Biotech Portfolio Updates- Buying More Immunogen

Investing, particularly in biotech, comes with plenty of risks and uncertainties. These uncertainties are usually results of clinical trials, which are very unpredictable and unfortunately do not end up well in most cases.  Once in a while, a company and its stock price diverge in a way that substantially decreases the risk in a particular company without increasing the stock price. We believe what happened yesterday with Immunogen (IMGN) is a classic case of this phenomenon.

Immunogen, similarly to all its peers in the field of drug development for cancer is a high risk investment, and  will surely have more bad news than good news to tell its investors over  the years, simply because in drug development, successes are substantially outnumbered by failures. Yesterday should have been one of the happiest days for Immunogen’s shareholders, as a great uncertainty that has been hovering over the company was resolved, and turned into a great achievement. Genentech’s (DNA) T-DM1 is by far the most important drug for Immunogen currently, for reasons explained here, here and here. Two days ago, Genentech publically stated that by early 2009, T-DM1 will be in two registration trials for indications with blockbuster potential. Of course, there is no way of knowing the final outcomes of either study, but it is important to realize that Genentech based its decision based on much more than the data that was published  from several T-DM1 trials. Consequently, Genentech statement turned Immunogen into a company with a more attractive risk/reward ratio, simply because the risk component is substantially lower today than prior to the announcement.Regardless of the recent news, Immunogen is expected to have additional good news on several fronts in the coming 6-9 months.

 In the coming 9 months, we expect the company to announce whether IMGN242 managed to demonstrate an objective response in a phase II trial in gastric cancer patients. This announcement seems like a classic win/win   situation. Investors have already given up on this agent, which showed disappointing results in the current as well as in its earlier version. The company already stated it would discontinue development of IMGN242 if no responses are shown among the first cohort of 23 patients. This would free up resources and enable the company to focus on other in-house products, so ironically, even a negative announcement would be perceived as a good things by investors, who want to leave that story behind them. We are not expecting great things from this trial, but we do note that a fairly impressive response in one of the first six patients enrolled to the study was reported (bottom right of the poster) at ASCO. Thus, there is still a chance for an objective response.

Also in the coming 9 months, we expect Immunogen to announce several licensing deals with new and present partners. First and foremost, based on management remarks and market trends, we expect the company to announce one broad technology licensing collaboration with a pharmaceutical company. The deal could be either very general such as the 5 year collaboration with Sanofi-Aventis. It can also be more specific, similarly to the collaboration with Genentech which includes specific targets. 

Speaking of Sanofi and Genentech, we expect additional candidates from these collaborations to enter the clinic in the coming 9 months. In a recent investor conference, Immunogen’s CEO revealed that  they had recently met with Genentech and that Genentech is “making progress” with antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) against three additional targets. It will be safe to expect that one of these agents will enter the clinic in the foreseeable future. Sanofi will most likely advance two additional products into the clinic, SAR566658 and SAR650984. SAR566658 is an ADC that targets DS6, a target that can be found on a plethora of solid tumors. SAR650984 is a naked antibody that will be evaluated for the treatment of blood cancers.  

With respect to actual data publication, Immunogen will publish new data on IMGN901, which is currently in a phase I trial in multiple myeloma. Antibodies for the treatment of multiple myeloma are currently one of the hottest topics in hematology, as can be echoed by the very high activity in the field that attracted Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Biogen-IDEC, just to name a few.  Data from this study will be published at the ASH annual meeting this December. We still remain cautious about the activity of IMGN901 as a single agent, after last year’s disappointing results, nevertheless, Immunogen’s CEO alluded to this data by stating that “…the data look good, we continue to see patients derive clinical benefit…“, so there could be a positive surprise there.

Shortly afterwards, at the  Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Genentech is expected to give an update on an ongoing phase II trial of T-DM1 in 2nd and 3rd line metastatic breast cancer, which should be positive given Genentech’s recent decision.  Early next year, Genentech is expected to dose the first patient in the phase III pivotal trial, which will trigger a potentially double digit milestone payment, will announce the receipt of a substantial milestone payment to Immunogen.It is important to note that despite all these positive catalysts down the road, there are likely to be disappointing news as well, as is always the case with drug development. However, at this point of time, with two potentially registration studies underway, Immunogen seems to be cheaper than ever, which is why we decided to increase our holding in the company.

We also added a new company, Santarus (SNTS), on which we hope to elaborate in the future.

biotech-portfolio-15-10-08.PNG

Immunogen and Seattle Genetics – On The Verge Of An Inflection Point

 

This year’s ASCO annual meeting should be a very exciting event for anyone who has been following the field of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). During the conference, investigators will present impressive clinical data generated by ADCs powered by Immunogen’s (IMGN) and Seattle Genetics’ (SGEN) technologies. The data includes studies for Genentech’s (DNA) T-DM1, Seattle Genetics’ SGN-35 and Curagen’s (CRGN) CR011-vcMMAE .  These data will put ADCs on the verge of transitioning from a remote niche to one of the hottest areas in oncology.

Continue reading

Immunogen at ASH 2007 – part II (AVE9633)

   

Regardless of IMGN901′s specific case, the impression I am getting from all the scientific material I come across that deals with Immunogen’s (IMGN) technology, is that IMGN901 will probably be the last ADC (antibody-drug conjugate) powered by the cleavable DM1 linker. There are currently no ADC programs, except from IMGN901, that utilize this specific linker. As I mentioned in one of my SGEN’s (SGEN) pieces, Genentech seems to prefer a noncleavable linker for the majority of its ADCs. Another example may be, Centocor, who licensed Immunogen’s technology for arming a antibodies targeted against alpha integrin and evaluated both DM1 and DM4 cleavable linkers with the same antibody. Results from several animal experiments showed that the cleavable DM4 version was much more stable in the bloodstream and active in inhibiting tumor growth than the cleavable DM1 version.

   Continue reading

Immunogen at ASH 2007 – part I (IMGN901)

At ASH (American Society of Hematology), Immunogen (IMGN) and its partners presented data on several projects including IMGN901(formerly known as HuN901) for Multiple Myeloma and AVE9633 for AML (Acute Myelogenous Leukemia) .

 

The company presented updated results from its  phase I dose escalation study in Multiple Myeloma patients who have failed prior treatments. IMGN901 was administered weekly for 2 consecutive weeks in a 3-week cycle, and the company reported results from 12 patients in 4 cohorts of 3. The evaluated doses were 40 mg/m2/week, 60 mg/m2/week, 75 mg/m2/week, and 90 mg/m2/week. Immunogen had previously published results for the two lower doses, which included one partial response (PR) and 2 stable disease (SD) in the 60 mg/m2/week cohort. In its ASH presentation, the company revealed that among the 6 patients who received the 2 higher doses (75 and 90 mg/m2), there was also one partial response in a patient at the 90 mg/m2/week cohort, although this patient had to drop out of the trial due to unrelated issues. Of note, the patient who responded at 60 mg/m2 is still on the study, after more than 10 months.

  

I must admit I expected results to be somewhat better, based on management’s remarks in several investor conferences. I wrongly concluded that if a company gets a partial response in 1 out of 3 patients who were dosed at 60 mg/m2, and claims to be very excited about the 2 higher doses, there would be at least one partial response in each cohort to generate a response rate of 33%. Nevertheless, these results are quite positive for two reasons. First, all patients who participated in this trial were heavily pretreated patients, who had already received more than four prior therapies. Second, IMGN901 demonstrated excellent safety profile as no severe side effects were documented. This means that additional patients can be recruited and receive higher doses, that might be more effective.

 

Continue reading

SGEN’s Preclinical Programs

 

CD70 program

CD70 is a receptor expressed on many types of blood cancers as well as the majority of renal cancer cases. The expression profile of this target is highly restricted to cancer cells, which, combined with its ability to internalize antibodies, makes it a desirable target for ADCs. Seattle Genetics is evaluating a naked antibody as well as an ADC that target CD70, both candidates are based on the same antibody, which was licensed from CLB-Research and Development. The naked antibody, SGN-70, is evaluated for certain blood cancers and is expected to enter phase I during 2008. Another possible use for SGN-70 is for autoimmune diseases, as it is expressed on white blood cells that are involved in the disease, but not on “resting” cells.

SGN-75 is an ADC based on SGN-70, which is currently evaluated pre-clinically for Renal cell carcinoma. This disease, although not as common as prostate and lung cancers, represents a large market opportunity with over 43,000 new cases and almost 13,000 deaths expected in 2007 in the US alone. Although surgical resection of the kidney has high chances to prevent the disease from spreading, nearly one third of patients are diagnosed at advanced stage, where the cancer has spread to additional organs. In addition, more than 30% of patients who undergo resection will eventually develop metastatic disease, for which very few therapeutic options exist. SGN-75 is expected to enter the clinic only in 2009.

 

Continue reading

SGEN’s partnership with Curagen (CRGN)

 

CR011-vcMMAE is an ADC currently being developed by Curagen (CRGN), based on Seattle Genetics’ ADC technology. The ADC comprises of an antibody against GPNMB, a protein on the surface of melanoma cells linked to a drug payload. Both the drug and the linker in this case are identical to those used by Seattle Genetics in SGN-35. The story behind this agent demonstrates the need of ADC technology and the high value it has in today’s drug development market. It also demonstrates that going after one of the most challenging indication with a relatively new platform, may not be the best way to validate it.

  Continue reading

Seattle Genetics’ technology – The Arms Merchant

The capability of developing antibodies for cancer can be found at most pharma companies’ R&D centers, either as a result of internal R&D efforts or M&A activity, such as the acquisitions of Cambridge Antibody Technology and Abgenix by AstraZeneca (AZN) and Amgen (AMGN), respectively. Therefore, there is nothing unique about a company that can develop cancer antibodies, even though there are many other differentiating factors between the companies. The crucial element in developing an ADC is linking the antibody to the drug payload. As simple as this concept may sound, its realization is highly complex and challenging, and in our opinion represents the main entry barrier to the field. As ADCs are also termed “armed antibodies”, companies like Seattle Genetics can be viewed as the arms merchants of the antibody industry.

As an arms merchant, the company focuses on two areas: Technologies for conjugating antibodies to toxic drugs and potent toxic compounds that will be attached to the antibodies. The ability to develop highly potent drugs and conjugation technologies is Seattle Genetics’ main asset, since this is the ideal way to differentiate itself and to broaden the company’s pipeline through partnership deals. In an industry where the vast majority of candidates fail, it is imperative for companies like Seattle Genetics to have as many candidates as possible, even if eventually most of the revenues go to the partners. At this stage, with the limited resources Seattle Genetics has, betting on few wholly owned candidates is statistically unfeasible. Although the company has had its share of failures over the years, we believe the advances made both in terms of linkers and drugs will finally enable it to generate a constant flow of candidates into the clinic, whether independently or in collaboration with partners. In order to look at the progress that has been made so far, the best place to start is the failure of Seattle Genetics’ flagship product, SGN-15, an antibody linked to the chemo agent Doxorubicin, whose development was discontinued in mid 2005 after a series of discouraging clinical trials. On top of the usual uncertainties related to drug development, there were probably two main factors that severely sabotaged this candidate’s prospects.

The first factor was the use of an approved chemotherapy drug such as Doxorubicin as the conjugated drug. Chemotherapy agents that are conventionally administered to patients are distributed across the body and affect healthy cells as well as cancer cells, leading to the so typical side effects of chemo. Consequently, approved chemo drugs represent a fine balance between two needs: They must be strong enough in order to kill cancer cells, but not too strong, so the damage caused to normal tissues is acceptable. In contrast, when chemo drugs are linked to an antibody, they can be targeted to tumors specifically, since the antibody guides them. This enables the use of much more potent drugs, otherwise impossible to use in conventional administration. Furthermore, since only a small fraction of the administered antibodies eventually accumulate in cancer cells, it is critical that the few antibodies that do reach the tumors carry a very potent payload. This can be accomplished by two approaches: The antibody must either be loaded with a large amount of drug molecules or a small amount of very potent drug molecules. Although there are efforts on both fronts, the latter approach is more practical, at least for now. Bottom line, in order to have an effective ADC, drug developers should use chemo drugs that are too toxic to be generally administered. This approach was validated by the only FDA-approved ADC, Mylotarg, which utilizes Calicheamicin, a drug that is too toxic on a stand alone basis. Both Seattle Genetics and Immunogen (IMGN) are currently using such compounds as the basis for their ADC platforms: Seattle Genetics picked auristatin, while Immunogen focuses on maytansine. The second disadvantage in SGN-15 is linker instability. An ideal linker should be very stable in the bloodstream but also readily degradable once inside cancer cells, so it would release the free drug only inside target cells. For SGN-15, Seattle Genetics uses an acid-labile linker, which is relatively stable in neutral environment (bloodstream) and very unstable in acidic environment (present in certain compartments inside cells). This kind of linker is used very successfully in Mylotarg for the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia [AML], making Seattle Genetics’ pick very reasonable at the time. However, SGN-15′s stability in patients proved to be pretty low, mainly as a result of premature linker degradation in the bloodstream, before reaching the tumors. Mylotarg had a great success despite being based on an acid-labile linker because it attacks a blood-borne malignancy and the antibody can find its target quickly, before linker degradation and drug release. In contrast, the dense mass of solid tumors makes them far less accessible compared to blood cancers. Therefore, the ADC must be present in the bloodstream for longer periods at higher concentrations, necessitating highly stable linkers.

By the time SGN-15 was scrapped, Seattle Genetics already had its next generation of ADC technology up and running. On the drug front, the company licensed a potent drug called auristatin E from Arizona State University, which was found to be almost 200-fold more potent than Doxorubicin, and used it as a basis for its own proprietary drug, MMAE. This drug is a very potent anti-tubulin inhibitor that can be synthesized cheaply in very large quantities and subsequently be conjugated to a virtually unlimited number of different antibodies. Another appealing attribute of Seattle Genetics’ conjugation technology is the highly homogeneous population of ADCs, as oppose to other methods, including that of Immunogen. On the linker front, Seattle Genetics chose a peptide-based linker which is cleaved by enzymes that are present inside cells but not in the bloodstream. Upon cancer cell binding, ADCs are trafficked to a special compartment called lysosome, where there is an abundance of enzymes that cleave the linker and release the drug inside the cell. Seattle Genetics’ peptide linker has demonstrated an increase of more than 3-fold in stability in the bloodstream, which, combined with the high potency of MMAE, puts the company’s candidates in a better starting point.

It is crucial to understand that ADCs are not commodity products, but highly complex systems that require a great deal of customization and optimization. Multiple factors, including (but not limited to) cancer type, the target on cancer cells, exact binding site, type of linker, efficiency of drug release, mechanism of conjugation, type of drug and amount of drug payload affect the performance of each candidate. The number of variations for each ADC is high but it is impossible to predict the optimal combination in advance. Thus, the exact antibody-linker-drug combination should be tailored specifically for each ADC candidate, perhaps even for each condition the candidate is aimed at treating. In order to stay relevant, Seattle Genetics must constantly develop new linkers and drugs, in addition to developing antibodies and identifying attractive cancer related targets. It is not surprising though, that the company is currently developing next generation linkers and drugs that will possibly be employed in future projects.

Author is long SGEN

Seattle Genetics – Introduction

The market of monoclonal antibodies for cancer is one of the fastest growing segments in the pharmaceutical industry, with several blockbuster drugs such as Rituxan and Herceptin. Although over a year has passed since the FDA last approved an antibody for the treatment of cancer, the extensive activity in the field will surely lead to a substantial addition of antibodies in the coming years. Continue reading

Sanofi-Aventis’ AVE1642- In Partnership With Immunogen

AVE1642 is a “naked” antibody that binds insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1R). It is currently evaluated in a phase I clinical trial that started in October of last year. Interestingly, this antibody is not attached to a drug payload, and is most likely intended to be used in combination with chemotherapy.

IGF-1R is postulated to be a very important target in several types of cancers such as colorectal, lung and breast cancers. This receptor has been shown to contribute to the development and progression of tumors, as its activation triggers a cascade of signals ultimately leading to survival and proliferation. An antibody targeted at IGF-1R may serve as an anticancer agent by preventing the growth factors from binding the receptor or by inducing an immune response against cells that express IGF-1R. IGF-1R is also expressed by normal cells, including blood vessels, which offers an explanation to why Sanofi-Aventis decided not to arm AVE1642 with a deadly payload. This is a good example for cases where ADCs cannot be used, because they will probably lead to unbearable side effects.

Since targeting IGF-1R by monoclonal antibodies seems very promising, several other companies, including Pfizer (PFE) and Imclone (IMCL) are actively pursuing this pathway. Both companies have already published results from phase I clinical trials, showing some clinical activity and a very good safety profile, which makes Sanofi Aventis a little late to the party, but eventually, demonstrating clinical activity is the top priority for AVE1642.

 

Author is long IMGN

Sanofi-Aventis’ AVE9633- In Partnership with IMGN

This Antibody-drug conjugate was created by ImmunoGen and licensed to Sanofi-Aventis. AVE9633 consists of the huMy9-6 antibody, which binds specifically to the CD33 antigen found on acute myeloid leukemia cells, and Immunogen’s DM4 cell-killing agent. There expected to be more than 13,000 new cases of AML this year in the US alone, and around 9,000 americans are expected to die as a result of the disease. Although during the last decade, an increase in survival rates was achieved due to the introduction of new treatments, most patients will die less than 5 years after diagnosis. The high likelihood of disease relapse is especially unsatisfactory, despite the relatively high portion of complete responses achieved by chemotherapy and Wyeth’s (WYE) Mylotarg®, the sole approved antibody-drug conjugate to date. CD33 antigen is present in approximately 90% of AML patients, which makes it a very attractive target. More importantly, the concept of targeting CD33 has been validated by the impressive activity of Mylotarg in AML. On he other hand, AVE9633 will have to be show at least the same activity and safety profile in order to be approved. This a relatively high bar, and according to preliminary results, chances are pretty low.

AVE9633 entered phase I in 2005, where the compound was dosed once per three weeks at doses up to 260 mg/m2, without encountering dose-limiting toxicities. Since there was no substantial clinical activity, Sanofi-Aventis decided to launch 2 additional phase I trials where AVE9633 is dosed more frequently. Although data is yet to be reported from this trial, the company defines results “encouraging”. Clinical findings from this trial are expected to be presented in ASH 2007 as well. The comparison to Mylotarg is inevitable, since both compounds are ADCs that target CD33. In pre-clinical trials, AVE9633 was found to be more active than Mylotarg, however, a quick glance at the dosing profile of the two agents reveals a staggering difference. Mylotarg is dosed twice at 9 mg/m2, with 14 days between the first and the second dose, and achieves impressive clinical response, including 20-30% complete responses. AVE9633 could not achieve an objective response at a single dose of 260 mg/m2. What is even more discouraging is the fact that according to several trials, Mylotarg reaches complete saturation of CD33 sites present in the bloodstream and 42% to 90% saturation in the bone marrow at a dose of 9 mg/m2. In other words, there is no use to administer additional amount of drug since it has no target to bind. Therefore, unless there is something we are totally missing here, something went very wrong with AVE9633.

Author is long IMGN