Wave Life Sciences Sets 30% RNA Editing Bar for AATD

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

30% RNA editing for 200mg biweekly

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

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

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

 BEAM-302 appears to check it all

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

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

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

An Explanation for the Disconnect between Z-AAT Editing Efficiency and Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Output

The commonly stated goal of alpha-1 antitrypsin editing approaches in addressing AATD is to achieve 50% editing of the mutant Z-allele.  This is based on human genetics showing that MZ heterozygotes have a much reduced risk of developing liver and lung disease.  

It therefore baffled me that Beam Therapeutics reported a year ago serum AAT levels of only ~12.4uM at day 28 despite having achieved 75-85% ZàM conversion with a 60mg dose of BEAM-302.  This compares to ~15-19uM concentrations seen in MZ heterozygotes, that is people who have just 50% of their AAT alleles in the M state.  

Back of the napkin math would have predicted ~22-30uM AAT levels with 75% M alleles if there was a corresponding relationship between the fraction of M alleles and AAT output.

Beam Therapeutics now reports improved serum AAT levels

This week, Beam Therapeutics reported that one additional year into the clinical trial, mean serum AAT levels in the 60mg cohort have increased to 16.1uM.  This includes an additional 3 patients over the 2025 data cut who had higher baseline AAT levels compared to the initial cohort of n=3.  Curiously, the company did not show how serum AAT changed over time, and now I think they did so on purpose because they did not want to steal the thunder from a future conference presentation.

Z-AAT relief effect following genetic correction takes time

ZZ homozygotes carry a high risk of developing liver fibrosis and ultimately liver failure in their lifetime because of the accumulation of Z-AAT aggregates in hepatocytes and resultant cell stress.  Consequently, less AAT gets out into circulation.  Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals and Takeda are addressing the liver disease aspect of AATD by Z-AAT RNAi knockdown with fazirsiran and are now running an unexpectedly long 4 year study after initial findings indicated slower than expected clearance of AAT aggregates and subsequent amelioration of fibrosis.

It therefore is plausible that the reason why serum AAT level undershoot following BEAM-302 treatment compared to genetic expectations is due to some lag in normalizing AAT output in subjects where Z-AAT had caused stress to the liver for decades of life already.  The increase from the mean 12.4uM reported last year to now 16.1uM could be a reflection of hepatocytes clearing the aggregates to relief endoplasmic reticulum stress and grease the AAT export machinery.  

Alternatively, you would have to explain why the inferred mean for the last 3 subjects comes out at 19.8uM versus the 12.4uM for the first 3 subjects.  Of course, you could try and explain some of it with the differences in baseline AAT output (which actually could also reflect Z-AAT-related liver stress), or time-dependent AAT increases as a result of a competitive growth advantage of corrected hepatocytes, or differences in the way serum AAT was measured last year and this year (turbidimetry vs LC-MS), but none of them explain both the serum concentration undershoot versus genotype expectation and the apparent increase over time.

Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised as more data from the BEAM-302 program emerges.  Also be wary of out-of-context data from investigator-initiated trials of obscure genome editing compounds like the YOLT-202 copycat.