 phenotype”). In the case of R5-tropic viruses, the tip of the V3 region interacts with the second extracellular loop (ECL2) of CCR5, while the base of V3 interacts with the amino-terminal segment of CCR5. Modeling of the interactions between the V3 domain of gp120 of either R5 or X4-tropic viruses with CCR5 or CXCR4 explains coreceptor use, in terms of forming strong bonds or–conversely–weak bonds and steric hindrance.

Monogram Biosciences (South San Francisco, CA) has developed and markets the Trofile assay. This is a molecular assay designed to identify the R5, X4, or mixed tropism of a patient’s HIV strain. If a patient’s strain is R5-tropic, then treatment with maraviroc is appropriate. However, a patient’s HIV-1 strain may undergo a tropism switch, or may mutate in other ways to become resistant to maraviroc.

Dr Wu and her colleagues determined the high-resolution crystal structure of the complex between maraviroc and a solubilized engineered form of CCR5. This included determining the CCR5 binding pocket for maraviroc, which was determined both by Wu et al’s X-ray crystallography, and by site-directed mutagenesis (i.e., to determine amino acid residues that are critical for maraviroc binding) that had been published earlier by other researchers.

The structural studies of Dr. Wu and her colleagues show that the maraviroc-binding site is different from the recognition sites for gp120 and for chemokines, as expected for an allosteric inhibitor. The X-ray structure shows that maraviroc binding prevents the helix movements that are necessary for binding of g120 to induce the complex sequence of changes that result in fusion between the viral and cellular membranes. (These helix movements are also necessary for induction of signal transduction by binding of chemokines to CCR5.)

Structural studies of CXCR4 and its inhibitor binding sites

In addition to their structural studies of the CCR5-maraviroc complex, Dr. Wu and her colleagues also published structural studies of CXCR4 complexed with small-molecule and cyclic peptide inhibitors in Science in 2010. These inhibitors are IT1t, a drug-like orally-available isothiourea developed by Novartis, and CVX15, a 16-residue cyclic peptide that had been previously characterized as an HIV-inhibiting agent. IT1t and CVX15 bind to overlapping sites in CXCR4. Other researchers have found evidence that the binding site for plerixafor also overlaps with the IT1t binding site.

As discussed in Wu et al’s 2013 paper, CCR5 and CXCR4 have similar, but non-identical structures. The binding site for IT1t in CXCR4 is closer to the extracellular surface than is the maraviroc binding site in CCR5, which is deep within the CCR5 molecule. The entrance to the CXCR4 ligand-binding pocket is partially covered by CXC4’s N terminus and ECL2, but the CCR5 ligand-binding pocket is more open.

Mechanisms of CXCR4 and CCR5 inhibition, and implications for discovery of improved HIV entry inhibitors

The chemokine that specifically interacts with the CXCR4 receptor is known as CXCL12 or stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1). Researchers have proposed a hypothesis for how CXCL12 interacts with CXCR4; this hypothesis appears to be applicable to the interaction between other chemokines and their receptors as well. This hypothesis is know as the “two-step model” or the “two-site model” of chemokine-receptor activation. Under the two-site model, the core domain of a chemokine binds to a site on its receptor (known as the “chemokine recognition site 1″ or “site 1″) defined by the receptor’s N-terminus and its ECLs. In the second step, the flexible N-terminus of the chemokine interacts with a second site (known as “chemokine recognition site 2″ or “site 2″ or the “activation domain”) deeper within the receptor, in transmembrane domains. This result in activation of the chemokine receptor and intracellular signaling.

Under the two-site model, CXCR4 inhibitors (e.g., IT1t, CVX15, and  plerixafor), which bind to sites within the ECLs of CXCR4, are competitive inhibitors of binding of the core domain of CXCL12 to CXCR4 (i.e.., step 1 of chemokine/receptor interaction). They are thus orthosteric inhibitors of CXCR4. (This is contrary to the earlier assignment of plerixafor as an allosteric inhibitor of CXCR4.)  The CCR5 ligand maraviroc, however, binds within a site within the transmembrane domains of CCR5, which overlaps with the activation domain of CCR5. Dr. Wu and her colleagues propose two alternative hypotheses: 1. Maraviroc may inhibit CCR5 activation by chemokines by blocking the second step of chemokine/chemokine receptor interaction, i.e., receptor activation. 2. Maraviroc may stabilize CCR5 in an inactive conformation. It is also possible that maraviroc inhibition of CCR5 may work via both mechanisms.

Dr. Wu and her colleagues further hypothesize that the interaction of  HIV-1 gp120 with CCR5 (or CXCR4) may operate via similar mechanisms to the interaction of chemokines with their receptors. As we discussed earlier in this article, the base (or the stem region) of the gp120 V3 domain interacts with the amino-terminal segment of CCR5. The tip (or crown) of the V3 domain interacts with the ECL2 of CCR5, and–according to Dr. Wu and her colleagues–also with amino acid residues inside the ligand binding pocket; i.e., the activation site of CCR5. The HIV gp120 V3 domain may thus activate CCR5 via a similar mechanism to the two-step  model utilized by chemokines.

Based on their structural biology studies, Dr. Wu and her colleagues have been building models of the CCR5-R5-V3 and CXC4-X4-V3 complexes, and are also planning to determine additional structures needed to fully understand the mechanisms of HIV-1 tropism. The researchers will utilize their studies in the discovery of improved, second-generation HIV entry inhibitors for both R5-tropic and X4-tropic strains of HIV-1.

The bigger picture

The 17 October 2013 issue of Nature contains a Supplement entitled “Chemistry Masterclass”. In that Supplement is an Outlook review entitled “Structure-led design”, by Nature Publishing Group Senior Editor Monica Hoyos Flight, Ph.D. The subject of this article is structure-based drug design of modulators of GPCRs.
This review outlines progress in determining GPCR structures, and in using this information for discovery of orthosteric and allosteric modulators of GPCRs.

According to the article, the number of solved GPCR structures has been increasing since 2008, largely due to the efforts of the Scripps GPCR Network, which was established in that year. Dr. Wu started her research on CXCR4 and CCR5 as a postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Raymond C. Stevens, Ph.D. at Scripps in 2007, and continues to be a member of the network. The network is a collaboration that involves over a dozen academic and industrial labs. Its goal has been to characterize at least 15 GPCRs by 2015; it has already solved 13.

Interestingly, among the solved GPCR structures are those for the corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor and the glucagon receptor. Both have peptide ligands, and thus work by forming PPIs.

One company mentioned in the article, Heptares Therapeutics (Welwyn Garden City, UK), specializes in discovering new medicines that targeting previously undruggable or challenging GPCRs. In addition to discovering small-molecule drugs, Heptares, working with monoclonal antibody (MAb) leaders such as MorphoSys and MedImmune, is working to discover MAbs that act as modulators of GPCRs. Among Heptares’ targets are several GPCRs with peptide ligands.

Meanwhile, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. has developed the MAb drug mogamulizumab (trade name Poteligeo), which is approved in Japan for treatment of relapsed or refractory adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Mogamulizumab targets CC chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4).

Thus, aided in part by structural biology, the discovery of novel drugs that target GPCRs–including those with protein or peptide targets such as chemokine receptors–continues to make progress.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company,  please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Obesity, sarcopenia, aging, and health

 

Fatmouse_1

In our  June 25, 2010 article on the Biopharmconsortium Blog, we discussed the “contrarian” views of Dr. Katherine M. Flegal and her colleagues at the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the epidemiology of obesity.

According to Dr. Flegal, based on epidemiological data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), people in the overweight class have a lower risk of death than those in either the normal weight or the obese class. These weight classes are determined on the basis of the body mass index (BMI), with underweight at <18.5, normal weight at 18.5-24.9,  overweight at 25-29.9, and obesity at >30.

Dr. Flegal’s conclusions–as summarized in our 2010 article–were mainly based on work published in the 2005-207 period, as well as other analyses of her results published between 2005 and 2010. In January 2013, Dr. Flegal and her colleagues published a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This report was based on an analysis of a wide variety of published reports indexed in PubMed and EMBASE that reported all-cause mortality for weight categories based on standard BMI categories.

In this study, the researchers compared all-cause mortality in the normal weight class (BMI 18.5-24.9) with that in the overweight (BMI 25-<30), grade 1 obese (BMI of 30-<35) and grade 2 and 3 obese (BMI of ≥35) classes. They came to similar conclusions as in their earlier studies. Specifically, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality as compare to normal weight. Grade 1 obesity was not associated with higher all-cause mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality.

Reactions to Dr. Flegal’s 2013 study

As usually happens when one of Dr. Flegal’s “contrarian” studies is published, other leaders of the obesity epidemiology and nutrition community who hold the “majority” view react strongly against it. This was detailed, for example, in a feature article  in the 23 May issue of Nature written by science writer Virginia Hughes. On 20 February 2013, a meeting was held at the Harvard School of Public Health “to explain why [Dr. Flegal's new study] was absolutely wrong”. The organizer of the meeting, Dr. Walter Willett, said in an earlier radio interview, “This study is really a pile of rubbish, and no one should waste their time reading it.” At the meeting, speaker after speaker got up to criticize the Flegal study.

The major concern of Dr. Willett and the other speakers was that Dr. Flegal’s study (and the commentary on that study in the popular press) would serve as a license for the general public and for doctors to let up on weight loss programs, and to undermine public policies aimed at curbing the rate of obesity. Dr. Willett was also concerned that the Flegal studies might be “hijacked by powerful special-interest groups, such as the soft-drink and food lobbies, to influence policy-makers”.

Nevertheless, as also detailed in Ms. Hughes’ article, other researchers accept Dr. Flegal’s results, and see them as part of the evidence for what they call “the obesity paradox”. Although for the general population overweight increases one’s risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, overweight in some populations may not be harmful and may even lower the risk of death. These populations especially include people over 50 and especially those over 60 or 70, as well as patients with cardiovascular disease or cancer. We also discussed the decreased association of mortality with weight in older people in our June 25, 2010 article.

Explaining the “obesity paradox”, and the need for better metrics than BMI

In the 23 August issue of Science, Rexford S. Ahima, M.D., Ph.D. and Mitchell A. Lazar, MD., Ph.D. (both metabolic disease researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA) published a Perspective entitled “The Health Risk of Obesity—Better Metrics Imperative”. The goal of this essay was to enable researchers to find better means to study and to explain the “obesity paradox”, and to use the results of their studies to improve the health of patents with metabolic diseases and their complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease).

These researchers noted that although it is easily measured and widely used, BMI does not adequately measure body composition (especially the proportion of muscle and fat) and the distribution of fat in the body. These factors may be especially important for such health outcomes as development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular risk. Other researchers, notably Dr. José Viña and his colleagues at the University of Valencia in Spain, who wrote a critical response to Dr. Flegal’s 2013 article, came to similar conclusions. The Spanish researchers criticized Flegal’s studies because they were based on BMI. However, unlike Dr. Willett, they accept the validity of the “obesity paradox”.

Notably, the Ahima and Lazar article includes a figure that shows metabolically healthy people with  normal and obese BMIs, and contrasts them with metabolically unhealthy people with normal and obese BMIs. The main difference between metabolically healthy versus unhealthy people (whatever their BMI) is muscle mass and fitness. The unhealthy subjects exhibit muscle loss, or sarcopenia, and reduced fitness.

The authors note that skeletal muscle accounts for the majority of glucose disposal. Thus loss of muscle mass, or sarcopenia, due to aging and/or physical inactivity, can result in reduced insulin sensitivity, development of diabetes, and poor cardiovascular health. This applies people with poor metabolic health, whether they have apparently normal BMIs or are obese. Metabolically unhealthy individuals–whether of normal BMI or obese–also have excess visceral fat. Excess visceral fat is associated with the metabolic syndrome and development of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Drs. Ahima and Lazar call for better metrics than BMI, in order to assess a patient’s risk of metabolic disease. They cite the “body shape index”, which quantifies abdominal adiposity (and thus visceral adiposity) relative to BMI and height as potentially a better predictor of mortality than BMI. The body shape index is based on measuring waist circumference, and adjusting it for height and weight. They further call for the development of “accurate, practical, and affordable tools to assess  body composition, adipose hormones, myokines, cytokines, and other biomarkers” to use in assessing obesity and other metabolic disorders in order to determine the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and the risk of mortality.

Appreciating the role of muscle mass in health and disease

The analysis of Ahimsa and Lazar also suggests the hypothesis that loss of muscle mass–sarcopenia–due to aging and/or lack of exercise may be a key factor in the development of obesity-related diseases.

There are at least two other recent reports that focus on sarcopenic obesity. The first, a 2012 paper in Nutrition Reviews entitled “Sarcopenic obesity in the elderly and strategies for weight management” is authored by Zhaoping Li, M.D., Ph.D. and David Heber, M.D., Ph.D. of the Center for Human Nutrition, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles. The second paper, entitled “Sarcopenic obesity: strategies for management”, by Melissa J. Benton, PhD, MSN and her colleagues (Valdosta State University College of Nursing, Valdosta, GA) was published in 2011 in the American Journal of Nursing. The first of these reports is a scientific review article, while the second is a practically-oriented report for nurses (carrying continuing education credits); the lead author is a nurse with advanced training in education, sports medicine, and gerontology.

The Li and Heber paper covers much of the same ground as the Ahimsa and Lazar Science Perspective, with respect to the inadequacy of BMI as a metric for obesity, and the need to have better measures of body composition (especially with respect to fat versus skeletal muscle). However, it goes beyond this concern for metrics, by focusing on “sarcopenic obesity”, its relationship with a sedentary lifestyle and with aging, and how sarcopenic obesity might be treated.

Loss of muscle mass as a function of aging in sedentary individuals results in age-associated decreases in resting metabolic rate and muscle strength, and is also a major factor in decreases in activity levels.  These factors result in the decreased energy requirement in aging individuals. If (as is usual) calorie intake does not decrease to match the decreased energy requirements, obesity (i.e., accumulation of excess body fat) results. Sarcopenic obesity in aging individuals is associated not only with type 2 diabetes and other metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, but also with loss of independence and increased risk of mortality. It is a major public health challenge in the over-65 population.

Li and Heber discuss various means to measure body composition, and thus to diagnose sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. They then go on to discuss ways to treat this condition, via emphasizing resistance training and increased intake of protein, in order to increase muscle mass and the resting metabolic rate. The authors cite resistance training as “the most effective intervention for reversing sarcopenia in the elderly”. Based on evidence in the field, the authors also hypothesize that increased dietary protein (especially the use of protein supplements or meal replacements) is also important in building muscle mass and as a result reducing fat mass.

It is known that increased dietary protein results in maintenance of muscle mass during calorie-restricted diets, as compared to diets with “normal” or inadequate intakes of protein. However, the authors see the need for more research to determine whether a high-protein diet (up to 35% of caloric intake) will be beneficial in improving muscle anabolic responses to resistance exercise in older adults.

The Benton et al. paper also emphasizes the role of resistance training and a high-protein diet in treatment of sarcopenic obesity. However, being a practically-oriented nursing article, it gives specific recommendations for exercise, as well as sources of high-quality protein in the diet. (This article focuses on high-protein foods, not protein supplements.)

This article also states that nurses should be knowledgeable about sarcopenic obesity and its management. They should also educate older patients on utilizing resistance training and dietary protein to prevent or reverse sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. This education should also apply to educating now-healthy aging adults on the need to prevent these conditions, since prevention is easier than reversing sarcopenic obesity once it has developed.

It would seem that not only nurses, but also primary care physicians and other doctors need to be aware of these issues as well.

The Benton et al. paper also wisely counsels that patients contemplating diet and exercise programs such as recommended in their article should first consult with their primary care physician. We agree with this recommendation. We also once again emphasize that this blog does not exist to give diet or exercise advice, or to receive comments or guest posts that purport to give such advice.

However, you are welcome to use this article, or better yet the publications we have cited herein, to help your primarily care provider to be aware of issues involving sarcopenic obesity. Some medical facilities also include physical therapists and/or access to gyms with trainers who can help patients with exercise programs, once one’s primary care physician has been consulted.

Conclusions

1. Currently marketed drugs for obesity–and for such conditions as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and other metabolic diseases that are usually found in obese individuals and metabolically unhealthy individuals with normal BMI–are generally prescribed as adjuncts to diet and exercise. “Diet and exercise” generally means the types of hypocaloric diets and aerobic exercise conventionally prescribed for weight loss. Researchers and physicians may need to take sarcopenic obesity into account when prescribing these drugs for patients with this condition, and in designing and conducting clinical trials. Diet and especially exercise recommendations may be different for patients with sarcopenic obesity than the current recommendations.

2. We have discussed “alternative” (i.e., non-CNS  or gut targeting) antiobesity therapies now in development in several articles on this blog. Unlike CNS-targeting drugs [e.g., lorcaserin (Arena's Belviq) and phentermine/topiramate (Vivus' Qsymia)], which are aimed at curbing appetite, these novel therapeutics are designed to increase energy expenditure or to inhibit the biosynthesis of fat. These drugs, if and when they are approved, will be indicated for patients with extreme obesity, such as those who may currently be candidates for bariatric surgery.

Similarly, we have discussed Novartis’ bimagrumab, an anti-muscle wasting drug now entering Phase 3 clinical trials in patients with the rare muscle wasting disease sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM). Bimagrumab is also in Phase 2 clinical trials in sarcopenic older adults with mobility limitations. If and when this drug is approved, it will be at least initially indicated for patients with sIBM, and perhaps eventually for older adults with severe sarcopenia (with or without obesity) that has resulted in mobility limitations.

It will be an extremely long time–if ever–before such drugs are approved for the broader obese and obese-sarcopenic population (or those at risk for these conditions). The diet and resistance exercise approaches discussed in this article may be appropriate for many in this broader group of individuals, and are free of drug-related adverse effects. They may also prevent the development of extreme obesity and its complications, as well as loss of independence due to sarcopenia or obese sarcopenia.

3. We have also discussed the development of anti-aging therapies in various articles in this blog. This field has generated a lot of interest in the news lately, because of Google’s launch of the anti-aging company Calico. As we discussed, for example, in our August 15, 2013 aging article, no pharmaceutical company can run a clinical trial with longevity as an endpoint. Companies must test their drugs against a particular aging-related disease. Many such companies test their agents (e.g., drugs that target sirtuins) against type 2 diabetes.

Why develop an “anti-aging” drug for type 2 diabetes rather than a specific antidiabetic drug? The hope is that an “anti-aging” drug approved for treatment of, for example, type 2 diabetes, will have pleiotropic effects on multiple diseases of aging, and will ultimately be found to increase lifespan or “healthspan” (the length of a person’s life in which he/she is generally healthy and not debilitated by chronic diseases).

Given the major role of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in aging-related disability and mortality, those involved in research and development of anti-aging therapeutics need to take preservation and restoration of muscle mass into account, as they study and/or target pathways involved in aging and longevity.

__________________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or of other issues that are important to  your company,  please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

Novartis’ breakthrough therapy for a rare muscle-wasting disease

Skeletal muscle. http://bit.ly/15BgVYY

Skeletal muscle

On August 20, 2013, Novartis announced in a press release that the FDA had granted breakthrough therapy designation to its experimental agent BYM338 (bimagrumab) for treatment of the rare muscle wasting disease sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM).

sIBM is a rare–but increasingly prevalent–disease. It is the most common cause of inflammatory myopathy in people over 50. sIBM has a yearly incidence of 2 to 5 per million adults with a peak at ages 50 to 70, with male predominance. Muscle wasting caused by sIBM is superimposed upon the sarcopenia (degenerative loss of muscle mass) that typically occurs with aging.

sIBM is characterized by a slowly progressive asymmetric atrophy and weakness of muscles. Typically, patients become wheelchair bound within 10 to 15 years of onset. Death may occur due to falls, respiratory infection, or malnutrition.

The causes of sIBM are not well-understood. In sIBM, an autoimmune process and a degenerative process appear to occur in muscle cells in parallel. In the autoimmune process, T cells that appear to be driven by specific antigens invade muscle fibers. In the degenerative process, holes appear in muscle cell vacuoles, and inclusion bodies containing abnormal proteins are deposited in muscle cells.

Despite the lack of understanding of the causes of sIBM, in recent years researchers have developed potential therapeutic approaches to this disease. These therapeutic strategies are based on the hypothesis that enhancing muscle regeneration can be beneficial in treating muscle-wasting diseases regardless of their cause. Researchers have thus been working on several approaches, principally 1. developing drugs that stimulate myofiber regeneration, and 2. cell-mediated therapies to replace damaged myofibers (e.g., autologous stem cell therapy). It is the first approach that led to the discovery of Novartis’ bimagrumab.

The myostatin pathway

Myostatin is a regulator of muscle growth in mammals and other vertebrates. It is a secreted protein that is a member of the transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) family. It is secreted in an inactive form, and must be activated via cleavage by a metalloproteinase. The activated myostatin then binds to its receptor, activin receptor type IIB (ActRIIB). The binding of myostatin to ActRIIB on myoblasts initiates an intracellular signaling cascade, which (as with other members of the TGF-β family), includes activation of transcription factors of the SMAD family. The SMADs (SMAD2 and SMAD3) in the myostatin pathway go on to induce myostatin-specific gene regulation, which inhibits the proliferation of myoblasts and their differentiation into mature muscle fibers.

Bimagrumab, the myostatin pathway, and muscle-wasting diseases

Bimagrumab is a novel, fully human monoclonal antibody (MAb), which was developed by the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR), in collaboration with the human MAb specialist company MorphoSys (Martinsried, Germany). MorphoSys’ HuCAL (Human Combinatorial Antibody Library) technology was used to identify bimagrumab.

Bimagrumab binds with high affinity to the ActRIIB receptor, thus blocking myostatin binding. The researchers working on development of bimagrumab hypothesized that treatment with the drug would have the same physiological result as myostatin deficiency. For example, myostatin knockout mice have a two-fold to three-fold increase in muscle mass, without other abnormalities. Humans with a loss-of-function mutation in myostatin exhibit marked increase in muscle mass, as well as increased strength. These findings suggest that a myostatin receptor antagonist such as bimagrumab would be a potent stimulator of muscle growth.

According to Novartis’ press release, this hypothesis has been borne out in human studies. The FDA granted breakthrough status for bimagrumab based on the results of a Phase 2 proof-of-concept (POC) study that showed that the drug substantially benefited patients with sIBM compared to placebo. The results of this study will be presented at the American Neurological Association meeting on October 14, 2013. Novartis also expects to published the results of the study in a major medical journal later in 2013.

In addition to sIBM, Novartis is developing bimagrumab for the common muscle-wasting disease of aging sarcopenia, as well as for cachexia in cancer and in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, and for muscle wasting in mechanically ventilated patients. In particular, the company is sponsoring a Phase 2 POC study (Clinical Trial Number NCT01601600) of bimagrumab in older adults with sarcopenia and mobility limitations. The study is designed to determine the effects of the drug on skeletal muscle volume, mass, and strength and patient function (gait speed). It will also generate data on the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of bimagrumab in older adults, as well as (via an extended study duration) the stability of drug-induced changes in skeletal muscle and patient function.

As we discussed in the Conclusions section of our August 15, 2013 blog article on aging, aging-related sarcopenia is a major causes of disability and death. We also said in that section that sarcopenia is not normally a target for drug development. At that time, we did not know about Novartis’ development of bimagrumab. We are happy to be proven wrong about drug development for sarcopenia.

Another approach to myostatin pathway-based drug development

A fully-human anti-myostatin MAb, Regeneron/Sanofi’s REGN1033 (SAR391786), is in Phase 1 clinical development for treatment of sarcopenia. Unlike bimagrumab, which binds to the myostatin receptor ActRIIB, REGN1033 binds directly to myostatin. REGN1033 thus represents an alternative approach to treatment of sarcopenia and other muscle-wasting conditions via the myostatin pathway.

Attempts to address the causes of muscle degeneration in sIBM directly

Despite the evidence from early clinical trials that therapies that enhance muscle regeneration may be effective in treating sIBM, some researchers believe that it will be necessary to identify the causes of muscle degeneration in sIBM and to address them. For example, there is evidence that in some patients, autoantibodies may recognize antigens that are enriched in regenerating muscle fibers. Some researchers therefore hypothesize that treating such patients with therapies that enhance muscle regeneration without addressing the autoimmune pathology may be counterproductive. Therefore, continuing research on the causes of muscle degeneration in sIBM and on potential therapies to slow this degeneration may still be important, despite the apparent progress of clinical trials of such drugs as bimagrumab.

For example, some researchers hypothesize that sIBM is a primary degenerative disease, like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. As with these neurodegenerative diseases, some researchers have found evidence that misfolded proteins may be involved in the pathogenesis of sIBM. This avenue of research has led to the hypothesis that agents that enhance correct protein folding may slow muscle degeneration in sIBM patients. One such agent, CytRx’ arimoclomol has been in clinical trials in sIBM patients. [Arimoclomol is also in clinical trials in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)].  Arimoclomol appears to act as a coinducer of chaperone proteins such as heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70). Chaperone proteins promote the correct folding of intercellular proteins.

In a small POC Phase 2a clinical trial in Europe, arimoclomol showed early signs of efficacy, in addition to being well tolerated. There was a trend toward slower degeneration in physical function, muscle strength, and right-hand grip muscle strength in arimoclomol-treated patients as compared to placebo over an 8-month period.

Other researchers are attempting to address the inflammatory aspects of sIBM. For example, there are early clinical trials in progress of  the-anti-lymphocyte agent alemtuzumab (Genzyme’s Campath/Lemtrada) and the anti-tumor necrosis factor agent etanercept (Amgen/Pfizer’s Enbrel).

Meanwhile, additional basic research on the causation of sIBM continues. Some of these approaches may eventually lead to additional drug discovery strategies for this disease.

However, whether or not muscle-enhancing therapies such as bimagrumab might provide adequate treatment for at least some classes of sIBM patients (without addressing the autoimmune and/or degenerative aspects of the causation of the disease) will depend on the results of late-stage clinical trials now in the planning stage.

Conclusions

The development of bimagrumab represents an example of Novartis’ pathway-based rare disease strategy. We discussed this strategy in our July 20, 2009 Biopharmconsortium Blog article. Novartis researchers note that in many cases rare diseases are caused by disruptions of pathways that are also involved in other rare diseases and/or in more common diseases. The researchers therefore develop drugs that target these pathways, and obtain POC for these drugs by first testing them in small populations of patients with a specific rare disease. Drugs that have achieved POC in this rare disease may later be tested in other indications (especially including more common diseases) that involve the same pathway.

As we discussed in our July 20, 2009 article, the first drug that Novartis developed by using this strategy is the interleukin-1β inhibitory MAb drug Ilaris (canakinumab). The company conducted its first clinical trials in patients with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes, (CAPS), a group of rare inherited auto-inflammatory conditions that are characterized by overproduction of IL-1β. In 2009, the FDA and the European Medicines Agency approved Ilaris for treatment of CAPS. Since that time, Novartis has been conducing clinical trials of canakinumab in such conditions as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA), gout, acute gouty arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and several others. Canakinumab had also been tested in rheumatoid arthritis, but these trials have been discontinued.

In the case of bimagrumab, Novartis researchers are targeting the myostatin pathway. The strategy is to first target the rare disease sIBM, and to obtain POC in human studies in that disease. Novartis claims (and the FDA concurs with them) that they have obtained POC in sIBM, and the company plans to present the results of its POC clinical trial later this year, both in a scientific meeting and in a publication. Novartis then plans to complete development of bimagrumab for sIBM, while also developing the drug for other muscle-wasting conditions, especially the more common aging-related condition sarcopenia, which is becoming a major public health problem.

________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or an initial one-to-one consultation on an issue that is key to your company’s success, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.

bluebird bio, Celgene, and adoptive immunotherapy for cancer

600px-Eastern_Bluebird-27527-2

The Biopharmconsortium Blog includes several articles that are–in whole or in part–about adoptive T-cell immunotherapy [or adoptive cell transfer (ACT)] for cancer. In particular, we have produced two blog articles that discuss the Novartis/University of Pennsylvania (Penn) collaboration, which is aimed at finally commercializing adoptive immunotherapy for cancer.

The Novartis/Penn collaboration focuses on a particular technology for ACT, known as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) technology. In this technology, autologous T cells isolated from patient blood are engineered with retroviral vectors carrying a gene for a tumor antigen-specific CAR. The CAR enables the engineered cells to recognize specific surface proteins on tumor cells, and to go on to kill the cells.

Now we find out that at least one more company–one a lot closer to home (at least for us folks in Greater Boston)–is involved in a collaboration to develop and commercialize CAR technology for ACT. This company is bluebird bio (Cambridge, MA). As of June 24, 2012, bluebird successfully completed its initial public offering.

On March 21, 2013, bluebird announced in a press release that it had entered into a multi-year strategic collaboration with Celgene (Summit, NJ) to discover new disease-modifying gene therapies for cancer. The collaboration is to focus on applying bluebird’s gene therapy technology to the design and development of CAR T cells.

According to the news release, the bluebird/Celgene collaboration may lead to the development and commercialization of multiple CAR T-cell products. Celgene has an option to license products that result from the collaboration after the completion of a Phase 1 clinical trial for each product. bluebird bio will be responsible for R&D through Phase 1 clinical trials, and Celgene will be responsible for clinical studies beyond Phase 1 for any product that it licenses, as well as commercialization of any such product.

As also announced in the March 21, 2013 press release, Celgene has entered into a separate strategic collaboration that focuses on CAR T-cell technology with the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital and The Methodist Hospital (Houston, TX). The work on CAR T-cell technology in Houston is led by Malcolm Brenner, M.D., Ph.D. (Director, Center for Cell and Gene Therapy Baylor College of Medicine). Dr. Brenner and his colleagues, for example, showed that T cells expressing a CAR specific for the GD2 tumor antigen on neuroblastoma cells produced tumor responses in over half of 19 neuroblastoma patients with refractory or active disease. Three of 11 patients with active disease achieved complete remission.

According to the March 21, 2013 news release, bluebird bio, Celgene and Dr. Brenner’s team will work collaboratively to advance and develop existing and new CAR T-cell products and programs.

Our October 2012 discussion of bluebird bio and adoptive cell transfer in the Biopharmconsortium Blog

On  October 11, 2012, we published an article on this blog entitled “Is Gene Therapy Emerging From Technological Prematurity?” This article included a section on bluebird bio, which represented the very first time we mentioned bluebird on this blog.

In this section–over 5 months before bluebird announced its agreement with Celgene–we discussed the relationship between bluebird’s technology and ACT:

bluebird bio’s platform..represents both a gene therapy technology and an adoptive cellular transfer (ACT) technology. We have discussed ACT technologies (in this case, for immunotherapy for cancer) in a previous article on this blog.  Since some of these technologies involve genetically-engineered autologous T cells, they may also be thought of as representing both ACT and a kind of gene therapy.

We are happy to learn that bluebird also realized (independent from us) the potential utility of their “gene therapy” technology for adoptive immunotherapy/ACT for cancer. We are also happy that bluebird entered into an agreement with Celgene to develop and commercialize such therapies, with the potential to give at least some cancer patients the durable complete responses that they yearn for.

________________________________

As the producers of this blog, and as consultants to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, Haberman Associates would like to hear from you. If you are in a biotech or pharmaceutical company, and would like a 15-20-minute, no-obligation telephone discussion of issues raised by this or other blog articles, or an initial one-to-one consultation on an issue that is key to your company’s success, please contact us by phone or e-mail. We also welcome your comments on this or any other article on this blog.