Plea to Sarepta and Arrowhead: Just Focus on Aberrant Exon 1 Transcript in Huntington’s Disease

Last week, uniQure achieved a breakthrough in developing disease-modifying therapies for Huntington’s Disease by showing that AMT-130 slowed disease progression by 75%.  AMT-130 is a DNA-directed RNAi construct targeting a sequence in the triplett-expanded exon 1 of the 67 exons-containing huntingtin gene.  Since other approaches aimed at lowering full-length huntingtin, but leaving exon 1 mRNA untouched, have fallen short (e.g. tominersen by Ionis and Roche) this is very strong support that targeting the aberrant exon 1 transcript is essential for success.

The aberrant exon 1 transcript, and likely the protein produced from that, is loaded with polyglutamine-encoding CAG tripletts, has been shown in animal studies to be exceptionally toxic and is also produced in patients (see previous blog entry 'Huntington's Disease Therapeutics Finally Breaking Through!'), the amount of which is correlated with triplett expansion size based on comments by uniQure CMO Walid Abi-Saab at a conference earlier this year.  Add to this the observation that a phase 3 trial with tominersen had to be stopped due to the oligo performing worse than control, maybe it is time for a heretical new idea:

accept that the old notion of Huntington’s Disease being an autosomal dominant disease caused by toxic full-length triplett-expanded huntingtin has been wrong, and full-length huntingtin indeed is an important protein to have. Instead, leave full-length huntingtin alone and exclusively target the aberrant exon 1 ‘fragment’.   Hey, have you ever considered the possibility that the polyQ htt protein aggregates are not cleavage products from full-length Htt?  Why always so complicated?  Why consider both exon 1 and full-length Htt contributing meaningfully to disease?  Shouldn't the properties of a short protein largely made up of polyglutamine be radically different from that of a much larger one containing the same polyglutamine stretch?

Sarepta and Arrowhead have shared plans to enter the clinic with a systemically administered RNAi conjugate for Huntington’s Disease.  A systemically administered option would be a very valuable one since, especially in light of the one-time administered AMT-130, repeat intrathecal administration is less attractive.   The Tfr1-targeted ARO-HTT being prepared for clinical trial application this year apparently does not affect exon 1 transcript.  The excuse given is that it is difficult to find an effective RNAi trigger in the merely 102 nucleotide exon 1 target space.

The good news: by focusing exlusively on aberrant exon 1 transcript, 7000+ nucleotides of additional target space (from 5’ end of intron 1) opens up.  

What good is it to have a trigger that is great at knocking down a transcript when it is aimed at the wrong target?  It is not too late and can be explained to the market.

The Nucleic Acid Therapeutics Race to Revolutionize Alpha-1-Antitrypsin

Alpha-1-antitrypsin disease (AATD) is caused by mutations in the SERPINA1 gene coding for alpha-1-antitrypsin (AAT).  There are an estimated 100000 alpha-1 patients in the US alone, making it a rare, but not ultra-rare disease.

Correcting these mutations, replacing AAT through gene therapy, or inhibiting the particularly pathogenic Z-allele is subject to the efforts of a number of nucleic acid-based drug developers, most notably Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (RNAi), Wave Life Sciences and Korro Bio (RNA Editing) as well as CRISPR genome editing companies Beam Therapeutics (Base Editing) and Intellia Therapeutics (CRISPR Cas9 and targeted gene insertion). 

The protein name is somewhat misleading as it’s main function is to antagonize neutrophil elastase activity in the lung. Insufficient AAT activity can lead to lung injury during pulmonary stress, especially respiratory infections or smoking.  Historically, lung disease has been addressed by smoking cessation and preventing lung infection (e.g. through vaccination). 

In those patients that do progress to symptomatic lung disease, the standard of care still remains weekly infusions with plasma-derived (!) alpha-1-antitrypsin.  Although the evidence of benefit is substandard, partly the result of having a ‘good-enough’ therapy approved decades ago on simple biochemical measures, this is now a $1B+ market and growing with the increased identification of this genetic form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).  Growing awareness of the liver aspect of the genetic condition also contributes to better patient identification.

Achieving 50-60% of normal AAT activity is expected to be therapeutic based on human genetics.   

As lung health and longevity has been improving in alpha-1, it is estimated that 15% of adult patients develop the serious condition of liver cirrhosis.  There is also an infant form AAT liver disease manifesting in ~10% with alpha-1 mutations that can result in cirrhosis and the need for liver transplantation.  Although this is less well understood than the adult form, it is likely to involve excessive accumulation of alpha-1-antitrypsin in the liver.  These patients typically carry the Z allele on both chromosomes (piZZ).  This allele is particularly prevalent among the European and US AATD populations (~90% of 235k worldwide).  As true AAT null mutations are rare, piZZ is by far the most prevalent genotype of patients presenting with either lung or liver disease. 

The Z alpha-1 antitrypsin variant protein misfolds, aggregates and gets stuck in the endoplasmic reticulum of the liver.  This results in liver inflammation and progressive injury (cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma/HCC).  A small fraction (10-15%) of Z-AAT does get exported, but even if it makes it to the lung it is less functional and may even exacerbate lung inflammation due to its propensity to precipitate.

Removing Z-AAT is expected to halt and even reverse liver disease based on human genetics (1 Z allele not sufficient to cause disease) and preclinical animal models.

Here I will discuss some of the more promising, new innovative approaches utilizing a number of nucleic acid therapeutics modalities to address the lung and/or liver complications of AATD.  It also explains the following rank order of the approaches in terms of promise for AAT lung and liver disease.

1.    RNAi for A1AT-related liver disease (Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals and Takeda)

While innovation in the lung space of AATD has stalled, the disease attracted fresh attention in the pharmaceutical industry about a decade ago for its liver-related complications as (piZZ) alpha-1 patients get older and increasingly suffer from liver failure and HCC.  This time also saw the rise of new therapeutic modalities such as RNAi. 

The RNAi Therapeutic ARO-AAT by Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals has demonstrated almost complete elimination of the highly expressed gene in phase I and II clinical trials.  In preclinical models, this has been shown to reduce existing liver Z-AAT aggregates and inflammation over time.

In a small (n=25), 2:1 ARO-AAT/placebo randomized phase II study in Z-AAT patients with liver fibrosis, there was a robust -68% reduction in liver AAT globule burden.  At 52 weeks, this translated to 50% of subjects on ARO-AAT having a 1 or more point improvement in Metavir fibrosis (scale: 0/no fibrosis to 4/cirrhosis).  Due to the small study size and the 3/8 responses (38%) in the placebo group, this did not reach statistical significance.   Another small open-label study demonstrated a similar 50% fibrosis response.

Importantly, RNAi knockdown of Z-AAT did not worsen pulmonary health over 1 year in the controlled (no smoking etc) trial setting.  This may be partly due to Z-AAT being functionally impaired anyway and may do more harm than good in the lung. 

A longer 2 year 160 patient pivotal phase 3 study with F2-4 disease is underway to statistically confirm the benefit of ARO-AAT (aka TAK-999) on liver fibrosis (in F2+3 patients).  Results from that study can be expected in early 2026. 

2 years should be plenty of time for liver globules to turn over.  And as the liver is good in regenerating once you take the fibrogenic trigger away (see HCV, NASH etc)- as long as the liver is not in a late-stage cirrhotic stage already- this should translate into a fibrosis benefit.

For AAT liver disease, Arrowhead enjoys at least a 5 year headstart over the non-RNAi competition which has yet to enter the clinic.  Dicerna, now a Novo Nordisk company, has also been developing an RNAi trigger (belcesiran) for AAT which is in a phase II and has demonstrated -77% knockdown following a single dose.  

In terms of efficacy, Arrowhead’s RNAi approach with it’s almost complete elimination of AAT in the liver appears to be substantially superior over the competition with non-RNAi approaches struggling to get to -70-75% Z-AAT reductions.  This assumes that more knockdown is correlated with efficacy or at least the time for efficacy to manifest.  Based on human genetics, the equivalent of life-long treatment, where subjects with just one Z allele have not much added risk of developing liver disease, this may not be necessary.

 

2.    CRISPR Cas9 for Liver Disease 

The non-RNAi approach in development for AAT liver disease that is likely the next most efficacious one is CRISPR Cas9 DNA cleavage as developed by Intellia Therapeutics.  Intellia has already demonstrated 90%-type gene knockout efficiencies in hepatocytes for TTR amyloidosis and hereditary angioedema in the clinic, so expectations are for similar target engagement in the AAT program. Cas9-targeted DNA cleavage is certainly a powerful tool to downregulate gene expression.

The question, however, is whether you would want to risk disabling a gene permanently when you have non-permanent alternatives like RNAi that are at least equally efficacious.   Similar to transthyretin in TTR amyloidosis, alpha-1-antitrypsin is a highly expressed gene in the liver that has important functions in human biology and health.  TTR for example is a carrier of thyroxin and retinol binding protein (à vitamin A) while AAT is involved in the homeostasis of protease activity for example during infection in the lung and probably has similar homeostatic functions in other tissues. 

Side effects from the long-term ablation of AAT may only manifest after years and may then require life-long supplementation (vitamin A, thyroxin), or after certain stress situations (non-genetic COPD etc).  To my knowledge, unlike for say PCSK9, human genetics does not support that lifelong absence of AAT is ideal.  Similarly, regulatory agencies will be worried about cancer resulting from genome re-arrangements rearing their ugly heads 10 years or so down the line following on- or off-target DNA cleavage in and outside liver cells (including germline).

In my opinion, unless genome editing can demonstrate clear efficacy advantages over otherwise quite safe and non-onerous, non-permanent alternatives, it is only with the accumulation of long-term safety data that we will be able to tell whether CRISPR Cas9 can be used more broadly.

 

3.    RNA Editing for Lung and Liver Disease (Wave Life Sciences, Korro Bio)

When it comes to addressing AATD lung disease, my favorite approach is via RNA Editing with an exciting candidate by Wave Life Sciences (WVE-001) about to enter the clinic.  Korro Bio aims to enter a competing RNA Editing candidate into the clinic in late 2024. 

However, Korro Bio candidate would likely have to be relatively frequently (weekly) administered via intravenous infusion and has no obvious efficacy advantage over WVE-001 and LNP-related toxicities to be expected (infusion reactions, triggering of innate immunity etc).  As a second mover with an inferior therapeutic profile, I am struggling to understand Korro Bio’s business rationale here (also discussed here).  

As discussed on this blog, RNA Editing in AATD aims to convert the pathogenic piZ allele into the healthy M allele.  Based on human genetics where MZ carriers are protected from both liver and lung disease, a 50% AàI editing rate may suffice for both indications.  Wave Life Sciences has been able to meet that bar in preclinical studies.  Given the newness of RNA Editing, results from the first clinical study for this modality utilizing Wave’s subcutaneously administered oligonucleotide chemistry will still have to show just how efficacious and sustained (in terms of dosing frequency) their approach will prove to be in humans. 

A significant uncertainty is how long it will take for even robust >60% editing to translate into actual clinical benefit. Unlike for the liver where the natural turnover of pathogenic globules will likely be rate-limiting for liver health improvement to manifest, generating healthy, wild-type alpha-1-antitrypsin should be immediately beneficial to the lung.   Identifying a patient population with still relatively healthy lungs but rapid functional decline should therefore be most promising for a clinical trial.

For this, Wave Life Science has recruited pulmonary disease powerhouse GSK through a out-licensing as setting a new standard of care will not be as easy as simply demonstrating AAT blood biomarker as the incumbents had gotten away with.  The fact that plasma-derived products from the stone age of biotechnology still dominate what today has grown into a blockbuster market shows how difficult it has been to find new therapeutic strategies worth investing in.  As the plasma-derived products have been unable to demonstrate a clear therapeutic benefit in controlled studies, this would likely involve running a relatively large and long-term clinical study being very mindful of stratifying the diverse patient population. 

The reason why RNA Editing could represent a meaningful improvement to the standard of care in AAT lung disease is that it promises to offer more sustained, tonic amounts of AAT instead of the spiked pharmacokinetics from weekly infused AAT.  Moreover, because RNA Editing converts mutant to wild-type AAT that is transcribed from the native gene under physiological controls (e.g. promoter activity), adverse effects from supraphysiological levels of AAT should not be observed.  

Wave Life Sciences claims that RNA Editing can not only address lung AATD, but also its liver manifestations.  To find out, GSK would have to run a separate study and hope that clinical success is not linear with Z-AAT reduction. Because if this were the case, RNAi would likely win out over RNA Editing not only in terms of knockdown efficacy, but also dosing frequency.  There is some preclinical evidence, however, that wildtype AAT may aid cellular export of Z-AAT, so a 50% mRNA conversion may reduce intracellular Z-AAT more than 50%.  Possibly worth a competitive gamble.

 

4.    Base Editing for Lung and Liver Disease (Beam Therapeutics)

Similar to Wave Life Sciences, Beam Therapeutics aims to correct the piZZ mutation, but this time applying CRISPR genome base editing for permanent correction.  Unlike traditional CRISPR Cas9, Beam’s CRISPR proteins are unable to make double-strand. Instead, a base-editing enzyme is tethered to the Cas protein which is guided to the target location by the guide RNA.  In this case, the base editor is an Adenine Base Editor converting proximal adenines into guanine.

Unlike RNA Editing where you can precisely determine the editing site through secondary fit and oligonucleotide modifications with essentially no off-target editing, tethered base editors will act on what is close by.  Most problematic for the Beam program appears to be a bystander adenine that is 2 bases away from the targeted adenine such that for each desired single edit you seem to get equal amounts of double-edited AAT mRNAs resulting in alpha-1 antitrypsin  that is significantly less functional.

This also raises that question on how many more unidentified off-target base edits there are.  The genome in the nucleus is not linear, but dynamic with tertiary interactions between chromosomes, within a chromosome and transcriptional hubs bringing multiple genes into close vicinity.  So imagine a crowded nucleus with thousands of CRISPR-tethered base editors floating around looking for adenine substrates.  It will sure be interesting how regulatory agencies around the world will be looking at this as well as the risk of germline editing following LNP delivery.

Base editing efficiencies are slightly less than RNA Editing in preclinical models with the added caveat around the double edits.

Beam intends to file for clinical trial applications in Q1 2024.   

  

5.    Integrational Gene Therapy for Lung Disease (Intellia Therapeutics)

Finally, in addition to gene demolition using Cas9 for liver disease, Intellia is advancing a separate CRISPR-mediated gene insertional approach for AAT lung disease.  Here, an LNP delivers Cas9 mRNA-gRNA to open up DNA downstream of the albumin promoter, highly active in hepatocytes.  An AAV carrying AAT cDNA gets administered alongside so that a certain fraction gets incorporated as the DNA damage repair machinery attempts to mend the lesion.

Preclinical non-human primate data support that marked expression can thus be achieved as the albumin promoter now drives transcription of AAT-cDNA.  It is noteworthy that albumin drop-in has gone a bit out of fashion in the genome editing field after Sangamo Biosciences had similarly claimed high preclinical expression for hemophilia and lysosomal storage disease almost a decade ago.  Strangely, as so often has been the case with Sangamo, this could not be reproduced at all in the clinic (barely detectable levels if any at all).  Intellia is using a curious inverted repeat design as their drop-in cassette and believes this to be a game-changer in the approach.  They may have done this to double their chances that the insertion happens in the correct orientation, but as a former molecular biologist trained in RNA polymerase II transcription and RNAi this looks like inviting trouble to me.

In any case, a surprising pivot by Intellia for AAT lung disease and we will have to see how this approach can thread the needle of achieving substantial, but not exaggerated amounts of AAT….over the long-term…and with little interpatient variability.

Intellia intends to submit a clinical trial application for NTLA-3001 by year-end.

Oligonucleotides Break Through to the Lung

It is days like today that I live for.  Days when new platform technology data is revealed that will change the practice of medicine and benefit patients for a number of diseases of high unmet need. In this case asthma, IPF, COPD etc. 

Almost a decade after GalNAc started to revolutionize oligonucleotide therapeutics delivery to the liver (hepatocytes) and turned oligonucleotides into the important therapeutic modality it has become today, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals just reported the equivalent for the lung (lung epithelial cells to be precise).

Employing inhaled delivery of αvβ6 integrin-targeted stabilized RNAi triggers in healthy volunteers, the company found robust, -80% mean maximum target gene (RAGE) knockdown after 2 doses spaced a month apart. 

Since the knockdown reading was based on RAGE protein in serum (sRAGE), the true knockdown in the desired lung epithelium is likely higher.  This is also supported by the observation that more direct bronchoalveolar lavage measurements revealed -75% knockdown after just a single 92mg dose when the corresponding reading in the serum indicated -56%.  Further dose escalation to 184mg is ongoing and there are first indications that the long-lived pharmacodynamic response observed in animals will hold up in the clinic.

RAGE is a key player in pro-inflammatory signaling in the lung and thought to play a central role in related pulmonary disorders such as asthma.

In addition to clearing the efficacy hurdle, safety seemed excellent, or in the words of the company ‘no patterns of adverse changes in any clinical safety parameters’.

As some may remember, an earlier RNAi candidate targeting the lung (ENaC for Cystic Fibrosis) was shelved by Arrowhead due to preclinical findings in chronic tox studies in the rat.  The reason is thought to be that the sheer amount of material delivered to rat lungs overwhelmed and inflamed the macrophage-based particle clearance system.

What is different this time is that ARO-RAGE utilizes improved stabilization chemistries and therefore only a fraction of the overall tissue exposure is required to achieve the same knockdown. 

This is reminiscent of the early days in GalNAc conjugate-based delivery to the liver when a first-generation GalNAc-TTR RNAi trigger had to be discontinued by Alnylam due to adverse safety in the clinic.  Improved GalNAc RNAi drugs of increased metabolic stability (and reduced 3'-fluoro content) are now well established medicines.

Beyond RNAi Therapeutics, today’s results have important implications for oligonucleotide therapeutics applications in the lung in general, including RNA Editing. 

Most importantly, they establish αvβ6 integrin as a valid target receptor for oligo conjugates.  Moreover, some of the chemistries should be directly translatable for stabilization purposes and together with ARO-ENAC Arrowhead should now have good insights into the chemistry-safety relationship. 

Reconsidering RNA Editing for Alpha-1-Antitrypsin Disease

Alpha-1-antitrypsin (AAT) is the lead program in the RNA Editing pipeline with Wave Life Sciences recently licensing its candidate to GSK.  It is safe to assume that a number of other companies are working on similarly developing RNA Editing drugs in the AAT area as well.  Developments in the competitive environment using other platforms such as gene knockdown (RNAi, ASO) and genome editing are therefore of high interest.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals SEQUOIA data

This week, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals and partner Takeda revealed that its RNAi candidate for alpha-1-antitrypsin-related liver disease worked as intended in the SEQUOIA phase II study and over time should translate into a measurable benefit in terms of developing severe liver disease.

After 52 weeks of treatment, mutant Z-AAT was knocked down by a solid -94%.  This in turn led to a 2/3 decrease in the more inert aggregated form of alpha-1-antitrypsin.  It is the aggregated AAT that is thought to cause cellular stress, followed by a cycle of apoptosis and hepatocyte regeneration, ultimately leading to inflammation and fibrosis, if not liver failure in ~20% of subjects homozygous for the Z-allele of alpha-1-antitrypin.  

Indeed, ARO-AAT/TAK-999 achieved a striking benefit of reducing portal inflammation (see above graph) which should be highly predictive of a benefit on liver fibrosis progression.  Although a high 50% of trial subjects on ARO-AAT experienced a reduction in fibrosis, this was not statistically significant due to small patient numbers.  A larger and longer (2-4 years) registrational study is therefore planned to confirm the benefit and gain regulatory approval.

RNAi unsurpassed in reducing Z-AAT, but RNA Editing may be more elegant

If the degree of reducing the insulting Z-AAT was all that mattered, RNAi would be difficult to beat. ADAR RNA Editing and genome editing for example would have to overcome the limitation that target sequences are limited to a very specific area around the mutation whereas RNAi has the entire mRNA to play with.

But looking more closely, the name of the game is actually inhibiting aggregation.  It is now that I increasingly appreciate the elegance and power of the RNA Editing approach   which fundamentally rests on the genetic observation that heterozygous carriers of alpha-1-antitrypsin disease have a much reduced risk of developing related liver disease, if an increased risk at all.  These people carry one 'Z' allele and one normal ‘M’ allele. 

I had not paid much attention to this, thinking that mechanistically this is simply due to a concentration effect of 50% less Z-AAT polymerizing less well and having a protective genotype that manifests after decades of life does not necessarily mean that converting a patient already suffering from liver disease to such a genotype will necessarily translate to the fastest possible treatment benefit.  RNAi with its highly potent Z-AAT reduction may be faster.

It is now that it dawns on me that there is likely more to the MZ genotype benefit.  Looking at the Wave Life Sciences mouse preclinical data on its RNA Editing candidate, it always irritated me that whereas the mRNA editing efficiency was ~50%, the increase in circulating AAT was 7x.  Since only ~15% of Z-AAT normally gets out of the liver, this basically means that the 50% of M-AAT allows essentially ALL of the AAT, including Z-AAT to get out of the liver.  This is consistent with the ratio of M-AAT/Z-AAT in circulation reflecting the 50% mRNA editing efficiency in hepatocytes.

It therefore appears that the M-AAT (and potentially non-wildtype variants generated by RNA Editing) functions to poison the Z-AAT aggregation chain reaction, keeps Z-AAT in solution and fit for secretion into circulation.  What is more, unlike RNAi, this has the additional benefit of also addressing the lung manifestations due to insufficient levels of circulating AAT and for which alpha-1-antitrypsin disease is better known.  RNAi by contrast may have to rely on other developments in improving the management of alpha-1 lung disease as it reduces circulating AAT even further.

In light of the above, as a shareholder I am now changing my mind and support ProQR with its industry-leading IP and know-how to enter the exciting alpha-1 race to generate a best-in-class RNA Editing drug.  We should soon find out when ProQR will reveal its line-up of initial pipeline candidates.

GSK Partners with Wave Life Sciences for Access to RNA Editing

This week, we have seen further confirmation of the increasingly recognized value within the pharmaceutical industry of Oligonucleotide Therapeutics in general, and RNA Editing in particular.

In a landmark deal, GSK obtained an exclusive license from Wave Life Sciences to the RNA Editing industry’s lead, albeit still preclinical WVE-006 development candidate for the treatment of alpha-1-antitrypsin disease.  In addition, GSK has the right to evaluate Wave’s oligonucleotide platform (editing, splice modulation, and RNAi/ASO silencing modalities) to then advance up to 8 programs into development.

In return, Wave will receive $120M in upfront cash, another $50M in an equity investment, and the potential to earn up to $3.3B in development and commercial milestones in addition to royalties on drug sales.  Because of its more advanced stage in development, WVE-006 stands to earn relatively more in milestones ($525M) and royalties (tiered double-digit, up to the high teens).

While I view Wave doing this deal largely to feed its voracious appetite for cash to feed what I consider to be less exciting clinical work in Huntington’s (ASO knockdown) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (exon skipping), GSK will bring its genetics-based target insights to the collaboration table so that Wave could advance up to 3 related programs that it would wholly own.

Seeing the AATD program go to GSK was a disappointment to me at first.  Ultimately, I thought that this program would end up shouldering the weight of Wave’s market cap as the company’s lead program once the current clinical pipeline will meet its expected fate.  However, during the discussion of the deal the company’s CEO Paul Bolno made it clear that not only is GSK much better suited to advance ‘006 especially with regards to its lung-related endpoints, it is RNA Editing and gene upregulation that Wave considers the most valuable elements of its PRISM oligonucleotide platform and that it wants to maintain control over.

Gene upregulation can be achieved by either masking destabilizing sequences in an (m)RNA by antisense oligonucleotide, or by using RNA Editing to disrupt those or slightly change the protein to make it more stable.

After the 2021 deals between Shape Therapeutics andRoche (neuroscience, DNA-directed RNA Editing) and ProQR and Eli Lilly, this marks the third such Big Pharma deal in the ADAR sector.  It is reminiscent of the 2004-5 phase when Big Pharma started to take note of RNAi through a few measured investments.  

Expect the noise and excitement to grow over 2023 as RNA Editing approaches the clinic.  But unlike RNAi, a lot of delivery work has already been undertaken so that the trajectory of RNA Editing should be smoother from a technology point of view.  Only yesterday, Avidity Biosciences reported on the  expansion of the targetable tissue universe to the muscle and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals is about to report important data on targeting RNAi to the lung.

RNAi Therapeutics and mRNA Vaccines for COVID19

This is a time where the biotech industry has to mobilize resources to mitigate the impact of pandemic SARS-CoV-2. 

Nucleic acid-based therapeutics are prime candidates in this battle because of the speed with which drug candidates can be designed and their specificity.  This blog provides an overview of efforts in this area with an emphasis on my two favorite (and IMO most promising) nucleic acid approaches: RNAi Therapeutics and mRNA vaccines.

RNAi Therapeutics

RNAi Therapeutics (and by extension the competing antisense, ASO approach), knocking down genes for therapy, can be used in two ways to address the current pandemic.

First, the RNAi triggers could target the virus itself in an existing infection.  The hope would be that by doing so the damage, mainly lung inflammation leading to respiratory distress, can be mitigated sufficiently for the patient’s immune system to gain time and strength to successfully overcome the infection.  The question then would be how early would be early enough.

The second approach would be to target a host factor critical for viral replication.  The cellular entry receptor ACE2 is the most promising candidate target gene here.  This strategy seems particularly promising for prophylactically protecting those at high-risk of an infection, e.g. medical personnel, as protection may last for a month or so based on the very long durations of efficacy seen in human studies targeting genes in the liver and early studies in the lungs of sheep.

Application in a prophylactic setting would probably have the added delivery advantage in that the lung would be less congested and thus more accessible.  Also, delivery may not have to reach so deep into the lung as it would need to during later stages.   

Delivery

Theory is one thing, but getting the RNAi triggers to where they are needed in the body is and has always been the main challenge for RNAi Therapeutics.  Unlike targeting genes in the liver which is now well-established, RNAi in the lung is a re-emerging area of RNAi development.

Given that COVID19 is a respiratory illness where the virus intrudes the body via the respiratory epithelium, a local, inhaled delivery approach should be adequate and also happens to be the most promising route for RNAi Therapeutics in addressing pulmonary disease.

In the early days of RNAi Therapeutics development, the world was facing the SARS outbreak. Seemingly attesting to the promise of speed and specificity against emerging pathogens, Sirnaomics (based in both the US and China) soon published a high-profile paper on the efficacy of RNAi in a monkey model of SARS coronavirus.  

In hindsight and with the benefit of 15 more years of RNAi Therapeutics development up-and-downs, however, these results were probably based on innate immunostimulatory artefacts given the use of unmodified Tuschl-type RNAi triggers and a nasal instillation route of administration making employing sugar water as a carrier.

Today, however, RNAi Therapeutics is much more advanced and an approach that utilizes aerosolized highly modified and thus stabilized RNAi triggers seems most appropriate. 

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals has emerged as the front-runner in lung RNAi and is close to filing for clinical study approval for addressing cystic fibrosis.  Their approach combines the two most promising elements of today’s RNAi Therapeutics.  In addition to RNAi trigger stabilization, Arrowhead is adding targeting ligands to their agents, in this case small moieties targeting integrin on lung epithelial cells.

While Arrowhead has not announced their entry into the COVID19 race, Sirnaomics and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (along with partnered Vir Biotechnology) have.  While it is unclear what particular approach Sirnaomics is using 15 years after their SARS work, Alnylam will be using highly modified RNAi triggers.  Whether targeting ligands will be utilized or not is unknown to me (update: the press release refers to 'conjugates of siRNA' so a targeting ligand is likely). 

Of note, Alnylam had suffered an anti-viral innate immunostimulatory fiasco with their first commercial RNAi development program around the same time that Sirnamoics was working on SARS.  That program was for the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and Alnylam should be able to capitalize on the the lung RNAi development experience back then.

Other RNAi-related companies with experience in inhaled lung delivery are miRNA Therapeutics company Miragen (miRNAs are structurally quite similar to RNAi triggers), Genevant/Arbutus (descendants of Tekmira which became famous for their Ebola efforts), and Arcturus Therapeutics.

mRNA vaccines

Arcturus Therapeutics and Genevant are now focused on developing messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines, including for lung disease cystic fibrosis.  The most known name in this area is Moderna Therapeutics which has a high-profile, government-sponsored vaccine effort against SARS-CoV-2.  Ultimately, it is vaccines that will allow the world to fully recover from the COVID19 scare while therapeutics should be used in a much more focused manner.

The delivery challenge for vaccines is also lessened by the fact that it is a gain-of-function approach and that the immune system itself is expert at spotting foreign, in this case viral antigen expression.  The challenge here is that this is has to be achieved in the right immunological context so that a fruitful immune response is formed.  

The fact that Moderna were the first to ship mRNA for imminent trials shows how easy it is for mRNA to go from viral sequence to product candidate and drug material production.  While I used to poke fun at Moderna for building factories and installing robots without having much science behind it to fill the production halls, for emerging biothreats like SARS-CoV-2 this has proven to be prescient.

CureVac, an mRNA competitor of Moderna, has also announced their entree into COVID19.  While they may lag behind Moderna in terms of robotics and manufacturing capacity, they should be more expert in vaccine development (‘a little innate immune stimulation by the mRNA agent itself may go a long way’).

The most intriguing and differentiated entrant in the mRNA vaccine area to me, however, is Arcturus Therapeutics (disclosure: no stock position, but considering taking one) to me.  This is because they are using a self-replicating RNA ('STARR') that they claim to require ~40-fold less RNA to be intramuscularly injected. Formulation into an LNP 'LUNAR' particle may further lower the required dose.  Given that vaccinating the world will in the end also be a manufacturing challenge, being able to start with 40-times or thereabouts less material is a serious practical advantage.

COVID19 shall pass and therapeutics and vaccines will play an important role here.  Even more important, however, is that everybody does their part in minimizing and slowing the spread of the virus ('flatten the curve', #SocialDistancing), particularly to protect those most at risk without having to resort to draconian measures.

One Pitfall to Look Out for in RNAi Therapeutics

RNAi Therapeutics have turned the corner to being a generally accepted drug modality.  Following years of ridicule and benign neglect, the industry just celebrated the FDA approval of a 2nd drug, Givlaari for the treatment of acute hepatic porphyria. This was followed in short order by the $9.7B acquisition of The Medicines Company by Novartis for its cholesterol-lowering RNAi drug candidate, Inclisiran, a harbinger for how RNAi medicines will change the game in cardiovascular risk management.

Amid all the understandable investor excitement, it is probably a good time to reflect on the potential pitfalls as we move into a world where RNAi Therapeutics dominate liver-related diseases and advance into new big areas such as the CNS and ocular disease.  Remember, investor, it takes one safety event for the most highly valued programs like HBV RNAi candidate AB-729 by Arbutus Biopharma, Arrowhead Pharmaceutical’s ARO-AAT, or the Lpa program by Silence Therapeutics to decimate your investment by half or more.

Off-targeting safety, off-targeting safety, off-targeting safety

When the discovery of RNAi was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in 2006, the Andy Fire and Craig Mello hammered home a message that would resonate for the years to come: to make RNAi Therapeutics, it’s all about the delivery!

Delivery, delivery, delivery

But as the liver has been conquered and the industry is chewing on a number of liver-related therapeutic opportunities and opening up opportunities in new areas, we still have to fully understand the odds of seeing program failures due to the difficult to predict consequences of off-targeting.

Off-targeting is the moderate knockdown of sometimes dozens of genes sharing sequence homology to the target gene.  This was shown over a decade ago and soon thereafter shown to be addressed by using simple modification strategies.

This, however, was at a time when the delivery mantra was practiced and nobody wanted to risk reducing knockdown efficacy by simultaneously considering off-targeting in their RNAi trigger designs.  I was therefore upset, as it turned out rightfully so, that Alnylam let Nastech essentially go bankrupt a decade ago when it should have acquired rights to Nastech's then industry-leading off-target-mitigation technology.

Alpha-1 Antitrypsin as testbed

Alnylam would have to pay dearly for its pride in never treating a smaller competitor well, even if it served its own interest, with off-targeting manifesting itself in markers of liver toxicity in first-generation clinical programs like chronic HBV and alpha-1 antitrypsin-related liver disease.

These two indications, unlike the now approved AHP indication for Givlaari which addresses symptoms outside of the liver, represent the most exacting off-targeting challenge as they affect liver health directly and any further exacerbation of liver stress should be avoided.  

As a result, Alnylam dug out the old off-targeting literature and in their incarnation added a GNA modification at position 7 of the guide strand while, for experimental purposes, leaving the rest of the first-generation molecule unchanged. Translational science at its best (!) and the industry can be thankful for it.

Indeed, for both the ESC+ chemistry ALN-AAT02 and ALN-HBV02 no liver enzyme elevations (above 3x ULN) were observed in 49 subjects tested, whereas 3 of 33 had such elevations with the ESC-only versions.

In Arrowhead’s case, there also were no ALT elevations >3x ULN.  However, 3 treatment-emergent grade 1 ALT elevations not exceeding 2x ULN were reported in the 28 normal healthy volunteers receiving ARO-AAT.  I am curious to see the individual time curves and the doses at which they occurred.  It is certainly an area to watch for that program as it only now moves into patients. 

Add to this considerable uncertainty about patient selection, dose and duration required to have an impact on AAT liver disease, increasingly analysts topping their price targets by the day may have to re-think how they value this program (see disclosure below).

Further behind, we have to see how Silence Therapeutics and Arbutus have addressed off-targeting with first data expected in 2020.  While Silence has avoided indications directly affecting liver health (iron overload, cardiovascular disease), Arbutus with its HBV indication will have a steeper hill to climb, although the pay-off for investors in this $80 market cap company should be considerable should it climb it come Q1 2020.

Personally, my guesstimate for non-optimized GalNAc designs would be a 50% chance of off-targeting success, also depending on preclinical vetting (after all, the very clean $9.7B Inclisiran is such a design); a 85% off-targeting success for optimized designs. 

Disclosures: long Silence Therapeutics, Arbutus Biopharma; short Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals; no position in Alnylam.

RNAi is the Future of Cardiovascular Disease

At least, this is what Big Pharma and Biotech is saying right now following deals between pure-play RNAi companies Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals and Dicerna with Amgen and Eli Lilly, respectively, and the sale of The Medicines Company with its lead PCSK9 RNAi asset really being only a matter of timing.  Besides its new relationship with Eli Lilly announced yesterday, Dicerna has an ongoin CVD-related NASH/NAFLD collaboration with Boehringer-Ingelheim.  In addition, Wave Life Sciences and Akcea, the commercial Ionis spin-out, have been pursuing cardiovascular targets along with Pfizer and Novartis, respectively, using the competitive RNaseH antisense gene knockdown technology.

Drugging the undruggable

Part of the attraction of RNAi for CVD for the pharmaceutical industry is because the targets that come from large genetic studies (e.g. ApoCIII, Apo(a), ANGPTL3) based on chance alone are not readily druggable.  To make matters worse, amorphous lipid macromolecular aggregates are particularly difficult to target with either small molecules or antibodies.

Infrequent dosing

What a difference 10 years can make.  When Protiva (now Arbutus) was one of the first to enter a systemically administered RNAi therapeutic against LDLc-related ApoB into the clinic a decade ago, it often found itself ridiculed for using RNAi in such an indication.  Systemic RNAi back then required relatively frequent (1-3 weeks) intravenous administration which would make it an unlikely modality for widespread diseases that ideally require decade-long preventive treatment strategies.

Fast-forward to the present and now we have subcutaneously delivered RNAi with potential dosing frequencies of up to once-a-year as evidenced by the lead candidate of this crop, phase III asset Inclisiran by The Medicines Company.  If the remarkable safety profile holds up following about 2000 patient years of clinical experience, such a drug should be very widely prescribed, not least because it should enjoy great adherence, one of the major impediments of treatment success in cardiovascular disease.   

Undoubtedly, it has been the Inclisiran performance so far that has attracted the attention of players like Eli Lilly and Amgen, the latter of which, of course, should know particularly well about the competitive threat from RNAi having an antibody-based PCSK9 agent on the market (Repatha).  Beyond the upcoming slew of phase III read-outs with Inclisiran, it will equally be interesting to see the types of new targets being pursued and the clinical validation of targets like Apo(a) by the antisense competition.

AASLD Abstract Continues to Support Promise of ARO-HBV, but with a Twist

Yesterday, Arrowhead revealed the abstract for data on its new HBV RNAi drug candidate to be presented at the big annual Liver Meeting in November (AASLD).  The data continue to support highly potent knockdown of not only the surface antigen (HBsAg), but also other HBV components.

Dose response issues

When Arrowhead announced initial first-in-patient knockdown data from its 3^rd generation HBV RNAi candidate ARO-HBV, I found it suspicious for them to only reveal data for the 100mg and 200mg cohorts although more data was available at the time.  Curiously, the new data seem to suggest that there was no apparent benefit from going higher than 100mg in dose, at least when dosed with the current monthly frequency. 

Whether there is significantly worsening safety with increasing dose remains to be seen.

HBeAg positive/negative dichotomy

Similarly (but not as earth-shattering for sure) to the history of a prior HBV RNAi candidate by the company before, ARC-520, however, Arrowhead was able to learn more about its drug candidate as they went along in the study.  In particular, the first dose escalation cohorts (100, 200, 300, and 400mg monthly x3) encompassed a mix of HBeAg positive and negative patients, with 13 out of 16 being HBeAg negative.    

When Arrowhead then decided the last 2 cohorts to be just HBeAg positive, a remarkable increase in drug response was observed: whereas it took the predominantly HBeAg-negative patients 70-90 days to achieve 1.5log reductions in HBsAg, it looks like the pure HBeAg-positive patients only take 30-40 days to achieve the same.

Ergo, the reason why no clean dose response had been seen in the first cohorts is best explained by the fact that they were mixed and at that small cohorts.

Trigger choice likely explanation

ARO-HBV comprises 2 RNAi triggers: one that targets all (intact) HBV mRNA (X trigger) and one that makes sure the surface antigen is hit (S trigger) even in those patients with integrated HBV.  These typically lose the corresponding DNA element targeted by the X trigger during integration.

In the early days of RNAi, there was some controversy about the usefulness of using 2 or more triggers against the same target in terms of knockdown potency and specificity.  When I first started to practice RNAi in the lab in 2003, it was my experience that when you combined a very potent trigger with a less potent one, the knockdown was less than with the highly potent one alone.  As a result, I am a firm believer in the concept of RNAi trigger competition.

In the case of ARO-HBV it means that in HBeAg negative patients that have lost the X-trigger DNA, there will be one sterile/inactive trigger somewhat blunting the potency of the active one.

HBV biology is certainly complex and downstream events could also account for final knockdown differences.  Accordingly, in the HBeAg-only cohorts  it appears from the early observations that the nuc-experienced patients that in previous studies corresponded to patients that had lost the X-trigger-targeted elements by study enrollment not only responded as well, but in fact slightly better than the nuc-naïve patients.  It will therefore be important to learn more about their HBV integration status at AASLD to confirm or disprove the competition theory.

Review of Recent RNAi-Related Developments

The last 2 weeks have been busy ones in the lands of RNAi Therapeutics.  Here, I would therefore like to offer my take on the most important developments.

Alnylam’s Primary Hyperoxaluria Drug Breezes Through Clinic

With 20 subjects on Lumasiran, a GalNAc-RNAi targeting glycolate oxidase, for a median of 7 months, the investigational treatment for type I primary hyperoxaluria (PH1) ismore and more looking like a solid drug.  If the data presented last week at a Paediatric meeting in Turkey hold up in another 30 patients, it should fly through approval onto the market by the end of 2019.

While the relatively small numbers in each cohort has caused a bit statistical noise, it seemed like 3mg/kg monthly gives you an advantage over 1mg/kg monthly or 3mg/kg monthly in terms of the key biomarker urinary oxalate.  Interestingly, the company has chosen 3 times 3mg/kg monthly as the loading dose regimen in the now ongoing pivotal ILLUMINATE-A trial to be followed by dosing every 3 months. , the initiation of which the company has just announced.    

The core double-blind portion of the trial runs for only 6 months, so I am a bit puzzled how much the trial can inform on the value of the loading dose regimen and whether quarterly maintenance doses are sufficiently effective.   In any case, the trial design apparently was blessed by the FDA (incl. the urinary oxalate lowering primary endpoint), so surely they will know (e.g. based on preclinical animal data).

Regarding the competition with the primary hyperoxaluria drug candidate from Dicerna, the approximately 2/3 lowering of urinary oxalate and essentially all patients getting into a range considered safe and an unremarkable safety profile sets a high hurdle for the upcoming data presentation of DCR-PHXC at ASN later this month.

Arbutus HBV-RNAi Drug About to Die   

Yesterday, Arbutus provided an update on its LNP-enabled RNAi drug candidate for the treatment of chronic HBV (ARB-1467) and it does not bode well.  Similar to most other drug candidates attempted and barely tried, ARB-1467 should be canned in the not-too-distant future. 

In a combination study testing ARB-1467 in chronic HBV patients on nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir, probably only 1 in 6 patients hit a pre-defined criteria in terms of HBsAg lowering that would allow the patient to then receive immune booster PEG-Interferon.  The not very forthcoming revelation and the fact that the data was mentioned even after dropping another shoe that its small molecule HBV RNA destabilizer is also biting the dust makes it clear that not even the company sees much value in ARB-1467.

What an utter disaster this company has been since its inception as a HBV solutions entity.

Arrowhead Early HBV Deal Further Validates

Last week, shareholders in Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals got a lesson in biotech investing as it shares have given up ~1/3 of its value following a nice deal with Johnson&Johnson for the leading HBV knockdown asset in the space, ARO-HBV.

The deal gives Arrowhead a solid $250M in financing, including a $175M upfront fee and a $75M investment in company stock at a premium of ~50% to current trading.  While this avoids an imminent dilutive secondary share issuance- the company had been running low of cash- the ‘up to 15%’ in royalties from future sales of early phase II-stage ARO-HBV is clearly disappointing.  The relatively low royalty despite of it having confirmed strong HBsAg knockdown in patients can be explained with the fact that Arrowhead has avoided bearing the full risk of having to show proof-of-concept of HBV control.  This despite of having earlier paraded results obtained with an earlier DPC-based RNAi candidate (ARC-520) as strong evidence that RNAi can achieve such immune control.

While Arrowhead got punished for playing it safely, it can now focus on commercial home-run indications with highly validated targets and transition to being a broad platform company with a wholly owned attractive lead candidate in ARO-AAT.  Indeed, Arrowhead may emerge as the leading RNAi company as Alnylam, with a market cap ~8x that of Arrowhead, is still burdened by late-stage RNAi drugs with suboptimal specificity.

While humiliating, this serves Alnylam as a good reminder to also value innovation by the direct competition (note: specificity-enhancing technology now adopted by Alnylam has been available for a decade and could have been had for peanuts, e.g. from now defunct RNAi play mdRNA/Nastech).  Fittingly, today long-time archrival Silence Therapeutics issued a press release indicating that Alnylam is playing hard-ball with regard to Silence-owned IP purportedly covering ONPATTRO.

My guess is that Alnylam would rather risk an injunction and deprive patients of a very good medicine than to submit to what appear to me legitimate demands of a competitor.

Akcea’s antisense drug for TTR amyloidosis gets FDA nod

Last Friday, Akcea’s TTR drug TEGSEDI (licensed from Ionis) finally got FDA marketing approval for patients suffering from TTR-related polyneuropathy.  As expected from the delay in the approval process, TEGSEDI’s approval is accompanied by hefty black box warnings highlighting thrombocytopenia and renal risks of the (non-GalNAc) phosphorothioate oligonucleotide.  

Furthermore, the REMS program calls for frequent blood monitoring, essentially negating the claimed at-your-home convenience advantage over competing RNAi drug ONPATTRO.  Add to the poor safety profile clear efficacy disadvantages and pricing at parity with ONPATTRO, ONPATTRO should clearly win out in the marketplace.

Having said that, the TTR community is relatively small and key opinion leaders with relationships to a given drug company tend to support the drugs from the same company.