Regulus Therapeutics RG-101 Continues to Have Potential in HCV Treatment Landscape

Having attended the International Liver Congress last week in Vienna, Austria, it has become clear to me that HCV is not going away soon.  Even in the US where progress towards its ‘eradication’ may be considered most advanced with about 1/5 of the known patient population treated last year alone (~250k), it will be an uphill battle to identify, treat, and pay for the millions more infected. Worse still, it is not enough to simply cure the existing pool of HCV patients, but also stop the cycle of re-infection (largely the result of injection drug use).

Treatment cost is one challenge and the current drug rationing approach leads to the counterproductive warehousing phenomenon where current medical intervention is focused on the patients with more advanced liver disease.  This is not only the hardest-to-treat population, but also allows the liver health of the previously less sick patients to deteriorate.  This obviously makes little sense also from a pharmaco-economical perspective when getting rid of HCV early on has now been shown over and over again to dramatically reduce HCV-related cirrhosis and liver cancer.

Another problem is the fractured treatment landscape that exists for the various patient populations (split up according to fibrosis/cirrhosis stage, genotype, co-morbidities, the rapidly growing concerns around drug-drug interactions, available/accessible meds etc) making it difficult for even the learned gastroenterologist to keep up with the latest developments and putting HCV treatment practically out-of-reach for the general practicioner.  

12-24 weeks remains the standard drug treatment duration with docs worrying about shorter treatment regimens being sub-optimal.  A triple regimen by Gilead after 4 weeks of treatment merely achieved a 27% SVR12 which in the DAA world is practically synonymous with a cure.  The best shot at shortening treatment duration may therefore come from Achillion with 6 week of DAAs achieving high cure rates in 'easy' patient populations.

While interferon is on the way out, it could make an at least transient comeback for the hard-to-treat genotype 3 where, in addition to cirrhosis, cure rates with the all-oral DAAs low (60-80%).

To sum it up, the liver community has expressed multiple times at ILC2015 that a short-acting pangenotypic regimen is an important goal in the development of new medications for HCV.   And if they paid attention at the oral late-breaker on Saturday, RG-101 is poised to play a critical role in filling this unmet treatment goal due to its long duration of antiviral activity following administration, regardless of genotype.

RG-101 update: more relapses, but thesis intact

The clinical investigators of Regulus Therapeutics presented a 20 week update on the phase I study in genotype 1, 3, and 4 patients with good to moderate liver health.  28 patients received study drug RG-101, 4 placebo.

At the primary endpoint on week 8 (reported in earlyFebruary), slightly more than half (15/28) of patients treated with RG-101 were below the level of quantitation (BLOQ).  According to the company, most of them were not only BLOQ, but undetectable (by sensitive PCR) at that.  This is a remarkable feat given that the GalNAc-conjugated phosphorothioate antisense molecule had been only given once.

According to the latest update, half of those patients eventually relapsed (7-8 depending on whether you count the patient that was lost to follow-up), most of them shortly after week 8.  Although the relapsers are slightly disappointing as in the short-acting DAA world undetectable virus for 8 (or better 12, SVR12) weeks following cessation of treatment is more or less equivalent to a full-blown cure.

Of course, the prognostic rules for a long-acting agent like RG-101 with a slower onset of antiviral knockdown ought to be different.  The notion that the viral rebounds were simply due to waning drug levels in the liver (and not due to viral escape mutations!), was supported by the biomarker analysis in the healthy volunteer part of the phase I study, also presented at ILC2015, where the trough in viral knockdown (~day 28) more or less coincided with maximal total cholesterol lowering as a predicted by miR-122 biology.

Of note, there was no apparent benefit of increasing the dose from 2 to 4mg/kg which was consistent with preclinical evidence that showed a declining liver/kidney drug ratio at 4mg/kg and maximal cholesterol lowering at 2mg/kg in humans.  This indicates that ASGPR receptor binding becomes saturated when too much GalNAc antisense is given at once.  The increased drug liver concentration at higher concentrations observed in earlier preclinical studies probably indicate uptake in non-productive compartments of the liver, including Kupffer and sinusoidal endothelial cells.

  

The hope is that with a second dose of RG-101 28 days after the first shot, maximal viral suppression can be maintained for at least another 4 weeks to stave off any viral comeback as seen in the single-dose study.  This is supported by both the healthy volunteer part of the study and the chimeric PXB mouse experiments presented which showed that such a second dose not only maintained drug potency, but in fact led to a step-up in efficacy.  I am therefore optimistic that with 2 doses of RG-101 monotherapy alone ~50% cure rates can be achieved in patient populations similar to that in the phase I study.

This, however, is not even the goal.  The ultimate goal would be to establish a simple pan-genotypic 4-week treatment regimen.  Accordingly, the combination of RG-101 with a DAA(s) (sandwich regimen) can be expected to result in a very, very deep viral knockdown by week 4.  At this point, a second shot of RG-101 would be administered to give the immune system another 6 weeks or so to finish off the virus.  I believe a very realistic scenario, and depending on which patient populations you are looking at a very compelling alternative to current HCV medications and those in development. 

PS: Open questions

Unfortunately, given that cholesterol lowering was still close to maximal at week 8, it would have been comforting to show a mutation analysis from the clinical study to confirm that viral relapse was not explained by the virus successfully developing resistance against RG-101.  This is such an obvious question that one wonders why Regulus did not present the data (yet). 

Another question mark around the current data set is why Regulus is not disclosing the differential effect of RG-101 on good and bad cholesterol and instead is reporting total cholesterol lowering.  The study investigator said that they are still analyzing the data from the multi-dose healthy volunteer study  (months after completing dosing???) and are planning to publish those.  I am mildly optimistic that this could unexpectedly bring to the fore the cardiovascular potential of miR-122 targeting, although in this case (à mostly chronic treatments) the liver cancer concern around miR-122 inhibition may be more valid than it is for the 2-shot HCV treatment goal. 

Time is running out for Benitec

Benitec announced today that almost 1 ½ years after filing an IND for its DNA-directed RNAi HCV candidate, it has now obtained liver biopsy data from first 3 of the 4 patients dosed so far.  Needless to say, the analysis was a resounding success confirming that the right AAV vector coding for the shRNAs against HCV was administered to the trial subjects.

Given that no details were provided on the methods, I assume that the evidence is based on PCR analysis which pretty much picks up almost any activity.

TT-034 also shined on safety with ‘no treatment-related serious adverse effects (SAEs) in any of the four patients dosed’.

To wit, the motivation behind the gene therapy ddRNAi HCV trial is to provide a one-shot cure from HCV infection.  The company, however, said that ‘the amount of shRNA produced will not result in reduction of hepatitis C viral load’.  

So while this statement almost makes it sound like they did not look for antiviral efficacy, but that there might well have been, we can safely assume that they did (standard blood test to look for HCV; plus RNA analysis from biopsies) and failed to see such.  

It is also curious that no results from PCR-based target mRNA cleavage assays were disclosed which, while still PCR, requires a certain amount of RNAi robustness to detect with confidence and would have been used to further tout trial success. 

At this point, Benitec has almost completed the first 2 of 5 planned dose cohorts.  According to my notes, the top dose is about 25x higher than dose group 2.  To get from no change in viral titer to undetectable while increasing dose by 25x seems quite optimistic to me.  And even if this highly unlikely scenario materialized, at this pace, it will be sometime in 2023-4 when it would even be considered for approval.

So please, Benitec, if you cannot see a knockdown at the next higher dose cohort, give it a rest.   

Simply Good: Regulus Therapeutics’ MicroRNA Inhibitor for HCV

Last year’s European Liver Meeting in London (EASL) was all about progress made in the treatment of HCV.  In addition to the expected buoyant mood among participants, questions were asked about a) affordability and even more so, b) the complexity of the treatment landscape. 

We have heard a lot about certain pricing pressures in the HCV space recently.  Although more and more observers are now calling an annualized $14-18B market in the US and Europe alone over the next 10 years one not worth pursuing, I happen to disagree, especially if you are talking about an $800M market cap company like Regulus Therapeutics (unlike $90-150B for Gilead and Abbvie) and the continued unmet need in this market.

Practicing physicians want simplicity

Part of the unmet need is the noted complexity of the treatment landscape.  These days, which drug and for how long you take it depends on a number of factors such as your HCV genotype and liver fibrosis score.  Based on  today’s data, RG-101, a microRNA inhibitor developed by Regulus Therapeutics may change this and simplify the life of the busy practicing physician.

Add to this the fact that some subpopulations, e.g. genotype III (~12% of the 3-4 million US HCV population) have standard of care cure rates (12 week daily Harvoni plus much-hated ribavirin) of just over 80% in clinical trials, not counting those who either do not get their prescriptions filled, nor the ~5% that get them filled, but then do not adhere to daily pill regimens. Real life, not clinical studies.

RG-101 potency paves the way for simplified regimen

Accordingly, mean viral load reductions of 4.8log were achieved following a single (!) subcutaneous administration of 4mg/kg (4.1log for 2mg/kg), making RG-101 the single most potent HCV drug ever tested.  Moreover, every subject responded, regardless of genotype and fibrosis score. 

Almost as impressive, for the 2mg/kg single dose cohort where day 84 (SVR12) data is now available, 4 out of the 14 given RG-101 were undetectable for the virus and could well turn out to be cured from just a single dose of drug.  In the same cohort, two were below the level of quantitation (BLOQ) on day 57, but rebounded thereafter.  This is hardly surprising given that liver concentrations at that time are predicted to be around 6% of the starting dose.      

Importantly, such a rebound is not the same as treatment failure due to the development of viral drug resistance.  A previous mutation analysis by miR-122 competitor Santaris (Ottosen et al. 2015) which has been developing a less potent anti-miR122 drug has shown that in Man (unlike in prolonged tissue culture experiments), no drug-resistant escape mutant to a miR-122 inhibitor is generated.  Such a high barrier to resistance can be expected from targeting a host factor rather than acting as a direct antiviral.

In cases of viral rebound, a simple second shot on day 28 or a higher dose of say 8mg/kg as I have been whining about for weeks now* would have kept the virus in check, if not eradicated it.

* Parenthetically, today’s data showed that I was right that there would likely be a further dose response from 2mg/kg to 4mg/kg with particular benefit with longer duration (see diverging curves particularly after day 22), also because in preclinical animal data, the liver concentrations increase linearly between 1mg/kg to 10mg/kg.  This is why I am surprised the company Is not talking more about the potential of 8mg/kg even though that dose was found to be safe in the healthy volunteer part of the study.

A sandwich regimen for all

The current data thus support that RG-101 could be the foundation for a universal HCV treatment regimen that looks something like that:

When a patient walks into the doc’s office to discuss his HCV treatment options, the doc convinces him that he should get treated and offers to give him the first shot of RG-101 at that visit that sits in his fridge.  This would take into account that some patients first say ‘yes’ to treatment, but then don’t get their prescriptions filled.  The doc then writes a prescription for 28 days of a potent oral DAA pill such as Harvoni and instructs him to start the pills any time within the next 14 days and asks him to come back after a month.

On that second visit, the patient will receive his second dose of RG-101, just to make sure and torch the earth for for the virus another 30+ days.  He then tells the patient to finish his pack of pills and come back in 6 months to confirm that he got rid of HCV.

Sounds simple enough to me.

Reading the Tea Leaves on Regulus Insider Sales

Revelations Friday night that the CEO (here) and CSO (here) of Regulus Therapeutics had sold sizeable amounts of Regulus stock just days ahead of an important phase I data release, initially sent shivers down my spine I could soon be ridiculed a 'bagholder' on Twitter and by Benitec shareholders.  

What confidence does it betray in the upcoming results when the CSO sells what appears to be ALL his shares in the company (worth ~$1.5M) and the CEO about a third of his holdings in his Family Trust  slightly more than a quarter of his combined position, including his Family Trust (~$710M for original position).  

Let me be clear, whether the stock goes up or down and regardless of whether these sales occurred according to a 10b5-1 insider trading plan (which can be cancelled anyway and thus makes them a farce), such shenanigans are unwarranted and officers of publicly traded companies should refrain from such actions.

Nevertheless, since I am doing nothing but wait for the results, let me indulge in providing a timeline to provide context to these sales.

October 22, 2014

Regulus reports truly stunning results where they reveal that a SINGLE dose of 2mg/kg of RG-101 was able to knock down HCV virus by over 4logs, with each patient, no matter the genotype, responding to the drug.  The company says that dosing in the next higher dose cohort, 4mg/kg, was ‘ongoing’ and results therefrom would be reported in Q1 2015.

November 5, 2014

On the Q3 2014 conference call, the company updated investors that the 4mg/kg cohort had then been fully enrolled. Maintains guidance of providing results sometime in Q1 2015.

November 12, 2014

At the Credit Suisse Healthcare Conference, the company narrowed down data release to occur in January 2015.

November 25+26, 2014

The two persons most familiar with progress with the clinical progress of RG-101, the CEO and CSO of Regulus Therapeutics, set up 10b5-1 trading plans that apparently foresaw the selling of Regulus shares last week.  IF the January 2015 data release guidance was made in good faith two weeks earlier, this means that they likely hoped to cash in after the results. Fair enough and well deserved- even if the trial is open-label and they thus likely knew where the knockdown curves were headed by that time.

December 3, 2014

A week after setting up the automated trading plans, at the Piper Jaffray Conference, the time frame for data release was widened and shifted back with ‘January-February’ which means that the sales would either occur before or after the results.

January 8, 2015

Regulus Therapeutics announces 2015 goals under their ‘Clinical Map Initiative’ according to which 4mg/kg results would be announced in ‘early February’, i.e. right after the planned share sales.

According to the above, the stock sales can be interpreted both to portend good or bad results.  One scenario is that the CEO/CSO may have originally wanted to cash in on what they knew were good upcoming results, but then lawyers became involved and said that this could draw some unwanted attention and the data release was slightly pushed back.  If the results would be good and the stock were to go up, they would look like heroes anyway and countless bonus options would come their way in perpetuity to more than compensate for the loss.

Another scenario is that they were afraid of an impending stock drop triggered by the 4mg/kg data and simply wanted to get ahead of that train wreck.  Par for the course in biotech.  But in that case, I’m wondering why they wouldn’t just sell their shares well ahead of the event to avoid the attention they now have.

Until now, Regulus Therapeutics has been a comparatively credible and fairly low-key publicly traded biotech company to the degree that until October 2014 they had not even recognized the jewel that RG-101 could become for the company.  Besides the animal pharmacokinetics-human efficacy relationship, it is one of the reasons why I am long RGLS going into the results, believing the market is yet to appreciate the full value of RG-101.  Unfortunately, the insider sales have somewhat shaken this belief and I hope management will learn from it. 

RG-101 for HCV: Give Me 8mg/kg

Last October, Regulus Therapeutics announced stunning data from an ongoing trial of anti-miR122 RG-101 for the treatment of HCV infection.  Accordingly, 6 out of 14 patients administered a single injection of 2mg/kg of the GalNAc-conjugated antisense oligonucleotide dropped to what the company referred to as ‘below the level of quantitation’ (BLOQ) by day 30 and remained there as of the update (day 57 for those treated first in the study).

*BLOQ is not the same as 'undetectable'.  It is 'undetectable' for x number of weeks that technically defines a cure.

2mg/kg data looking ever better

The more I look at the data (here for the corresponding dataset), the more intrigued I get.  For starters, the 2mg/kg was only the starting dose in the patient cohort.  Moreover, a patient that had been more recently treated and had reached only 29 day in late October seemed to be on his way to BLOQ.  In fact, after his titers had dropped to below ~1000 IU/ml, viral decline seemed to accelerate as if a threshold had been reached. 

Overall, it seemed that as long as you got below ~1000 IU/ml, the virus would not rebound (at least until day 57).  Accordingly, the 5 patients that rebounded got close (1000-10000 IU/ml), but never below the apparent threshold.  The lack of overlap between the individual knockdown curves also suggest that viral rebound is not the result of stochastic escape mutations, as is often the case in HCV, but simply due to diminishing drug concentrations.

This leaves two patients which as of the update were still slowly declining as if the threshold rule was counterbalanced by declining oligonucleotide concentrations in the liver after day 30.

In summary:

Everybody responded irrespective of genotype and starting viral titers, of these…

…6/14 BLOQ;

…3/14 undecided;

…5/14 nadir of 1000-10000 IU/ml, then rebound.

A one-shot cure?

In the current marketplace, comprising of ~12M untreated HCV patients in the top 7 pharmaceutical markets plus hundreds millions more in the rest of the world, HCV treatment success has less become a function of viral cure rates achieved in clinical trials, but more one of compliance with the pill regimens.  Therefore, a therapy which would shorten current treatment regimens (say to 4 instead of 8-12 weeks), or even involve just one or two subcutaneous administrations in the physician’s office as part of routine checkup visits, would have great pharmacoeconomic impact.

The company is currently crunching the numbers for the next higher, 4mg/kg cohort.  In general, with RNAi and antisense therapeutics, what you see with increased doses is a slight acceleration of gene knockdown (thereby shifting the knockdown curves down), and, likely of more importance in this case, extended duration of drug activity.

The latter is supported by animal, including non-human primate data that showed that liver concentrations of RG-101 increase linearly with dose from 1-10mg/kg.  This means that for the 3 undecided patients in the 2mg/kg cohort, a doubling of the drug concentration could have easily pushed them BLOQ.  

Alternatively, a second dose of 2mg/kg on day 29 would have achieved that as also supported by animal data showing that viral nadir drops further when a second dose is given (on the left is an example from the challenging chimeric mouse model).

I am less sure whether the other 5 patients would have gotten there with 4mg/kg, but would be much more sanguine about it with a dose of 8mg/kg.

A mistake not to escalate to 8mg/kg

Unfortunately, Regulus Therapeutics stated last year that based on biomarker data which measures the activity of human genes naturally regulated by miR-122, 4mg/kg would be the highest dose to be tested in HCV.  This is because the biomarker response seemed to have saturated already by 2-4mg/kg.  This despite of the fact that they had established in the same phase I study that 8mg/kg is also safe and well tolerated in non-infected healthy volunteers.

I clearly think that stopping at 4mg/kg is a mistake.  First, I highly doubt that at least in terms of duration of biomarker activity, they did not see improvements with higher doses (show me the data).  Second, it is wrong in my opinion to assume that drug saturation with regard to microRNA activity against endogenously expressed genes is a good reflection of microRNA activity in the context of viral replication.  In this case, the rationale is further in question because of the special way miR-122 acts in HCV replication (increases, not decreases activity).

Tempering expectations

As we await the 4mg/kg data and an update on the 2mg/kg cohort in ‘early February’ according to recent company guidance, I should caution that the above scenario suggesting a one-shot monotherapy cure is within reach is obviously an unbelievably exciting best-case scenario.  There is a lot which could make the market react adversely to the upcoming data.  This includes emerging side effects, and responses that could even be worse than the 2mg/kg data, e.g. if some patients do not respond at all or if the company is right in their biomarker assumptions which due to chance could make the 4mg/kg data look worse numerically. 

Therefore, my base case for market-neutral data is that all patients will have to respond, and that the extent of the response will be similar to that seen with the 2mg/kg dose.  But then again, I’m looking at the data and keep thinking to myself…’8mg/kg might be the one-shot cure that could transform HCV treatment’.  In any case, the company has little to lose from dose escalating to 8mg/kg.

Anti-MiR122 Therapeutic Stuns HCV World with Single-Dose Efficacy Results

This morning, Regulus Therapeutics greeted us with amazing results from a phase I study of RG-101, an anti-microRNA 122 oligo for the treatment of HCV infection.  The results show that in the exploratory HCV-infected patient subgroup, a single dose of 2mg/kg of RG-101 resulted in a mean viral load reduction of 4.1log on day 29.  All responded with viral declines, with 6 and 3 of the 14 patients with viral levels below the level of quantitation on days 29 and 57, respectively.   

These results even exceed my own wildest imaginations (as discussed here yesterday) and I’m amazed how much this virus, in all patients, seems to have come to rely on this host-derived microRNA for replication and/or genome stabilization.

It is not clear whether increasing the dose to 4mg/kg, the pre-planned upper dose in the HCV-infected cohort for which dosing is ongoing will bring any additional benefit given that the biomarker data (host genes targeted by miR-122) from the healthy volunteers showed a plateau already at 2mg/kg, indicating the power of this GalNAc chemistry approach.  My guess is that the main benefit from a higher dose would be a decrease in response variability.

Interestingly, IL-28 status, frequently a predictor of treatment success, did not influence the results, nor did HCV genotype seem to have an impact (small numbers).  This further supports that RG-101 could fill some of the more attractive opportunities in the current HCV market.   

Regarding safety, mild and transient injection site reactions seemed most significant with no serious adverse events in the entire study, including the healthy volunteer cohorts (up to 8mg/kg).  This is also consistent with data for Alnylam’sALN-TTRsc which uses a similar GalNAc chemistry and where multiple doses up to 10mg/kg had been tolerated, with injection site reactions, especially at 10mg/kg, being the main safety finding.   

So what’s it all worth?  The results position RG-101 to facilitate a 4-week HCV dosing regimen (compared to typically 8-12 weeks currently), potentially in combination with a single direct-acting antiviral such as Olysio by Johnson&Johnson.  One or two injections maximum.  Great compliance, potentially pan-genotypic, ideal for the busy practicing physician who does not have the time nor inclination to know the ins and outs of each DAA.

In dollar terms, I’d like to think that with this drug profile, this overlooked compound and company are worth as much as what Merck recently paid for HCV drug developer Idenix: $3.85B. The market valuation of Regulus before the news: $300M.  Needlessly to say that I'm long the stock.

PS: GSK once had rights to a precursor compound of RG-101 which it did not exercise.  Importantly, at the time, Regulus’ anti-miR122 compound was not GalNAc-enabled.  This would have necessitated much more frequent dosing and higher dosages and resulted in less potent and more protracted viral declines, i.e. something that would not have been competitive in the current HCV marketplace.  But as often the case with Big Pharma and cutting-edge technology, today’s data clearly shows them wrong.  It has to be said though that GSK more or less got out of HCV which also would have explained GSK’s decision RE anti-miR122.

PPS: Congrats to Peter Sarnow and Catherine Jopling who in 2005 made the mind-boggling discovery that HCV relies on a microRNA for its replication.  I hope they will be handsomely rewarded for it.

Predicting the Outcome of Regulus HCV microRNA Therapeutics Study

Regulus Therapeutics is on track to reveal phase I results of its anti-HCV compound by the end of the year according to a presentation at last week's OTS.  Although the phase I study is largely a healthy volunteer dose-escalating safety study, it does involve a cohort of HCV patients to assess the viral knockdown kinetics following a single dose of anti-miR122 RG-101. 

MicroRNA-122 is a small RNA host factor that had been identified to play an important role in HCV replication.  As a therapeutic target it promises a low risk of viral resistance, pan-genotypic activity, and entirely novel mechanism of action making it suitable for combination therapy.

Based on the experience with an LNA-based competitor compound by Santaris/Roche (Janssen et al. NEJM 2013), I predict a 2 to 3 log viral knockdown, with a 3 log viral knockdown setting the scene for RG-101 as a single shot in a 4-week treatment regimen in combination with other oral direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs).  If viral reductions were on the low end of my expectations, it may require 2 or 3 doses within 4 weeks for GalNAc, cET-enhanced RG-101 to facilitate such a short treatment period which is considered a necessary attribute of future treatment regimens in an increasingly competitive market.

Miravirsen comparison

Earlier studies by Regulus competitor Santaris/Roche largely form the basis for my predictions.  In particular, a phase II study of 5 weekly doses of miravirsen at 3, 5, and 7mg/kg yielded 1.2log (3mg/kg) and ~3log (5 and 7mg/kg) viral knockdowns.  Miravirsen is an LNA-based antisense compound whereas RG-101 involves the analogous high-affinity cET chemistry.  Conservatively, miravirsen has a slight (1-3x) potency advantage over RG-101 without the GalNAc conjugation when considering non-human primate and clinical AldoA and cholesterol results which reflect anti-miR122 activity.

However, the GalNAc conjugate in RG-101 is giving it a great 10-30x boost in potency, meaning that overall RG-101 should be 3-30x more potent than miravirsen.  It is because of this and considering that RG-101 is given at 2 and 4mg/kg in the phase I trial in HCV patients, that I arrive at a predicted 2-3 log HCV reduction in the phase I study.  This also makes the conservative assumption that 3log viral reductions is all that an anti-miR122 treatment strategy may achieve based on the apparent plateauing of miravirsen at 5mg/kg.  The 3 log prediction would require that a single shot of RG-101 can already achieve super-therapeutic tissue levels of the oligo.  This, however, cannot be assumed given that for non-ligand-targeted phosphorothioate antisense technology at least this would normally require a multi-dose loading schedule.

But isn’t RG-101 late to the HCV game?

It’s long been thought that it’s game over for RG-101 given the dynamics in the HCV markets.  In particular, the already approved and soon-to-be-approved all-oral DAAs which typically achieve cures in >90% of patients in 8-12 weeks in well-supervised clinical trial settings, would make newer agents like RG-101 seem outdated.  On the other hand, especially given cost pressures (~$100K per average treatment and ~4 million infected in the US alone), the uptake of the new treatments has been relatively slow with only 1-2% treated thus far (according to some of the analyst reports that I have read).  And even then, the sales have been spectacular: Sovaldi e.g. is on track to become the most successful drug launch ever being on track for more than $10 billion in sales in its first launch year!!!

It is the cost pressures (pricing per pill, not per cure) and improved adherence that make a shortened 4-week treatment period so desirable.  A single or two subcutaneous injections in the doctor’s office during routine check-ups where blood is taken anyway should add to compliance.  Holding the subcutaneous route of administration of RG-101 against the drug is therefore wrong in my opinion and the ‘all-oral’ notion, a misnomer really, has only been so attractive because the former subcutaneous standard of care, interferon, was so unpopular not because of the needle injections, but because of its side effects.

So place your bets.  I believe RG-101 has value and will not only be superior to the Santaris/Roche drug, but has pretty much caught up with it in development terms given that miravirsen has only been tested with a DAA (telaprevir) that is already long outdated.  As to the necessary Big Pharma/Biotech licensee, Johnson&Johnson tops my list.

Disclosure: Long RGLS as an RNA Therapeutics stock waiting to be re-discovered with an increasingly broad and clinical-stage pipeline and good financials.  The RG-101 results should only be the trigger for the re-discovery of this ~$300M market cap company.   

Regulus Borrows from RNAi Delivery Technologies…5 Years Late

With the gift of birth of having access to all the technology toys from parent companies Alnylam and ISIS, Regulus Therapeutics in 2007 was poised to speed into the clinic a new class of RNA Therapeutics: microRNA Therapeutics.  Today, Regulus has yet to put a single compound into clinical development.  This not only reflects the increased biological complexity of microRNAs as opposed to for example single gene knockdown approaches such as RNAi Therapeutics, it also reflects a fear of breaking with the dogma that for microRNA inhibition ‘naked’ antisense technologies should be used.

It turns out that only now, Regulus finds that in order to optimize the product profile for their lead program, anti-miR122 for the pan-genotypic treatment of HCV infection, they really ought to borrow from RNAi delivery, in this case GalNAc-conjugates from Alnylam.  With this, they will achieve more potent miR-122 inhibition as well as increase the therapeutic window through the targeted delivery.  This is opposed to saturating the target organ along with the rest of the body with ‘naked’ phosphorothioate molecules, a concept I'm struggling to get comfortable with. 

The case for such a facilitated delivery strategy is even stronger for an antiviral anti-miR candidate such as this one because hitting the virus instantly instead of only slowly reaching effective drug concentrations in the target organ reduces the risk of drug resistance.

As a result, Regulus will enter the clinic with RG-101 at a time when the first all-oral HCV therapeutics with high cure rates will have hit the market.  This is a commercial catastrophe for an otherwise scientifically sound target.

One already has to be thankful that a small organization such as Regulus is able to show such flexibility at all (I don't even want to know in which antiquated terms Big Pharma is thinking about microRNA Therapeutics).  This achievement almost makes me afraid to ask why they have not thought it through to the logical end and adopted more structured, and much more potent anti-miR structures along with these delivery technologies?  This armchair CEO would have had a SNALP/structured anti-miR strategy tested in 2008.

However, Regulus Therapeutics has a chance to redeem itself- at least partly.  As it evaluates GalNAcs and LNPs (SNALP?) for an anti-miR program in liver cancer (HCC), it could for example help the RNAi Therapeutics industry understand whether the GalNac-receptor (ASGPR) is suitable for RNAi Therapeutics candidates for the attractive liver cancer indication.  So as Tekmira has followed Arrowhead Research into HBV, maybe Arrowhead Research may want to follow Tekmira (TKM-PLK1) into HCC.

Disclosure: The idea for this blog entry came after I started to look into RGLS ahead of the AASLD meeting (Nov1-5).  I concluded that there would be a good chance that with presenting a promising profile for RG-101 at AASLD and maybe some new data for the Alport Syndrome at the Kidney Week also in early November (Nov5-10), we could see RGLS bounce back into the $9-10 range by mid-November.

Antisense Therapeutics Dressing Up with RNAi Delivery

The boundaries between RNAi Therapeutics and Antisense Therapeutics have become blurrier.  Originally, the basic practical difference between RNAi and antisense was as follows: on the one hand, RNAi is very powerful, but it requires special formulation chemistry which often is the tox-limiting factor and necessitates that the drug be administered intravenously.   On the other hand, antisense can be utilized in unformulated/naked form and be administered subcutaneously, but it is less potent and involves the accumulation of large, problematic levels of phosphorothioate molecules in a range of tissues, primarily the kidney, liver, spleen, and probably the vasulature.

   

Recently, however, some RNAi approaches have become more antisense-like in terms of patient convenience in that conjugate technologies and ‘self-delivering’ RNAi triggers that can be administered subcutaneously have advanced into the clinic.  Over the last two weeks then, two pieces of evidence emerged of the reverse trend of antisense technologies adopting delivery technologies originally developed for RNAi Therapeutics.  The is done for improved potency and could also bring critical safety advantages.

Evidence 1: ISIS and Alnylam Find SNALP Delivery to Increase RNaseH Potency by ~20-fold

In a paper by Prakash et al. in ACS Chemical Biology, scientists from ISIS Pharmaceuticals and Alnylam demonstrate significant potency enhancements for RNaseH antisense and single-strand RNAi to be gained from the use of Tekmira’s SNALP technology.  As a reminder, the two companies once collaborated on single-strand RNAi before Alnylam terminated that relationship with ISIS continuing work on the subject, so the present publication relates to historical work during their partnership, but is relevant to ISIS' continued efforts.

The study simply compared the knockdown potencies of RNase H gapmers (phosphorothioate 2’ MOE chemistry), single-strand RNAi triggers (heavily modified), and dsRNAi triggers (ssRNAi molecule as guide together with complementary unmodified passenger strand), either as unformulated oligonucleotides or when formulated with SNALP containing the DLin-KC2-DMA lipid.  This lipid, developed by Old Tekmira (see Semple et al. 2010, Nature Biotech), was a critical ingredient of the first ‘2^nd-generation’ SNALP showing significantly improved liver knockdown potency over the original DLin-DMA SNALPs. 

When targeting PTEN in mouse livers, none of the oligonucleotides alone exhibited knockdown activity at the 4.5mg/kg dose tested.  Only when increasing the dose up to 100-200mg/kg did the RNaseH gapmer and ssRNAi trigger exhibit marked knockdown.

   

In stark contrast, profound knockdowns were achieved with SNALP-formulated RNaseH gapmer and the ssRNAi trigger at the 4.5mg/kg dose.  Remarkably, for the RNaseH gapmer, the activity was obtained at liver oligonucleotide levels that did not differ much from that of the unformulated oligonucleotide (which did not exhibit PTEN knockdown).  This means that SNALPs not so much increases the delivery to the liver per se, but the functional delivery of RNaseH gapmer, possibly by liberating phosphorothioate oligos along the endosomal cellular uptake pathway.  This finding also makes it difficult to believe some reports that phosphorothioate oligos administered without special formulation accumulate in the nuclei as this is the site where they are supposed to be mostly active.  Where the non-functional oligos actually end up is an important question as this also relates to the safety of these molecules.

Overall, the study shows that formulation with RNAi delivery technologies can greatly enhance knockdown potency.  It should be added here, however, that this single-dose study somewhat underestimated the potency of RNaseH antisense as normally a loading dose schedule would be performed to reach threshold tissue levels required for knockdown activity of unformulated PS-RNaseH gapmers.

The lower dosages and more targeted delivery with RNAi delivery may also reduce the typical toxicities associated with phosphorothioate antisense.  Indeed, one may even be able to do away with the phosphorothioate modification altogether.  Of course, toxicity related to the delivery vehicle also needs to be considered, but the authors noted in their paper that SNALP was ‘well tolerated’ and that no changes in liver enzymes or in body weight loss were seen.

To further gauge the value of SNALP and RNAi delivery in general for gapmer antisense technology, a more detailed time-course analysis of the knockdown and the tissue concentrations would be useful.

Evidence 2: Regulus Therapeutics to Employ Alnylam GalNAc-Conjugation for Mir-122 HCV Program

In another example of the value of delivery technology originally developed for RNAi Therapeutics for single-strand oligonucleotide Therapeutics, Regulus Therapeutics disclosed at last week’s Needham conference that it would use Alnylam’s GalNAc conjugation for the delivery of anti-miR122 in its HCV program which is to enter clinical development in 2014.

With this, Regulus expects to achieve once-monthly-dosing with their single-stranded anti-miR at lower doses (0.3mg/kg) than the weekly LNA-based phase II compound by competitor Santaris (>1mg/kg).  Importantly, Regulus claims that HCV patients go to see their doctors to check their antiviral responses on a monthly basis anyway.  Consequently, these routine visits for patients on anti-HCV therapies could then be combined with the subcutaneous administration of the anti-miR.  This obviously would increase compliance in an era in which oral HCV meds reach high cure rates in clinical trials, but the actual cure rates in the field are significantly lower due to rate-limiting compliance issues (h/t to John Alan Tucker from Zacks Investment Research).   

Without showing the data, it remains to be seen whether and by how much GalNAc conjugation improves anti-miR potency.  The once-monthly dosing, however, indicates that once the single-stranded oligonucleotide is in the cytoplasm (where the target is), it is trapped and stays there for quite some time instead of being washed out again into the interstitial space (outside the cells) which would be the case if extracellular and cellular oligonucleotides were in dynamic equilibrium.     

It will be interesting whether the GalNAc approach will utilize the phosphorothioate backbone which ISIS Pharmaceuticals is using at all.  If not, the decision would indicate that ISIS satellite company Regulus is concerned about the safety implications of that chemistry, especially in patients where the liver is already diseased.

Santaris Reports Clinical Efficacy of Anti-miR122 Treatment for HCV

Santaris reported yesterday intriguing antiviral HCV efficacy results from an ongoing phase IIa study of miravirsen, Santaris’ LNA-based antisense inhibitor of microRNA-122 (miR-122), miravirsen, an important host factor in HCV replication. Full interim results will be presented in a late-breaking oral session at the upcoming AASLD, The Liver Meeting.

The phase IIa study investigates 3, 5, and 7mg/kg of miravirsen, given weekly to treatment-naïve HCV patients subcutaneously for 29 days. According to the abstract, with the study now in the 3^rd and last dose cohort, patients in the second, 5mg/kg cohort showed very encouraging mean reductions in viral plasma RNA levels from baseline of up to 2.5logs when miravirsen was given as a single agent compared to placebo control. 5 of the 9 miravirsen subjects had reductions of more than 2 logs (>100-fold) with viral RNA in one patient becoming undetectable 10 weeks after the dose. Although the cohorts were relatively small, 9:3 drug:placebo, almost all efficacy measurements reached statistical significance.

What was interesting is that the decline in viral titers was quite prolonged, with the biggest viral reductions being observed after treatment had finished. While having prolonged drug activity per se is positive, the gradual decline is not optimal as it increases the chance of selecting for escape mutants, a major issue in HCV treatment in general and reason why the industry is busy developing new HCV treatment options to be added to the arsenal. In fact, a recent study out of Denmark showed that it is possible to select for HCVs that do not require miR-122 for replication, at least in tissue culture systems. On the other hand, given that miravirsen is targeted at a host factor and since the miR-122-viral interaction occurs at conserved sites, it may be relatively more difficult for the virus to develop such resistance as compared to for example direct antivirals. I would expect the company to report sequencing data at the conference next month.

Irrespective of the viral escape issue, slow clinical responses may also make it somewhat more difficult to integrate miravirsen into the newly emerging treatment paradigms, one aim of which is the reduction of treatment times. Here, RNAi Therapeutics would have an obvious advantage over miravirsen by acting much more rapidly than phosphorothioate antisense oligos which rely on tissue enrichment over time. This is also supported by the data that were recently reported by SomaGenics in collaboration with Tekmira and Roche.

On the safety front, the abstract noted the absence of drug-related serious adverse events. It did, however, note that among the supposed biomarker signals for anti-122 efficacy was an elevation of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels. ALP elevations are normally considered a marker of liver injury similar to ALT/AST, so I am not really sure how why this is not considered a safety signal. We will therefore have to for the conference presentation to learn more about the safety profile of miravirsen.

Overall, with the demonstration of antiviral activity and reductions in cholesterol levels which further support functional inhibition of miR-122, the abstract marks an important milestone in the development of microRNA Therapeutics: The first unambiguous demonstration of MicroRNA Therapeutic activity in Man.

Roche AASLD RNAi Therapeutics abstracts: HCV and LNP

Roche will present at the AASLD meeting on two RNAi Therapeutics studies. Both studies involve LNP01, which I assume involves ‘lipidoid’ LNP delivery chemistry. In one study, Roche and their academic collaborators targeted a host factor believed to be involved in the development of HCV drug resistance, especially to the interferons which are at the risk of becoming replaced and, unsurprisingly, Roche would like to revive that franchise. The abstract, together with the recent SomaGenics/Tekmira revelations, further demonstrates that Roche had been quite interested in RNAi Therapeutics for HCV. It also makes me think that maybe Novartis has not picked HCV as a target under Alnylam IP which would e.g. allow Tekmira to step into the void- well, if it saw any reason to do so, maybe out of strategic considerations.

The other abstract concerned potential innate immune stimulation elicited by LNPs. Consistent with what had already been known or suspected, TLR7/8 are the major innate immune receptors and cause of LNP hepatotoxicity, and this can be alleviated by simple 2’-O-methylation as demonstrated before by Tekmira before. What was particularly nice though in this particular study was that with the use of TLR3 knockout mice, TLR3 can now essentially be excluded as a significant tox factor for LNP delivery.

Read also: Miravirsen shows efficacy in HCV chimpanzee models.

GSK Dumps Santaris, Chooses Regulus

Patents still matter. An impressive demonstration late last year by Santaris and collaborators from a primate center in Texas was not enough for GSK to exercise its option for SPC3649, Santaris’ lead microRNA therapeutics candidate directed at miR-122 for the inhibition of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (discussed on this blog here, and in a review by Mark Kay and myself here). Instead, Alnylam/ISIS-backed Regulus announced today that GSK has decided to side with them in the development of such an miR-122 antagonist for HCV. This is an amendment to an earlier inflammatory disease collaboration between Regulus and GSK with undisclosed upfront and ~$150M in potential milestones plus the usual tiered royalties on drug sales.

GSK’s decision not to exercise the Santaris option led to speculations, also on this blog, whether it is maybe the concern that miR-122 inhibition might be tumorigenic or could have other adverse effects on the liver. While one certainly ought to pay attention to such potential, the pre-clinical safety data and the expectation that any such therapeutic would not be administered chronically would have made this an unusually conservative decision.

It now appears, however, that GSK just could not ignore the fact any more that it is Regulus that got the exclusive license to the critically important miR-122/HCV Sarnow patents. The move can also be interpreted such that while LNAs are certainly an attractive approach to inhibiting microRNAs, there are alternative chemistries of similar potency. A new type of locked nucleic acid chemistry developed by ISIS that was inspired by and looks a bit like Santaris' LNAs but for a few adornments, that supposedly also make it less toxic, is one such chemistry that I could imagine Regulus-GSK to select for their IND-enabling studies. It is worth remarking that it is probably less the miR122-related Esau patent that was the swaying factor here, since as issued in the US, the Esau patent called for a fully 2’-MOE antisense molecule against miR-122…probably not a gate-keeping chemistry for microRNA antagonists.

It will be exciting to further monitor the race between Santaris (already in the clinic) and Regulus in developing a microRNA-based HCV therapeutic, including how the IP will be sorted out. In this context, I can only appeal to the players not to engage in big patent fights at this time and let the better arguments win, but outside the patent appeals courts and civil cases. To paraphrase related comments by the new CEO of Silence Therapeutics, Phil Haworth, yesterday, this is an utter waste of money and management attention. Time to wake up!

PS: Another milestone in the deepening relationship between GSK and Alnylam, and GSK’s move into innovative, high-value medicines.

Anti-miR122 Antagomir Successful in Fighting HCV in Chimpanzees

I just wanted to post this video by KENS 5 on the anti-miR122 studies in HCV-infected chimpanzees by Danish LNA company Santaris and researchers from the San Antonio Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research. The study, just published online in Science, shows surprisingly potent reduction of HCV levels (2 1/2 logs) with an miR-122 antisense inhibitor and, at least equally important, without the emergence of viral escape mutants. While this study only involved four chimpanzees and human studies are still in the early phases (phase I, healthy volunteers), these results justify hopes that such a first-in-class agent could be a valuable component of future combination therapies with increased cure-rates, shortened treatment times, and maybe without the need for current standard-of-care component ribavirin.

Curiously in light of these promising results, it appears as if GSK let an option to the Santaris compound expire. While Big Pharma may have multiple reasons why it does not want to pursue a certain compound aside from the science (e.g. the fact that HDL-cholesterol was lowered as a result of miR-122 inhibition could warrant caution), for example product portfolio considerations, one possibility is that IP concerns and GSK's relationship with Regulus were important factors: Regulus has an exclusive license to the IP surrounding the fundamental work by Jopling and Sarnow on the role of miR-122 in HCV replication. While this may be good news for Regulus, I was made aware that the broad Esau and Tuschl patent applications on microRNAs as therapeutic targets and held by Regulus are being narrowed down considerably by the patent offices.

Note: For a more detailed discussion of this paper, please read the review by Mark Kay and myself in Molecular Therapy (click here).

The Potential for AAV-mediated RNAi Therapeutics

There is good reason to believe that synthetic siRNA-mediated RNAi Therapeutics should emerge as the most commonly used form of RNAi Therapeutics. Nevertheless, DNA-directed RNAi Therapeutics also has a number of potential uses where it should not only be competitive with, but even superior to synthetic RNAi. Unfortunately, the commercial development of DNA-directed RNAi Therapeutics has been somewhat hampered due to litigation and other management issues as well as funding problems that all things “gene therapies” face. In an effort to dispel some of the myths surrounding DNA-directed RNAi Therapeutics and since I’m somewhat familiar with particularly AAV-mediated DNA-directed RNAi, I would like to take the opportunity here to briefly highlight some of the potential applications for this particular technology.

DNA-directed RNAi can either by delivered by non-viral or viral means. For the most part, current systemic non-viral delivery technologies for DNA vectors that need to get into the nucleus for functional activity may not be adequate as a result of their inability to transfect sufficient cell numbers as well as support long-term expression. By contrast, viral vectors, particularly AAV and lentivirus, are capable of very efficiently and stably transducing many cell types. In fact, in vivo potencies are often greater than with most current synthetic RNAi methods with essentially knock-out phenotypes in the liver and eye observed for months and years using self-complementary AAV8 vectors in work reported by the laboratory I work in and collaborators to name just one example.

Before focusing more on AAV with which I am most familiar with (learning by osmosis), lentivirally delivered RNAi has much potential for disease of the CNS, largely for the same reasons as outlined for AAV below, and in combination with cell therapeutics. The latter would involve the ex vivo transduction of lentiviral RNAi constructs for example into stem cells similar to the ongoing phase I HIV-RNAi trial by the City of Hope and sponsored by Benitec, or also to enhance dendritic cell cancer vaccine strategies. Many of these applications take advantage the stable integration of lentiviral vectors into the host genome such that the vector and its expression/knock down will be maintained even in dividing tissues.

By contrast, due to its largely episomal nature, AAV gets rapidly during cell division thus limiting their applicability for cancer therapy or in other situations that involve cell division (regenerating liver, stem cell differentiation etc). Moreover, in certain settings humoral and T-cell mediated immune responses against AAV viral proteins present another challenge for achieving persistent gene silencing (the transduced cell may be recognized by the immune system and be eliminated) and where repeat-administration is desirable (due to neutralizing antibodies generated following the first administration).

For these reasons, AAV RNAi appears most promising for diseases of the eye and CNS as immuno-privileged sites. Although infusion pumps may address some of the challenges of allowing for long-term intracranial gene silencing by synthetic means, due to the ability to mediated sustained gene silencing for 6-12 months if not several years as suggested by canine AAV studies for hemophilia, the prospect of maybe having to subject a patient only once or very few times to an invasive operation makes AAV and lentivirus attractive alternatives for diseases such as Huntington’s Disease and other neurodegenerative disorders.

Not coincidentally, Targeted Genetics and the University of Iowa are currently pursuing an AAV RNAi program (pre-clinical stage) for Huntingon’s Disease that has shown promise. A critical factor for the success of this program should be the design of the shRNA expression cassette, and I personally would feel more comfortable with an H1 promoter-driven instead of a U6 promoter-driven construct that has been the front-runner so far. Another interesting application may be for the treatment of PML viral infection. Biogen Idec and Alnylam have been working on an siRNA-mediated approach, but due to serious nature of JC virus reactivation during PML, rapid onset of gene silencing by self-complementary AAV RNAi and the efficient vector delivery achieved for a number of neuronal cell types, AAV-mediated RNAi warrants consideration for this devastating disease.

Suitable non-CNS applications for AAV ddRNAi candidate may be instances where a single administration may already be therapeutic without the need for sustained gene silencing and repeat administration. HCV infection of the liver may be one such case as it is now possible to essentially transduce every liver cell, at least in mice, and effect long-term silencing after a single administration. AAV-medicated RNAi could therefore be an important component of combination therapies for patients that do not respond to current therapies and could also quite easily be tailored to the different HCV genotypes. Pfizer just recently acquired co-development rights for the pre-clinical stage AAV RNAi program for HCV from the Benitec spin-off Tacere.

AAV gene therapy is relatively new, but it is making rapid progress. Two independent phase I/II AAV gene therapy trial for Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis caused by RPE65 deficiency, a condition that leads to blindness later in life, demonstrated clear improvement in vision and treating children early on promises to even cure the disease. One of the studies was conducted by an academic group in London and was sponsored by Targeted Genetics, the other by a group from the University of Pennsylvania.

It is not clear whether an immune reaction that eliminated transduced liver cells in a hemophilia trial was specific for the AAV 2 serotype used, as most of us will have been exposed to this type of AAV during childhood and may therefore harbor some immune memory for it. A number of strategies have been proposed to minimize the risk of immune recognition in future trials, for example transient immune suppression or the use of alternative serotypes. The search for and development of alternative AAV serotypes is truly exploding and is rapidly yielding new AAV vectors with various tissue tropisms and immune properties.

The less AAV that needs to be administered the better also from an immune point of view. Very promising in that regard is the finding that the self-complementary AAVs which by-pass the rate-limiting second-strand synthesis step during the establishment of gene expression much more efficiently and functionally transduce target cells than conventional single-stranded AAV vectors. While this halves the vector capacity to less than 2kb, a size that is not very practical for expressing many protein-encoding genes, this does not matter at all in the context of small hairpin expression cassettes and appears to be just made for AAV RNAi. Actually, it was this property of self-complementary AAV vectors that was one of the main reasons for me to come to Stanford to conduct post-doctoral research. A patent for this possibly critically enabling technology has been issued to Targeted Genetics.

RNAi Therapeutics Portfolio Review: Increasing Position of Targeted Genetics

The technology is certainly there to be harnessed for therapy, but the development of AAV RNAi Therapeutics is not trivial and is a collaborative effort that requires careful gene target selection, safe and potent hairpin vectors, thoughtful clinical trial designs, and the manufacture of large amounts of high-quality AAV particles. Nevertheless, with the right team and some luck, it should possible to do.

It has both amazed and scared me to learn in a vivid report by RNAiNews that DNA-directed RNAi company Nucleonics whose lead program was a very long-shot (to put it mildly) RNAi program for HBV, was close to raising $25M in a series C round that would have included a venture capital arm from Johnson & Johnson. How that was even a remote possibility given the odds for that particular HBV RNAi program and the uncertain IP of that company is a mystery to me and makes the ~$13M market cap of Targeted Genetics’ look very cheap by comparison.

For this reason and given the promise of AAV-mediated RNAi Therapeutics in general, Targeted Genetics’ AAV gene therapy know-how and IP, including IP directly related to RNAi -especially the one for the double-stranded AAV and apparently another one for the expression of non-coding RNAs- I will add $680 worth of TGEN to the RNAi Therapeutics model portfolio and will pay for this with the sale of some stock in ISIS Pharmaceutcals (-$280), Oxford Biomedica (-$200), Silence Therapeutics (-$100) and Rosetta Genomics (-$100).

Remember, an investment in Targeted Genetics is highly speculative, its balance sheet somewhat ugly which is made worse by current market conditions which make it almost impossible to raise small biotech capital on reasonable terms. This investment thesis therefore is that Targeted Genetics will be able to win the race against the clock by being an attractive partner for other drug companies interested in RNAi Therapeutics with the resulting license fees and development milestones helping the company through the hard times. Maybe Genzyme with its considerable AAV gene therapy efforts and orphan disease management expertise or Biogen Idec with its long-standing ties to Targeted and interest in PML will bite.

Disclosure: The lab that I work in has an interest in AAV-mediated RNAi Therapeutics. The author has also been accumulating shares in Targeted Genetics between $0.58 and $0.72. The stock is not suitable for most due to adverse market conditions and the precarious balance sheet of the company. The thin trading volume of the stock causes volatilities in share price, usually to the downside, and there is a real chance that the stock will be de-listed from the Nasdaq exchange which will make this little company even more opaque to investors. On the other hand, conditions will improve at some point and in an environment where venture capital exits have become increasingly difficult and considering the attractive relative valuation and maturity of the company and technology, Targeted Genetics may represent an interesting, somewhat more liquid piece of RNAi Therapeutics real estate for investors otherwise specializing in private start-up companies.

Santaris Initiates First Clinical Trial for a MicroRNA Therapeutic

Another notable milestone has been reached in the history of small RNA-based therapeutics. Yesterday, Santaris announced that it had commenced a clinical trial for SPC3649, an LNA-based antisense molecule against miR-122 for the treatment of Hepatitis C. The phase I trial will be a double-blind, randomized dose-escalation study involving 48 healthy male volunteers.

MiR-122 has been shown to facilitate HCV replication as well as to have a role in cholesterol synthesis. Because of these potential applications and its expression in the liver, the tissue that can be best addressed with today’s systemic delivery technologies for nucleic acid-based therapeutics, miR-122 has become the favorite target for first generation microRNA-based development programs.

Santaris has made rapid progress and appears to be leading anti-miR-122 efforts, at least based on the published literature, with most prominently a recent Nature study demonstrating miR-122 antagonism in non-human primates, but also a nice transcriptomic study looking at changes in gene expression following miR-122 inhibition in mice. Santaris is using so-called LNA-“mixmers” which consist of a combination of interspersed DNA and LNA nucleotides and a phosphorothioate backbone and appear to act by sequestering the microRNA in the cytoplasm.

In mice, this LNA-antimiR-122 was quite a bit more potent than a competing technology developed originally by Alnylam and now owned by Regulus Therapeutics (‘antagomirs’) which were thought to induce the degradation of miR-122, possibly by RNase H. While these differences may also relate to the tissue concentrations and tightness of hybridization achieved by the various chemistries, my impression is that sequestration rather than RNaseH is the more promising approach to antagonizing microRNAs while for mRNA inhibition by antisense the opposite may be the case (e.g. morpholino versus gapmers). Moreover, the exact mechanism of action of the antagomir is still somewhat controversial, and I am curious to learn about the potency of antagomirs in vivo when formulated into SNALP-like particles.

A remarkable aspect of the LNA-antimiR-122 studies in non-human primates was the long duration of activity, up to 100 days after 3 loading doses of the antisense as judged by the lowering of plasma cholesterol. However, at this time point, the shift in the Northern blots which was taken to directly reflect microRNA sequestration, was not observed at this point. This could either mean that the Northern blot shift may represent an experimental artifact due to hybridization of antisense to miR-122 following sample preparation, and/or that the cholesterol lowering had persisted after LNA-antimiR-122 has ceased to sequester miR-122.

Of course, while the speedy technological progress is encouraging, there are a number of risks associated with this program. One is that it is unclear whether successfully inhibiting miR-122 in a chronic hepatitis C infection in man will have a meaningful effecgt on HCV burden. Compared to targets in RNAi Therapeutics trials, little is known about the actual role of miR-122 in HCV replication. Unlike in tissue culture liver cell lines which generally express less miR-122, miR-122 is a very abundant microRNA in the liver and may not be as rate limiting for HCV repliation in vivo. The argument, however, that this drug candidate lacks in vivo validation could be applied to a range of other HCV therapeutic programs, some of which have proven to be successful. The development of more convenient animal models for HCV infection over the next 5 years should change this and benefit not only the development of miR-122-based HCV therapeutics, but particularly RNAi-based HCV antivirals.

The Nature studies have also shown that anti-miR-122 may have limited utility for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia as its inhibition downregulated the “good cholesterol” even more than it did the “bad cholesterol”. On the other hand, given its abundance in the liver, it is likely that other indications for miR-122 antagonism will emerge and for which the Santaris phase I trial could be leveraged.

As far as the business strategy is concerned, maybe Santaris ought to solve the IP issues surrounding miR-122 for HCV once they initiate HCV-specific studies, as related IP fundamental to such an application has been exclusively licensed to Regulus and may thus limit the partnership value of this promising program.

Journal Club: A commonly used treatment for HCV, Interferon Beta, may largely act through microRNAs

While on vacation, an interesting study on the effect of interferon beta on microRNA levels was published in the journal Nature (Pedersen et al.: Interferon modulation of cellular microRNAs as an antiviral mechanism. Nature doi:10.1038/nature06205).

In this study, Pedersen and colleagues were initially interested in whether interferons had the potential to modulate cellular microRNA levels. Not very surprisingly, this potent class of cytokines up- and downregulated a number of microRNAs. Strikingly, however, eight of the interferon beta-induced microRNAs had microRNA seed complementarities with an HCV genome. Moreover, miR-122, a microRNA that has now been shown by a number of laboratories now to facilitate HCV replication, was downregulated by interferon beta.

The link between HCV and interferon-regulated microRNAs is intriguing, since interferon beta is at the center of current HCV treatment regimens. In order to test whether the antiviral activity of interferon beta on HCV replication was indeed mediated by microRNA regulation, the authors asked whether interferon beta could still inhibit HCV replication in the presence of mimics of the upregulated and HCV matching microRNAs and an inhibitor of miR-122. In agreement with the notion that interferon-regulated microRNAs mediate a large part of interferon beta inhibition of HCV, such a mixture of small RNAs alleviated interferon beta inhibition of HCV replication from 90% to around 50% of untreated control in a tissue culture system.

HCV has a long-standing tradition in the RNAi Therapeutics field. As such, a number of drug candidates are expected to enter the clinic in the near future that directly target the HCV genome by RNAi. In addition, since HCV replication is supported by miR-122, it has become the focus of the first wave of microRNA-targeting therapeutic programs. Due to the ability of viruses to escape drug inhibition through mutation, a combination of these approaches appears promising. As much as no other current HCV antiviral alone can reliably get rid of HCV altogether, I do not expect any RNAi-related stand-alone therapy for HCV to be successful. However, when combined with potent agents such as Vertex Pharmaceutical’s late-stage protease inhibitor VX-950, RNAi may be able to further knock down HCV sufficiently so that it can be entirely cleared by the body. Moreover, many patients do not complete interferon therapy due to its severe side-effect profile, and alternatives are desirable. The strategy proposed in the paper may therefore lead to a treatment that works through the same antiviral pathway as interferon beta, but without the side-effects.

Lastly, I would like to briefly comment on the evolutionary aspects of the studies. It is very unlikely, given the rapid evolution of viruses alone, that the sequence of the implicated microRNAs was shaped due to selection based on HCV inhibition. Accordingly, the authors find that the sites complementary to the microRNA seeds are not all conserved in the different HCV genotypes (note: whether this is related to the varying efficacy of interferon beta on different genotypes in the clinic was not discussed). It is only through comparing the modulated microRNAs with a lot of viruses that they found the link with HCV. It is therefore fortuitous that interferon-modulated microRNAs should have anti-HCV activities. Of note, this is similar to a paper published 2 years ago in the journal Science (Lecellier et al.: A cellular microRNA mediates antiviral defense in human cells. Science 308: 557) which showed for the first time that a cellular microRNA may restrict the replication of a mammalian virus through good fortune.