Tekmira Enters 2015 a Different Company

Today is the last official day for Chief Technology Officer Ian MacLachlan at Tekmira.   While scientifically a great loss to Tekmira, the change marks the end of Tekmira as a technology development company and the official beginning as a commercially focused clinical product development company.  From the clinical pipeline, it is TKM-HBV, Tekmira’s gene silencing candidate for the finite treatment of HBV infection, which stands out as the most important, if not existential asset to be watched in 2015.

After generation 1, 2, 3, and now even 4 SNALP LNP, and 10, 100, 1000x fold improvements in the potency and therapeutic window, the time has come to stop telling us that ‘next time will be better’ after yet another immunostimulatory setback.  In both cases (TKM-ApoB, TKM-EBOLAold), I was willing to take the bait as the company and Dr MacLachlan explained the basis for their continued confidence with scientific authority.  For TKM-EBOLA, the plausible explanation for the immunostimulation seen in the healthy volunteer study was particle heterogeneity following resuspension of the lyophilized liposomes (note: a lyophilized formulation was used in that case because Ebola may have to be used in areas with unreliable cold chains; other SNALP LNP products are provided as 'wet' formulations).

However, with the recent initiation of phase I studies of generations 3 and 4 formulation of TKM-HBV and the departure of Dr MacLachlan, the company seems comfortable with taking their last two shots at proving that SNALP LNPs can enable potent gene knockdown in the absence of transient immune suppression at comfortable safety margins and with profiles that are competitive with the emerging conjugate platforms in RNAi and RNaseH antisense.

Although a bit under the radar for the moment, the new studies with non-lyophilized 3^rd generation TKM-Ebola Guinea should be informative as to whether the lyophilization hypothesis holds water.  As these studies should likely be of shorter duration than the TKM-HBV phase I studies, the safety results from those studies should be a harbinger for the safety for at least TKM-HBVgen3, if not TKM-HBVgen4.  

The changes at the company will be welcome by some investors which might have grown tired of holding shares in a lab experiment.  On the other hand, they dampen my outlook for other liposomal delivery opportunities not only in RNAi for oncology (see today's ho-hum update on TKM-PLK1), but also in the sizzling hot fields of mRNA and CRISPR Therapeutics.

So good luck Ian and thanks for leaving the company in good order. Yours is also a great loss to the field of RNAi Therapeutics.  Hope you will come back to Nucleic Acid Therapeutics with renewed motivation.

Hello 2015

Lastly, a Happy New Year to all my readers.  2015 should be a year that will be marked by clinical RNA Therapeutics data of ever higher quality which will make it crystal clear that RNA Therapeutics has become the 3^rd major drug discovery engine of the pharmaceutical industry. 

First up: Regulus end of January/February 4mg/kg RG-101 in HCV.

Tekmira with Multi-Trigger and Parallel Development Plans

As a veteran armchair RNAi Therapeutics strategist, I am frequently frustrated at the inflexibility of companies in the face of rapidly moving competitive and drug development environments.  The worst offenders are those with management and Boards that view their positions as entitlements and could not care less about the science and acknowledge the flaws of their technology.  

Often related to this, another common violation is a failure to cut your losses on an obviously failed development program at the cost of the platform, a strategy though that sometimes works if you can find a greater fool (the ~$700M acquisition of Prosensa by Biomarin yesterday falls into that category).  

Tekmira, too, has been at risk of suffering from such inflexibility in light of an industry-wide shift from nanoparticle-based to small conjugate-based delivery.  This does not mean that nanoparticle-based delivery will not have an important role to play in the future of RNA(i) Therapeutics, but that you have to realize your relative strengths in a highly competitive space.  In addition, Tekmira has been slow to realize the shifting regulatory and payor landscape making biomarker-focused orphan drug development in genetically defined patient populations highly attractive.

Having listened to the Tekmira Analyst Day last Friday, I was therefore quite pleased that not only is Tekmira catching up by beginning to realize that it is running a business and not a scientific think tank, it can even be considered to take on a strategic leadership role in at least two regards:

1)      the adoption of multi-payload candidates thereby addressing the i.v. nanoparticle versus single molecule subQ debate and leveraging key advantages of nanoparticle technology;

2)      running trials in parallel to quickly find out which delivery chemistry platform works best in humans.

1.       Multi-targeting: a key differentiator of nanoparticle-enabled RNA(i) Therapeutics

At the Analyst Day, Tekmira re-iterated that it will put a multivalent HBV formulation into the clinic that will contain three RNAi triggers.  In addition to ensuring that most patients thus become a match for the therapy, just as the two-trigger ARC520 by Arrowhead Research had been geared towards, Tekmira also wants multi-targeting to address viral resistance of the kind it observed in the woodchuck model of HBV.  

From that perspective, the intravenously administered TKM-HBV is preferable to single molecule approaches by Alnylam and ISIS Pharmaceuticals which are both administered subcutaneously.

Tekmira does not limit multivalent RNA Therapeutics to viral applications such as in their HBV and Ebola programs, it will also apply the concept outside that space such as in its hypertriglyceridemia program where it is considering dual-targeting formulations with ApoCIII, ANGPTL3, and DGAT2 as candidate targets.  

Equally or even more intriguing, in the Q&A session it was hinted that other therapeutic strategies that the company is considering may not merely involve multiple payloads of the same type, but even payloads from different categories such as an mRNA and an RNAi trigger.  Obviously, such combinations could open up entirely new therapeutic strategies (e.g. mRNA-RNAi combos for alpha-1 antitrypsin), or maximize potency (e.g. RNAi trigger-RNaseH ASO for HBV).

Scientifically, I see no reason why single molecule technologies such as GalNAc-siRNAs should not be amenable to certain (but not all, e.g. mRNA) multivalent approaches.  Culturally, however, multi-valency takes away from the single molecule simplicity that the pharmaceutical industry apparently loves, ideally in pill form.  From a regulatory point of view, it seems to be the case that nanoparticle-encapsulated RNAi products are seen as just one drug no matter how many RNAi triggers it contains, and it remains to be seen what the regulatory thinking would be when combining multiple single RNAi triggers (I can imagine Alnylam trying to combine their HBV mRNA-targeting GalNAc-siRNA with its PD-L1 GalNAc-siRNA).

In some ways, ARC520 (which is not a nanoparticle) strongly indicates that multi-targeting is not an insurmountable challenge for the non-nanoparticle approaches, so that regulatory advantage may not exist in the future. 

Nevertheless, my prediction is that multi-targeting will be mostly practiced in the nanoparticle and not the conjugate sector of RNAi Therapeutics and nanoparticle-based companies ought to consider multi-targeting almost a Must when there is direct conjugate delivery competition.

Although Tekmira is the most visible RNAi company for multi-targeting, it should be added that multi-targeting has been the motto for US-China-based Sirnaomics from the get-go in 2007.

2.       Testing Multiple Delivery Technologies in Parallel

The RNAi Therapeutics field is both blessed and plagued by the rapid progress in refining particular delivery platforms.  Tekmira has already arrived at the 4th generation of SNALP LNPs while Alnylam is now talking about GalNAcs with standard and enhanced chemistries.  With a multitude of preclinically validated alternatives, it is often difficult to determine which one should be prioritized for human development. 

This can lead to protracted development timelines when a first formulation yields unsatisfactory results in the clinic and the payload has to be re-formulated into a new delivery chemistry.  Especially in competitive environments this can be fatal.  And even if you were somewhat satisfied with the initial results, chances are that you left a lot of money on the table by not finding out about the performance of other formulations in humans.

Needless to say, having multiple candidates for a target is not a unique challenge in the pharmaceutical industry and if money were not an issue, we would see a lot more parallel development programs.  However, RNAi and related delivery is unique as the investment can be amortized across the platform.  

Moreover, in practical terms, RNAi offers a number of opportunities to directly and accurately measure target engagement and thereby assess the impact of changing the formulation.  This is one of the reasons why the early RNAi programs targeting genes in the liver involve targets which can be found in the blood.  For other modalities (e.g. microRNA inhibition in the RNA Therapeutics field), what you measure in your blood sample or other biopsies may differ significantly from what is actually going on in the body.

For these reasons, namely to speed up time-to-market in a competitive market and to inform which delivery formulations should be used with other LNP-enabled candidates, Tekmira announced that it is about to put two formulations of TKM-HBV in the clinic that will only differ in their delivery chemistry while using the identical (3) RNAi triggers.

Tekmira investors are not seeing double: the company is becoming a modern drug developer.

Tekmira Presents Solid Pre-clinical Package for Upcoming HBV Clinical Candidate

Yesterday, Tekmira Pharmaceuticals presented the long-anticipated RNAi candidate for the treatment of HBV infection at the Annual Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Society conference (click here for the corresponding slide deck).  Accordingly, it was shown that TKM-HBV mediated solid knockdown of all HBV viral RNAs and proteins.  This included data in the challenging (and costly) mouse model carrying humanized livers (comprised of a mixture of mouse and human liver cells) competent of supporting the full HBV viral life-cycle.

In these mouse models, repeat doses of 0.3mg/kg resulted in ~90% reductions of both the critical HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) and viral DNA.  This may be an underestimate of the true potency of TKM-HBV as suggested by data targeting the human apoB gene in this model.  These suggested (although not proved) that it is much more difficult to achieve potent knockdowns of genes expressed in the human liver cells as compared to genes expressed in the neighbouring mouse cells of the same liver: around 10x the amount of RNAi trigger was required to achieve comparable knockdowns for the human ApoB gene relative to the mouse ApoB gene.

Based on these results, I expect an approx. ~85% knockdown of HBsAg in single-dose studies at doses that I conservatively expect to be very well tolerated (~0.2mg/kg).  As indicated by the recent clinical results with ALN-TTR02 and chimpanzee studies by Alnylam/Merck, both of which involved Tekmira's SNALP LNP delivery technology, these knockdown numbers are likely to improve with more prolonged repeat administration.

In case that Tekmira is able to safely dose escalate to higher dosages, say 0.5mg/kg, significantly more potent knockdowns can be expected.  One ought to, however, keep in mind that such higher doses are not necessarily supported by the clinical history of SNALP LNP which indicates that innate immune stimulations could become an issue around 0.3mg/kg. On the other hand, the otherwise conservative Tekmira management has been surprisingly optimistic as to 3rd gen SNALP LNP-enabled TKM-HBV being devoid of innate immunostimulatory activity.

Comparison with Arrowhead's ARC520

The results support the notion that Tekmira's HBV candidate will be more potent than Arrowhead's competing HBV candidate, ARC520.  However, there are many uncertainties in making such a prediction, most importantly the dose levels found to be safe and well tolerated in the clinical studies.  To wit, ARC520 is still dose-escalating and so far has exhibited a very good safety profile meaning that 90% (1log)-type knockdowns are well within reach, especially with repeat dosing.

Beyond potency, it should be noted that TKM-HBV comprises of 3 different RNAi triggers, both to cover the vast majority of viral sequence variation and to minimize the potential of breeding drug resistance.  To my surprise, such resistance mutations were observed in a woodchuck model that Tekmira conducted together with HBV powerhouse Bristol Myers Squibbs.

Oh, BMS? You can bet that should RNAi Therapeutics be able to meaningfully increase HBV cure rates from the low bar set by current standard of care (~15% with ill-tolerated immune stimulants), not only will BMS, but also the likes of Gilead be very interested to swoop in to pick up one or both of these compounds and/or companies.

An IND filing for TKM-HBV is on track for year-end 2014 with first drug administrations in early 2015.

Disclosure: I am long both TKMR and ARWR.

Arrowhead’s HBV Candidate Requires Further Dose Escalation

Today, we learned about some hard HBsAg knockdown numbers from the phase IIa Hong Kong study of ARC520 in chronically infected HBV patients.  The data relate to the first 2 cohorts in this ongoing dose escalation trial.  Accordingly, the mean HBsAg knockdown at nadir for the starting dose of 1mg/kg was 39% within a range of 22-57% (n=6) while it was 51% within a range of 46-59% for the 2mg/kg cohort (n=6).

ARC520 was given as a single dose to patients already stably on polymerase inhibitor entecavir.

It should be noted while numerically the improvement in knockdown from 1mg/kg to 2mg/kg was only 12%, this is likely the result of the apparent high variability at the lower dose level with the increased tightness of the knockdown range at 2mg/kg indicating that the RNAi mechanism is starting to be solidly engaged with the expectation of a steepening dose response going forward.

While clearly missing the company’s own guidance of a 1 log reduction at 2mg/kg, the good safety profile-no SAEs at all in the study with all AEs rated to be unrelated to ARC520- in addition to the steepening dose-response curve following 2mg/kg means that ARC520 is far from being out of the HBV knockdown race.  Still, the stock market over-reacted, punishing ARWR stock with a percent decrease that matched the reported knockdowns.

Although even I ended up willing myself into believing that a 70-80% knockdown was possible following a single ARC520 dose of 2mg/kg, revisiting the chimp study which involved 2 doses of ARC520 (first one at 2mg/kg then one at 3mg/kg), it should be noted that at the time the 3mg/kg dose was administered, the HBsAg levels had only declined by 50%...about the same as achieved in the phase IIa study.  It is thus possible that Arrowhead gave the 2^nd dose just as HBsAg levels were about to go up again, consistent with the already rebounding levels of HBV DNA and HBeAg in that study.

As a result, my expectations for the single 3mg/kg dose are now 70-75% based on the ~75-80% peak HBsAg knockdown in the chimp study following the 2mg/kg and 3mg/kg doses.  This also means that in order to reach that 1log knockdown goal the company had set for itself, 4mg/kg will most likely be needed.  Importantly, in the concurrent phase I dose-escalating study in healthy volunteers, this quite large amount of drug seemed to be well tolerated and the company is awaiting approval to adopt this dose in the Hong Kong study.

This projection is not much off the 90% knockdown achieved in the ARC-AAT program at 3mg/kg in non-human primates.  The improvement of this 2^nd DPC-based candidate about to enter the clinic is possibly explained by progress in the potency of 2-molecule DPC delivery technology.  I add this as today many were confused about what the interim phase IIa results meant for the platform and the value of the company.

Overall, as long as 4mg/kg is an acceptable dose from a tox point-of-view, ARC520 is still in the game to be first-in-class in HBV knockdown.  It would have been much worse if say a 70% knockdown had been reported, but worrisome safety signals emerged.  On the other hand, the continued need for a dose escalation would seem to delay Arrowhead’s broad-based phase IIb study plans, meaning that the competition, in particular Tekmira's TKM-HBV is coming closer.

At a market cap of ~$400M, the market has almost fully discounted the potential of ARC520 given the $150M+ in cash as well as the IND-ready, first-in-class ARC-AAT for which we can expect solid knockdowns in the clinic.  Interestingly, data for this candidate were selected for an oral presentation at AASLD while the ARC520 data will be in less prestigious poster form. Finally, should the single-molecule DPC which got me excited about the Arrowhead RNAi platform in the first place finally reach the clinic, it would necessitate an upward revision of the value of the company.

Disclosure: Long ARWR.  I sold most of my holdings at $11 and change given the underwhelming results and increasingly negative market reaction, but got back in below $6 when I considered the sell-off to be a gross over-reaction and imminent 3mg/kg data having the potential to surprise the market to the upside from now much lowered expectations.  Add to this ARC-AAT, the platform...

A Defining Month for Tekmira

As if Ebola has not showered Tekmira with enough attention, Tekmira will be front and center in the RNA Therapeutics industry in October.  It will be clinical results from two other drug candidates utilizing Tekmira’s RNAi delivery technology (TKM-PLK1 and ALN-TTR02) and pre-clinical data for TKM-HBV that will define Tekmira's trajectory as a 'normal' biotech company.  'Normal' as I have little idea how Ebola will change all this.

Accordingly, depending on the dataflow, Tekmira could finally be transformed into an established biotech company.  If there are serious disappointments, Tekmira risks being delegated to being 'the Ebola company'.

Event 1 (October 10-11): Do GI-NET patients respond to TKM-PLK1?

The first upcoming data event is the phase IIa update for TKM-PLK1 in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor (GI-NET) and adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) patients.  This one can be considered a bonus event for Tekmira as barely anybody has been paying attention to the potential of this first-generation SNALP-based product candidate.

 

Results from a  multi-dose escalating phase I study suggested a dose-dependent benefit with patients receiving 0.6mg/kg or more having an increased likelihood of showing ‘clinical benefit’ (stable disease or partial response) than those receiving less of the drug.  In particular, almost all (5/6) GI-NET and ACC patients in that trial with otherwise enrolled across a wide range of cancer types exhibited at least stable disease, with a partial response by RECIST and a 19.3% reduction in tumor size.

One aspect that I found particularly encouraging in these results was that TKM-PLK1 which involves a long-circulating form of SNALP achieved ‘several fold’ increased target tumor concentrations compared to an earlier, short-circulating SNALP product (ALN-VSP02 from Alnylam).   Unfortunately, the precise differences were not disclosed.

The factor that makes me most optimistic about a positive update (--> multiple tumor responses) at the upcoming 7^th Annual NET Conference in Nashville is that there is evidence that SNALP LNP delivery should work particularly well in the GI-NET and ACC settings.  Not only did GI-NET and ACC patients seem to perform well in the phase I study, there have historically been apparent biological effects of other nanoparticulate cancer RNAi Therapeutics in neuroendocrine tumor patients, including cases of extended stable disease with Atu027 by Silence Therapeutics.  

Moreover, the adrenal cortex, and possibly other endocrine structures, seems to be a preferred target organ (next to liver) for SNALP LNP delivery.

What makes me less excited about this program is that TKM-PLK1 is based on fairly old SNALP LNP delivery technology, and wouldn’t it be nice to see the potent PLK1 RNAi trigger being utilized in the latest delivery formulation.

Event 2 (October 13): Does ALN-TTR02 show a therapeutic benefit in TTR amyloidosis?

At the upcoming American Neurological Association’s 2014 Annual Meeting, Alnylam will present first data from its high-profile ALN-TTR02 product candidate that will look not just at target gene knockdown (expected to be in the 80% range), but also whether this translates into an apparent therapeutic benefit.

ALN-TTR02 is an RNAi Therapeutic for the treatment of the FAP form of TTR amyloidosis and uses Tekmira’s delivery technology.  As a result, Tekmira stands to financially benefit from it in the form of development milestone payments and royalties (in the low to mid single-digit percent of revenues) which may reach ~$50-100M annually for this $500M market cap company if analyst projections as to the FAP market prove correct.

The data to be presented comes from the open-label extension (OLE) of the relatively short phase II study.  In this OLE study, Alnylam will look every 6 months how patients are doing according to the mNIS+7 functional score which will then be compared to data gathered from a Natural History study of the disease. 

It is expected that 20 patients that had been rolled over from the phase II study will now have reached the first 6 month time-point.  The phase II study was too short (2 doses spaced apart 3-4 weeks) to reasonably expect an obvious therapeutic benefit from the knockdown of the disease-causing transthyretin gene.

It is important to remember that a failure to see a therapeutic improvement after 6 months with ALN-TTR02 does not necessarily reflect badly on SNALP LNP delivery technology as long as the knockdown remains in the 80% range and is well tolerated.  In that scenario, target risk and an insufficient period of knockdown may be responsible instead and this is where each RNAi Therapeutic has its unique development risk.

My prognosis is that first divergences from the Natural History will be seen if the preclinical experiences and those from other amyloidotic diseases such as AA amyoloidosis are any guide (~50% knockdown and beyond should lead to a benefit).  From a Tekmira technology point-of-view, I will pay close attention as to the safety and tolerability of longer-term dosing, which so far looks quite good.

  

                Event 3 (October 15): Coming out for TKM-HBV

Possibly the dataset with the most impact on Tekmira is the revelation of the company’s RNAi candidate for HBV infection.  Based on data revealed earlier this year by Alnylam which showed a SNALP LNP-based RNAi compound to have multi-log viral knockdown and 2 log HBsAg knockdown in the challenging chimpanzee model with moderate amounts of drug, TKM-HBV is set to become most-potent and therefore hopefully best-in-class among the knockdown approaches by Arrowhead Research (ARC520, first-mover), ISIS/GSK, and Alnylam.

To facilitate cross-comparisons, Tekmira may wish to directly compare its candidate with Arrowhead’s ARC520 for which the structural identity is known.

One aspect that I will be paying particular attention to is whether the data support dosing without transient immune suppression.  This is because I am concerned that such a regimen, especially if it involved steroid use, would not be acceptable in the HBV setting. As you may remember, the company attempted to get away without immune suppression with TKM-EBOLA in a trial in healthy volunteers, but at moderate-to-high dose levels immune stimulations were seen prompting the FDA to put that program on Clinical Hold for the volunteer population. 

Having said that, TKM-Ebola is now being used in much more fragile patients actually infected with Ebola, and anecdotally even the most stringent dosing regimens such as 7x daily appear to be tolerated here, presumably without pre-medication.

As per the last quarterly conference call, Tekmira management seemed confident that TKM-HBV would not require pre-medication.  Since such immune stimulation is thought to be highly sequence-dependent, I do not fully understand their confidence, but maybe a little bit of immune stimulation is not that bad in the Ebola setting after all.

An IND for TKM-HBV is planned by the end of the year with first dosing starting in early 2015.

Buckle up for an exciting month with Tekmira, and if all that weren’t enough, it unfortunately looks like we are still in the early innings with Ebola as being ahead of the curve is a concept foreign to the governing authorities.

Disclosure: long Tekmira.

Implications of Ebola data for Tekmira HBV Program

Like it or not, it is the HBV program that is driving the interest in Tekmira, at least in the near-term.  Therefore, the 15% sell-off in the stock yesterday following the Clinical Hold imposed by the FDA can be interpreted to be due to the uncertainty of what it means for the HBV program.

It is my working hypothesis that for the treatment of HBV via the immune reactivation pathway, the use of even transient immune suppression is to be avoided.  On the other hand, the recent Ebola clinical results by Tekmira suggest that transient immune suppression may also be desirable for 3^rd gen SNALP delivery.  As TKM-HBV is expected to utilize '3^rd gen' SNALP delivery, too, the Ebola results with immune activation seem like a bad omen.

While this cannot be ignored, there are a few reasons to believe that this might be too simplistic.

1.       Difference in dose

Although there was an apparent tendency for immune stimulation throughout the dose escalation with TKM-EBOLA, it was only at the high dose of 0.5mg/kg where a dose-limiting toxicity was observed. And according the yesterday's press release on the Clinical Hold, it is in particular cytokine elevations that were observed at 'higher doses' that are the issue.  

 Since unlike Ebola, HBV only replicates in hepatocytes, and because SNALP potency is highest in hepatocytes, the efficacious dose for HBV may be well below 0.5mg/kg with 3^rd gen formulations.  Of note, even 2nd gen SNALPs are highly effective at 0.3mg/kg based on the Tekmira-enabled ALN-TTR02 candidate now in phase III.

2.       Different sequence, different immune stimulation

It is known (e.g. Judge et al. 2005: Sequence-dependent immune stimulation of the mammalian innate immune response by synthetic siRNAs) that immune stimulation by RNAi, especially when liposomally formulated, is highly dependent on the actual sequence and modification pattern of the RNAi trigger.  Since TKM-EBOLA and TKM-HBV are different in that regard, it is well possible that while one 3^rd gen formulation is immunostimulatory, the other is not.

3.       Immunostimulatory by design/by screen

Scientifically, I was most disappointed by the Ebola immune stimulations as Tekmira made a big deal in the wake of similar observation in 2010 with TKM-ApoB that with improved, more predictive immune stimulation assays, they would now be able to screen out the immunostimulatory formulations.  In a black-and-white world you would conclude ‘obviously not!’.

In a world of shades of grey, I can imagine that TKM-EBOLA might have happened to slip through this part of the screening process.  The reason is that since Ebola infects a number of cell types besides hepatocytes (endothelial cells, phagocytes etc), the impressive efficacy of TKM-EBOLA always stood out as something quite unusual.  So while containing the spread of the virus by hitting it particularly hard in the liver might be part of the mechanism, I am quite receptive to the notion that the scientists did not mind all that much some immune stimulation when the RNAi formulation had so much efficacy.

With HBV, however, the company might be much more careful in screening out immunostimulatory potential.

I can now hear Sarepta investors yell ‘it’s an artefact’, but I would caution them that Sarepta and the morpholino field at large is proposing morpholinos with cationic appendices for infectious diseases while these are not really considered for genetic diseases.  What I don’t understand is that why a modification that is supposed to be helpful in e.g. suppressing viral gene expression should not likewise be useful for suppressing human gene expression.  So maybe the value of these modifications is in tickling the immune system?

4.       Not all 3^rd gen are created equal

In response to a questioner in the Q1 financial conference call, the CEO of Tekmira said that the definitions of the various SNALP generations is not as clean as you would like from a chemical point-of-view.  Instead, the definition largely is a reflection of the potency improvements of the formulations.  Therefore, since TKM-EBOLA has a different set of target cells than TKM-HBV, it is well possible, even expected, that the formulations will also differ in their lipid compositions.  Since lipids are an amplifier of the liposomal-RNAi immune response, differences therein could have big implications as to the immune stimulation of the various formulations.

Disclosure: I am long Tekmira and only partially heeded my own advice of stepping out of the TKM-Ebola ‘Haertetest’ (trial provided not much upside to investors).  On the other hand, Tekmira has upside potential from a number of non-Ebola programs especially HBV and mRNA delivery.  As the worst case scenario, an outright termination of TKM-EBOLA, is a real risk, it becomes more and more difficult to get the timing right ahead of the upcoming TKM-HBV data.  If, however, you don’t mind volatility and are a long-term investor, it’s another matter.  However, at least for me, Tekmira is not the stock any more to maintain a 100% position in.