From ZZ to SZ to MZ to potentially MM! The New State of Play for RNA Editing in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Disease

The last few days and weeks delivered critical datapoints in the race to develop RNA Editing oligonucleotides for the treatment of AATD.  The prize in the form of serving an inadequately addressed rare disease with low single digit hundred thousand ZZ patients in the US, Europe, and Japan is enormous, thus spurring the development of increasingly better RNA Editing candidates.  Capitalism at its best. 

Getting close to the RNA Editing endgame

The picture that emerges shows Wave Life Sciences leading the pack with a clinical profile that could match the less severe SZ genotype (in terms of serum AAT abundance).  This should provide protection against progression of lung (but not liver) disease.  It has an about 2 years headstart in clinical development over competitor AiRNA which has a more realistic shot at replicating the more protective MZ genotype based on comparative mouse studies; and another year over Korro Bio’s AATD encore KRRO-111.  If what they claim is true, they may be getting close to the endgame with near complete Z-correction (MM-like), in the process surpassing what genome editing can do as well.

WVE-006

Wave Life Sciences’  WVE-006 has been discussed a lot on this blog.  I feel like I am slowly getting a handle on the true efficacy of this compound in the clinic- which has been made difficult by the company not broadly providing total serum AAT values.  Instead, it relied on revealing isolated serum M-AAT, the percent reduction of Z-AAT, and somewhat meaningless mean max numbers for total AAT.  Somewhat meaningless, because AAT fluctuates and just capturing the maximum values ever observed clearly introduces a significant bias to the upside.  

Considering that their reported ‘mean max’ barely matches what they say their assay measures for the mean (not even mean max) in ZZ natural history (13.1uM), it cannot be concluded that WVE-006 will achieve protection from progression of lung disease as expected from a MZ-like genotype and will likewise not be potent against AAT liver disease.  Accordingly, the case study they report on where a subject experiences an acute response shows total (Z) AAT serum levels to be similar, if not higher pre-treatment.  So if we wanted to analogize, something more akin to introducing a SZ-type genotype into a ZZ carrier should be the expectation.

AIR-001

Privately-held, pure-play RNA Editing company AiRNA announced having dosed their first clinical trial subject with AIR-001 last month.  AIR-001 is also a GalNAc-conjugated oligonucleotide and its preclinical mouse results have just been presented at the annual ASGCT conference in Boston.

In the same NSG-piz mouse model that Wave Life Sciences is using, and for the same 10mg/kg biweekly subcutaneous dosing regime, AIR-001 appears to achieve somewhat increased levels of RNA editing which in turn translated to somewhat increased serum M-AAT fractions (both up from ~50% to 60%).  Based on the prolonged stability of AIR-001 in monkey over mouse livers, AiRNA predicts a dosing frequency every 2 or 3 months which would be an improvement from Wave’s potential monthly dosing.

AIR-001 is just preclinical and WVE-006 has cleared a number of clinical safety and efficacy hurdles.  Getting closer to having a true MZ-genotype impact could be a best case scenario for AIR-001.

KRRO-111

To rain on everybody’s parade, Korro Bio then PR’d stunning headline results for its new AATD RNA Editing candidate.  KRRO-111 is its GalNAc oligonucleotide version after its LNP-based KRRO-110 seemed to do nothing in the clinic and the company may have to climb a mountain of investor skepticism before they all come onboard.

Still, by reporting near complete Z-AAT elimination and almost full M-AAT reconstitution with repeat-dosing of 3mg/kg in mice, and at one third the dose of the competition at that, one truly has to wonder whether we are closing in on the endgame for RNA Editing in AATD: from ZZ to MM.  The numbers also sound to be better than a single-shot of genome editing ever will be.  Beam Therapeutics conservatively itself bills BEAM-302 as MZ, though I myself believe that based on the >9:1 serum M:Z ratio, they are approaching something more like MM.

Unlike many biotech investors right now which can be grouped into CRISPR haters and lovers, I myself welcome the emerging choice for AATD patients.  Let us not forget that as alveolar damage from too little alpha-1 antitrypsin is not reversible (liver fibrosis may be) and gradual suffocation is an awful way to die (trust me).  The true AATD medical endgame would therefore also involve treating ZZ carriers as early as possible, certainly before symptoms emerge.  A genome editor would have to have an LNP delivery safety profile such that a person in her early 20s could be routinely administered; an RNA Editor convenient and sufficiently tolerated such that a carrier would be willing to repeatedly inject himself despite having no symptoms.

Disclosure: I am currently long Beam Therapeutics and Korro Bio.  No position in Wave Life Sciences as I want to sit out the feedback they will receive from the FDA on the development path for WVE-006.  Not investment advice.

Wave Life Sciences Sets 30% RNA Editing Bar for AATD

Wave Life Sciences (here) and Beam Therapeutics (and here) just presented important updates on their alpha-1 antitrypsin disease (AATD) programs at the American Thoracic Society 2026 meeting in Orlando.  Based on the latest disclosures, it is now possible to derive a reasonably robust estimate of not only the relative potencies of the competing product candidates (RNA editing WVE-006 and DNA base editing BEAM-302), but also the absolute editing efficiency for WVE-006, the industry’s lead RNA editing agent.

30% RNA editing for 200mg biweekly

Taking into account that misfolded mutant Z-AAT is less efficiently exported from hepatocytes than wildtype M-AAT, 1.8-fold difference based on Wave’s estimate, and deriving the mean serum AAT values from the spaghetti plots instead of going with the mean individual max values Wave highlights when it presents absolute numbers, the actual A-to-I editing efficiency in hepatocytes lies between 25-30% at steady-state when WVE-006 is given every other week.

To be sure, this is an excellent value for the first clinical RNA editing candidate and I expect to see much less when ProQR will present its first clinical target engagement data over the next month.  Nevertheless, given that the RNA editing competition, especially Korro, now claim much higher (preclinical) editing values for alpha-1, Wave may have a hard time competing in the long-term with WVE-006 and should develop a more potent next-gen candidate alongside WVE-006.

30% editing puts WVE-006 more into the range of the SZ genotype (instead of the stated MZ goal).  SZ is still significantly less pathogenic than ZZ and now appears to be Wave's newly stated goal.  However, it should be inadequate when addressing the liver manifestation of AATD, especially if treatment were to be started at F2 fibrosis stage or later.

 BEAM-302 appears to check it all

By contrast, one-time DNA base editing competitor BEAM-302 has a ~3x higher editing efficiency than WVE-006, and a pristine safety profile.  There is minor transient and very mild grade 1 liver enzyme elevations at the go-forward 60mg dose, but nothing really of concern, especially at later timepoints.  This not only means that it addresses the lung manifestation of the disease, also demonstrated by showing for the first time a near total suppression of neutrophil elastase activity in the clinic, but with a ~85% Z-AAT knockdown likely also liver disease.  Reversing existing liver disease, as indicated by Fazirsiran (see below), is a slower process, but this is as close to a cure you can get for AATD, if not an outright cure if BEAM-302 were to be given in early adulthood.

It has to be said that an 85% DNA base editing knockdown is not equivalent to a similar knockdown value obtained with an RNAi medicine as BEAM-302 works digitally at the individual hepatocyte level versus a more uniform gene suppression expected for an RNA agent like Arrowhead's/Takeda's Fazirsiran (note: Fazirsiran’s knockdown is closer to 93% for 200mg).   The digital nature of DNA base editing might actually work in favor of DNA editing as the lower doses show how corrected hepatocytes start replacing diseased ones over time.

Beam Therapeutics now needs to finish dosing an additional 50 subjects at 60mg, mainly to beef up the safety database, before it can submit 302 for accelerated approval.  Wave Life Sciences by contrast needs to carefully consider how much it wants to invest in further developing WVE-006  when its inhibinE candidate is their most promising pipeline candidate with multiple possible applications and development paths.  FDA feedback expected over the next month or two for 006 should provide more clarity.

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.

Korro Bio To Become Third Publicly Listed ADAR Editing Company

Today, pure-play ADAR Editing Korro Bio announced that it will reverse merge into biotech shell Frequency Therapeutics (current ticker: FREQ, to be changed to KRRO).  It will thus become the 3^rd publicly traded RNA Editing company following ProQR (pure-play) and Wave Life Sciences, the latter entertaining a broader mix of oligonucleotide therapeutics modalities (ADAR editing, exon skipping, RNAi).

Following two private founding rounds of ~$210M in 2020 and 2022, the transition into the public markets which is being accompanied by another $117M cash injection from mainly existing venture backers led by Surveyor Capital and Cormorant Asset Management, is to prepare the company making the transition to the clinic.  Its lead candidate is to address both the lung and liver manifestations of alpha-1-antitrypsin disease (AATD) caused by the prevalent piZZ genotype.

Today’s development explains their surprising announcement earlier this year to adopt liposomal delivery instead of GalNAc-targeted chemically modified oligonucleotides as is practiced by industry leaders ProQR and Wave Life Sciences.  Without the prospect of a clinical candidate, such an ‘IPO’ would not have been possible. 

As I had noted in an earlier blog entry though, such a development candidate is likely to fail both from a clinical and commercial point of view.  Firstly, for AATD patients at high risk of liver disease or actually manifesting liver disease, a chronically administered LNP seems like a bad idea. Indeed, Korro Bio today revealed significant liver enzyme elevations in animal models at doses (2mg/kg) that are likely required for robust SERPINA1 editing and are substantially higher than what is used for the clinically approved MC3-based LNP formulation Patisiran in ATTR amyloidosis by RNAi Therapeutics company Alnylam.

From a competitive point of view, the LNP approach suffers from the need of frequent, possibly weekly intravenous infusions whereas less frequent (I expect monthly) subcutaneous administration schedules should be feasible with Wave’s first clinical GalNAc editing oligo and possibly less frequently as oligo chemistry advances (similar to RNAi).  As Wave is likely to be a year ahead of Korro in the clinic, this alone makes it a head-scratcher approach for a fast-follower.

As we have learned from the RNAi Therapeutics field, further stabilizing Korro’s oligonucleotide is unlikely to extend dosing frequency as LNPs release most of their cargo into the cytoplasm almost instantaneously whereas the long duration of action by oligo-conjugates is explained by their gradual release from endosomes.

There is one scenario, however, where I can see Korro Bio’s candidate to have staying power, namely in being the only approach among the ADAR Editing and CRISPR genome editing and gene therapy candidates that can successfully treat both the lung and liver manifestations of AATD by achieving >90%-type editing levels.  As we have learned from Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals' liver AATD program (partnered with Takeda), even with near complete removal of toxic alpha-1-antitrypsin expression in the liver, prolonged treatment will likely be necessary to see a robust clinical response (phase 3 involves >3 years of dosing).

It is for this reason that I view the ADAR and genome editing approaches mainly aimed at those suffering from lung disease (which RNAi cannot address), including those with mixed phenotypes.  I will discuss clinical development landscape further in my next blog entry.

What I most like about Korro Bio, a prolific IP filer, is their mix of ADAR Editing programs encompassing genetic correction for AATD and Parkinson’s (LRRK2), anti-protein aggregation (TDP43 in ALS), modulating ion channel (NAV1.7 in pain), disrupting protein-protein interaction in alcoholic hepatitis and activating kinases.  But to extract the full value from applying RNA Editing to these attractive disease areas, Korro Bio needs to catch up on oligonucleotide chemistry and designs.

Silicon Valley Bank Failure is Warning Against More RNA Editing Start-Ups

As the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is making the rounds, let's take a step back and ponder what it means for the RNA Editing space.

SVB has been a prominent banking partner for start-ups in tech and biotech, willing to do business where traditional banks did not feel comfortable with the unique risk profiles and needs of such businesses.  Short-term, the failure means that some jobs are at risk as small companies for which SVB was the only banking partner may not be able to make this month’s payroll in time, and 10-20% of uninsured deposits above the $250k FDIC limit may be lost forever. 

SVB’s failure is a crack in the system resulting from rampant inflation and the dramatic rise of interest rates in response.  It’s quite possible that other cracks, also among the more traditional banking sector, emerge soon due to an imbalance of short-term cash demands of bank customers and banking treasuries overweighted in bonds with long maturities that can now only be sold at a loss.   

Too many biotechs!

That SVB, along with a smaller crypto-catering bank (Silvergate), is among the first victims is largely due to biotechnology’s voracious appetite for capital, but an inability to raise more of it in the current environment.  Having too many companies developing the same platforms and targeting the same diseases in parallel, especially in the gene therapy, genome editing, and immune oncology spaces, has only exacerbated the interest rate problem. 

SVB is thus symbolic for the (bio)tech excesses in recent years, culminating with the Covid19 crisis where every little idea was transformed into a start-up with $100M of funding from the get-go housed in glitzy labs and offices in the most expensive hubs, run by entitled executives more focused on ESG issues than bringing their technologies to fruition.   Contrast this to 15 years ago when little biotechs like LNP pioneer Tekmira (Protiva then) did better science, developed platforms more rapidly while fighting off larger rivals, yet spending just $3-4M a quarter.

Take CRISPR genome editing.  It seems like every new Cas enzyme, every new enzyme tethered to Cas9 doing something, anything with DNA or the epigenetics around it needs a new cash-burning start-up.  Instead of for example licensing prime editing to Beam Therapeutics, founded on more advanced base editing technology from the same academic laboratory, the movers and shakers in the VC scene sought to exploit David Liu’s star scientist status to found yet another immature biotech company many years away from a potential product and with even more inexperienced management.  To add insult to injury, this has been taken to the extreme of selling Liu’s* genius to suggest that he has solved nucleic acid delivery where thousands of humble scientists have worked over decades on similar concepts.  Enter Aera Therapeutics with- hold your breath- $193M in start-up funding.  

* correction: the scientific founder behind Aera Therapeutics is another CRISPR researcher from MIT, Feng Zhang, not David Liu.  The message, however, is the same.

Every paper a new biotech it seems. Sorry, and with all due respect to those involved: this type of behavior is unacceptable and comes across as greed and hubris.

 

Not too late for RNA Editing

One of the reasons I like ADAR RNA Editing also as an area of investment is that it is a differentiated technology platform allowing for unique therapeutic approaches and, equally important, where there has not been this hype leading to an overproliferation of companies and inefficient use of capital.

It is also not surprising that the two most advanced companies in the space, ProQR and Wave Life Sciences, are not pure-play startups.  By contrast, the refinement of editing oligonucleotides here happens within companies with a decade of experience in oligonucleotide drug development, and at least in the case of Leiden-based ProQR, at a fraction of the cost of its start-up rivals KorroBio and ADARx based in the Boston and San Diego hubs, respectively.

I am highlighting KorroBio and ADARx because they are the two most prominent start-ups around synthetic oligo-based ADAR RNA Editing that have significantly benefited from the Covid19 boom in biotech financing, but where I fail to understand what they are bringing to the table and thus the point of their existence.  For example, I wrote about my surprise at Korro Bio going with LNP delivery for liver-targeted AATD.  This most likely comes down to their inexperience in oligonucleotide chemistry.

So here is my plea to the ADAR RNA Editing industry: we do not need to repeat the mistakes made in other areas of biotechnology.  Competition, such as the rivalry between Alnylam and Sirna Therapeutics in RNAi, is a good thing as it focuses the mind, but 2 or 3 strong ADAR Editing-based pure-plays are really enough, plus some platform adoptions by larger oligonucleotide therapeutics companies like Ionis, Arrowhead, or Alnylam and disease-specific licensing activities of Big Pharma; and if there are important advances in academia relevant for the space, tech licensing the old style is appropriate.

Korro Bio Opts for LNP in Liver-Directed Lead Program

Korro Bio yesterday announced that it would collaborate with Genevant to develop liposomally formulated oligonucleotides for the ADAR editing of alpha-1-antitrypsin in the liver.

This is a big surprise for the field since based on the successes in the oligonucleotide therapeutics industry in general and data from competitors Wave Life Sciences and ProQR in particular, it would have seemed obvious to employ GalNAc-conjugated editing oligonucleotides for alpha-1 antitrypsin-related liver disease.

Korro Bio is a privately held pure-play ADAR editing company that has raised more than $200M since 2020 and is developing oligonucleotides, as opposed to DNA-directed small editing RNAs, for mediating AàI conversion.  Given this substantial funding and what appears to be the ready availability of GalNAc, it is a big mystery to me why Korro has chosen intravenously administered LNPs and in the process is giving up substantial ownership in this program through the collaboration.

Just last month, Korro Bio and scientific founder Joshua Rosenthal published a selection strategy for efficient editing oligonucleotides.  The paper (Quiroz et al, 2023) finished off with experiments illustrating the need for extensive oligonucleotide modification, reminiscent of what ProQR and Wave Life Sciences have practiced, for effective ADAR editing.

 

Learnings from RNAi

One explanation for why Korro may have favored an intravenously over a subcutanously administered technology may be potency.  In yesterday’s press release and a recent Nature Biotechnology RNA editing industry article, the company is boasting that it wants to return serum alpha-1-antitrypsin levels to within the normal range.

A lofty goal and perhaps most readily achieved without having to balance the demands of chemical modification for stabilization purposes and inherent ADAR activation potency. 

In the earlier days of RNAi, Alnylam’s LNP-formulated Patisiran actually won out over an internal GalNAc competitor that didn’t quite have the potency and was also associated with toxicity.  Patisiran has also won the commercial race against a subcutaneously administered antisense oligonucleotide by Ionis due to superior clinical data.

Clearly, depending on the stage of chemical modification know-how with regard to a specific oligonucleotide modality, LNPs may be preferable even for the targeting of genes in hepatocytes.

Maybe Korro Bio does believe it still has a potency edge over the competition, and combining its oligonucleotides with LNPs may also get them faster into the clinic.

 

The Vivek Factor  

There is no reason to believe that in AATD an LDL receptor-targeted delivery strategy may be beneficial over an ASGPR-targeted one because of changes in receptor expression levels.

I would, however, not rule out that Korro Bio succumbed to the magic of the bewilderingly fast-talking executives from the Roivant universe (Genevant is a Roivant subsidiary).  I still cannot get over the fact that Tekmira handed over half the company plus LNPs to (now US Presidential candidate) Vivek Ramaswamy for some toxic small molecules scribbled on the back of an envelope.

When you hear Vivek on the campaign trail these days and his sharp fast talk full with twisted arguments that make your head spin, then I understand why people that for whatever reason like this energetic person may throw out reason and just want to trust this guy.  But beware: while making billions for himself and his family, he has lost many more of shareholders’ money for projects like the Alzheimer’s drug that he dug out from a dumpster and IPO’d at a valuation of over a billion USD.  I digress…

 

Until we see non-human primate data from Korro Bio and Genevant, I will count this candidate out of the race in AATD.  Whether ProQR will fill the void and throw down the gauntlet to Wave Life Science will be seen by its pipeline reveal at the end of this month.

Big Pharma Investments in RNA Editing

When it comes to new platform technologies, investors generally like to see their belief validated by large pharmaceutical companies.  In addition to confirming the soundness of the scientific approach, in times when access to capital is constrained, such partnerships also provide an important financing source.

In RNA Editing, Venture Capital certainly has taken the charge (and risk) by investing close to $600M in Series As and Bs spread between Korro Bio, Shape Therapeutics, EdiGene and ADARx (the last two are not pure-plays) largely in 2020-1.  There have, however, been two notable Big Pharma deals that materialized in the second half of 2021.

 

Shape Therapeutics-Roche

In August 2021, Shape Therapeutics announced its first Big Pharma partnership.  Shape apparently has been working on the DNA-directed expression of editing RNAs harnessing endogenous ADARs, especially in the CNS.  Their favourite delivery vehicle is AAV viral delivery.

It is an interesting approach, since despite of going through the trouble of gene therapy-type delivery, they choose not to bring exogenous ADARs along for the ride.  This makes sense since overexpression of ADARs is linked to widespread off-targeting and the molecular size of ADAR may be a vector capacity issue, too.  As it would have involved essentially naturally occurring ADARs (plus/minus a few optimizing mutations), the cost in terms of immunogenicity though may have been tolerable.  This is in stark contrast to genome editing technologies like CRISPR where, because of delivery in the CNS, you would likely have to deal with the extended expression of entirely foreign proteins.

Shape and Roche will tackle a number of neuronal diseases together, likely Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and more rare indications like Rett Syndrome.  Of note, Roche has suffered a major setback in oligonucleotide-based neurodegenerative drug development when efficacy and tox issues derailed a late-stage Huntington’s disease drug candidate based on the intrathecal administration of phosphorothioate antisense molecules.  So for them opting for AAV-based expression of targeting RNAs is worth taking note of.

Rett Syndrome is a truly intriguing indication highlighting a few of the unique advantages of RNA Editing.  Rett Syndrome affects ~1 in 10-15k female births.  It is a severe, early onset neurodevelopmental disorder caused by too little MeCP2 expression due to mostly spontaneous (as opposed to inherited) mutations.  Nevertheless, persons suffering from this X-linked gene condition can still live into their 40s and 50s- with severe disabilities. There are no drugs approved specifically addressing Rett Syndrome. 

Rett Syndrome would seem like an ideal candidate for the development of gene therapy.  What makes, however, gene therapy particularly challenging in this setting is that while too little of the master epigenetic regulator that MeCP2 is gives you Rett Syndrome, too much of it is neurotoxic.  Add X chromosome inactivation mosaicism into the mix and the therapeutic window of MeCP2 expression narrows dramatically:

for each (neuronal) cell just enough to give you MeCP2 function, but not more, certainly not >2x normal MeCP2 expression.

As a technology that does not change the rate of gene transcription, RNA Editing is ideally suited for Rett Syndrome and it is estimated that 40-50% of cases can be addressed by the technology.  The downside is that in order to address all of those mutations, similar to Duchenne’s and exon skipping, a number of RNA editing molecules would have to be developed.

 

ProQR-Eli Lilly

A month following the Shape deal, ProQR announced a partnership with Eli Lilly for up to 5 targets in the liver and CNS. This was accompanied by a $20M upfront consideration and a $30M equity investment.

Unlike Shape, ProQR (pronounced ‘Procure’) is pursuing a more traditional approach to drug development in the form of synthetic oligonucleotides for A-to-I editing.  Eli Lilly has shown great commitment to RNA Therapeutics for a while now with for example two RNAi compounds licensed from Dicerna (now part of Novo Nordisk) in clinical development for two cardiometabolic indications and a recent whopping $700M investment into a Genetic Medicine research site for RNA- and DNA-based drug development.  In the CNS, Eli Lilly will be interested in applying the new platform to the usual suspects including Alzheimer’s and pain.

 

As RNA Editing is moving into the clinic (Wave Life Sciences, alpha-1-antitrypsin) and more people hear about the platform and come up with great ideas of where to apply it, but also as oligonucleotide therapeutics more and more becomes part of the mainstream pharma mindset, I expect additional Big Pharma deals to materialize soon.