First Commercializations of Systemic Therapies as Backstop for CRISPR Investors

There is widespread consternation about the disconnect between recent clinical breakthroughs and the performance of CRISPR-related stocks.  I am highly confident that this will correct by mid-2027 at the latest when NTLA-2002 should become the first systemically administered CRISPR therapeutic to be commercialized.  It will demonstrate the high demand by patients and physicians for this revolution in medicine and commercial viability.

 

KOL enthusiasm

In 2017 at the iconic Paris ATTR Amyloidosis Meeting where Alnylam unveiled the biggest clinical breakthrough in RNAi, the eyes of key opinion leader Dr Julian Gillmore (UCL) lit up when going another step forward into the future, talking about the promise of one-dose CRISPR genome editing for the disease.  This was notable since he is essentially involved in all the key clinical programs in ATTR amyloidosis irrespective of modality, including TTR stabilizers and RNAi silencing.    

I noticed similar genuine enthusiasm at last year’s ACAAI meeting from hereditary angioedema (HAE) KOL Dr Banerji (Harvard) regarding NTLA-2002 after experiencing NTLA-2002 in her own patients.  Another seeing-is-believing moment was recently voiced by Prof Patel of UCL, an investigator in the VERVE-102 PCSK9 base editing trial:

 “This is reality; it’s not science fiction. We’re actually doing it. I’ve had patients of mine in the trial receive this one-and-done treatment, and it’s going to change the face of cholesterol management going forward.”

I have yet to see a single trial investigator or KOL who has deeply thought about the implications of one-time therapies in clinical development for the above diseases and discarded them as freakish or irresponsible as people invested in competing therapies like to do.

 

Patient enthusiasm

The same holds true for patients, that is the people whose voice should have the most weight in the discussion on the risk/benefits and ethics of genome editing. 

In a patient preference survey commissioned by Verve Therapeutics, one third already stated that a one-time genome editing treatment would be more appealing to them than daily pills or injectible drugs.  I expect this number to further increase as VERVE-102 makes its way through the clinic and first patients get treated commercially (word of mouth will be tremendous). 

Similarly, HAE patients confronted with NTLA-2002 look to it with hopes of allowing them to forget about their disease and not having to worry about getting repeat-administered drugs covered by insurance in perpetuity.  Accordingly, enrolment in the phase 3 HAELO trial is extraordinarily swift as patients are lining up for NTLA-2002 according to Intellia Therapeutics.

 

But what about payors?

Besides public acceptance of CRISPR genome editing, cost for these one-time therapies is often brought up as an argument against CRISPR.  Surely, they will be prohibitively expensive.  Why for example would anybody pay $2M for ATTR-drug NTLA-2001 when you can get the RNAi alternative for just $500k annually.  Sure, some people will rent the child booster from the rental car company at $20 a day, instead of buying one from a Walmart around the corner for the same price.

If anything, it is CRISPR Therapeutics that have the pricing power in most settings, including for mass markets like cholesterol lowering (--> VERVE-102).  The vastly superior outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality projected for life-long LDL cholesterol lowering, especially when initiated early on, should more than compensate the $100k or so price tag I expect it to carry initially.  There is also a noticeable shift in the new US administration towards preventing rather than treating disease.  No better modality than genome editing for that as long as the delivery and gene target is safe.

In the words of Stanford’s genome editing scientist Matt Porteus at the 2025 Copenhagen CRISPR conference, the US insurance system is 'f*cked up', but with many eyes nowadays on how the insurance and PBM industry deals with access (see United Health) and the aforementioned inherent pricing power of (non-viral) genome editing, payors will not meaningfully stand in the way of these therapies.  Similarly, the new modality should run into open doors with Medicare and Medicaid who are most vested in the long-term outcomes of covered lives.

 

Momentum building

With NTLA-2002 likely wrapping up enrolment in Q3, we should see the first commercialization of the promising crop of systemically administered CRISPR drugs in mid-2027.  NTLA-2001 for ATTR-PN, BEAM-302 for AATD, VERVE-102 for heFH and high-risk ASCVD, and finally NTLA-2001 for ATTR-CM should follow in 2028/9.  When the sales numbers finally come in, even the longest naysaying hold-outs will have to admit defeat and CRISPR stocks should rebound.  This could be greatly catalyzed if that happens in a lower interest rate environment (Powell will be replaced in 2026).

But even before that, the steady stream of recent clinical successes (VERVE-102, urea cycle N=1 base editing, NTLA-2001 ATTR-PN data at PNS, BEAM-302 initial data) have led to increased broader interest in CRISPR with large social and traditional media accounts talking about the technology once again.  If industry validation is what you are looking for, with Regeneron and Eli Lilly having to make their respective NTLA-2001 and VERVE-102 opt-in decisions soon and share prices dangerously low, we could see ‘strategics’ stepping in.  The dam could break any day, in a positive way, for long-suffering investors.

Landmark ATTR-Polyneuropathy Data by Intellia Caps Off Momentous Week in CRISPR Therapeutics

This has been a most remarkable week in CRISPR Therapeutics as momentum continues to build. 

Bespoke therapeutic in 6 months

First, the drug development world and beyond was captivated by the story of how a baby born with life-threatening point mutations in the CPS1 gene was able to receive a bespoke base editing therapy in just 6 months by harnessing the platform potential of nucleic acid-targeted therapeutics and regulators getting out of the way (Musunuru et al 2025). 

Every pharma CEO will be asking her business development underlings about recent underinvestment in the technology when the report shows how development timelines and expenses can be slashed by a factor of 10 when everybody applies ‘common sense’.

I purposely make use of new US administration lingo, because while the CPS1 deficiency story happened under the watch of Peter Marks who was fired as CBER chief because of his involvement in Covid19 mRNA vaccines, there is every reason to believe that drug development will continue to be streamlined by cutting out time-consuming bureaucratic hurdles and applying AI-based document reviews.  Accordingly, Trump's HHS and FDA has repeatedly called for accelerated drug development based on common sense, including biological plausibility.  As further evidence of that, it is phasing out certain lengthy animal toxicology studies.

The most immediate beneficiaries of the story are nucleic acid-targeted therapeutics addressing severe, underserved diseases by harnessing proven delivery and which have a clean off-target profile.  Besides CRISPR-based therapeutics, this also includes oligo-mediated RNA editing which has exquisite on-target specificity and where Rett Syndrome could serve as a template when addressing disease populations segmented by numerous mutations.   

 

First patient treated with prime editing medicine

Though behind a paywall, STAT reported last week that the first patient had been treated with a CRISPR prime editing agent.  The timing is fitting, as prime editing, by virtue of it being able to address any small mutation, including non-transition mutations and small deletions, is the most universal iteration of CRISPR.  It is also the safest of them all with Prime Medicine claiming no detectable off-targeting for any of its development candidates.

The CPS1 urea cycle story could have been even better if they had used the safer and more effective delivery of VERVE-102 instead of VERVE-101 used by former Verve employee and co-founder Kiran Musunuru.  Also, the base editor in question had not been tested before in the clinic and was selected by comparing a number of adenine base editors in cell lines which also differed in terms of PAM sites and bystander editing.  A prime editing approach by contrast is not subject to PAM constraints as the edit can happen well within a 50 nucleotide window of a given PAM without losing much efficacy.  There is also no bystander editing to worry about.  This way, the same (proven) prime editor mRNA could be used in the same LNP formulation.

The key to quickly applying prime editing in such circumstances would be (AI/machine) learning from the growing dataset of prime editing experiments to find guide RNAs of high efficacy.

Prime Medicine has made great strides towards getting editing efficiencies up to standard Cas9 and base editing levels.  With the first patient dosed, we can expect data in support of that well before the end of the year (2 months for engraftment in the CGD setting).

 

CRISPR Therapy sets new standard in ATTR-Polyneuropathy

And as if all this was not enough, Intellia today reported 2-year data from their phase I/II study of its Cas9 CRISPR agent NTLA-2001.  Unlike prior TTR knockdown agents by Alnylam (RNAi) and Ionis (RNaseH antisense), key mNIS+7 and Norfolk quality of life measures show that after 2 years of sustained -90% TTR reductions, NTLA-2001 not only stabilizes patients, but the majority of patients improve.  In the dose expansion cohort, there was a clinically highly impactful -8.5 point improvement in mNIS+7. 

Clinically meaningful >4 point improvements were also seen in 5 out of the 6 patients that had been on an RNAi treatment (Patisiran) before.  It is also an improvement over what had been observed at the 12-month timepoint before with NTLA-2001 and sends a strong message:

A one-course treatment permanently changing genetics for the better leads to superior outcomes as the body itself becomes the healing agent. 

I look forward to seeing histology data looking at TTR deposition and whether they start to disappear as the balance shifts towards clearance.

The superior outcome may not come as a surprise when considering that with a 90% gene knockout efficacy, NTLA-2001 halves the amount of TTR being produced following therapy compared to what knockdown agents have been able to achieve.  Still, the fact that improvements seem to accelerate over time is remarkable.

Concordantly, there were no new adverse events and illustrates that acute infusion reactions and possibly transient liver damage around LNP administration is the main safety and arguably only concern of liver-directed CRISPR therapeutics.  Safety challenges arising from having to maintain a certain level of drug concentration, which may e.g. lead to low chronic inflammation and associated transcriptionopathies, do not apply to RNA-/oligo-based CRISPR therapeutics.

With this data, NTLA-2001 should own the ATTR-polyneuropathy market, not just because of its superior efficacy and safety, but also because it is a genetically defined disease and could be given earlier, perhaps even before symptoms manifest.  This would be a hard sell from a health economics point of view for drugs that need to be taken chronically for life.  In the same vein, Intellia reported just yesterday that NTLA-2001 similarly improves the lives of people with genetic ATTR-cardiomyopathy, leading to never seen before increases in the 6 minute-walk-distance measure, not with vutrisiran and not with acoramidis.

Phase 3 studies of NTLA-2001 in ATTR-PN and ATTR-CM are ongoing and should gather steam with the new data.

It is possible that together with the recent PCSK9 data by Verve Therapeutics, last week’s developments and increased signs that regulatory flexibility will continue to be applied if not greatly accelerated by the new administration could mean that the worst for CRISPR investors could be behind.