Ocular Applications Back in the Focus of Oligonucleotide Therapeutics

Following yesterday's disclosure that yet another one of GSK’s target picks for clinical development under their antisense options agreement with ISIS Pharmaceuticals is an ocular one, I thought it worth highlighting that ocular applications are regaining traction in oligonucleotide therapeutics in general.  This follows a temporary lull in the area due to setbacks with older generations of the technologies and funding issues for the industry.

Aptamers still in the lead

It may surprise you, but the eye is the one area in oligonucleotide therapeutics where aptamers, nucleic acids binding protein targets based on their shape not sequence (similar to antibodies), are most advanced.  Despite of the fact that the first approved aptamer, Macugen, is considered a great disappointment as it lost out to the monoclonal antibody competition in the VEGF market for wet AMD and DME, there are at least two new development candidates that are poised to become blockbusters in the same market: Fovista by Ophthotech targeting PDGF which has shown unprecedented activity in a phase II study in combination with anti-VEGF antibody Lucentis, and an earlier-stage, but potentially superior VEGF/PDGF bispecific aptamer approach by privately held SomaLogic.

It is now thought that the Macugen failure was due to it not targeting the relevant VEGF isoforms.  In other words, it was a failure of target selection/biological insight, not a failure of the technology.  Aptamers should work well for trapping extracellular proteins for ocular applications, because unlike their often rapid elimination following systemic administration, they can be maintained at elevated concentrations in the eye for sustained periods of time.  Their limitation, however, is in the number of targets available to them, similar to monoclonal antibodies.  Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that with even just 2 or 3 commercial successes in a therapeutic area, a platform technology can be considered tremendously valuable there.

Gene-regulatory oligos catching up

Although ocular drug development has also been popular in both the antisense and especially RNAi fields, previous technology generations were inadequate to effect robust gene modulation, especially target gene knockdown.  This holds true for 1^st (à Vitravene) and 2^nd generation (cRaf inhibitor by iCo Therapeutics) antisense and the ‘naked’ RNAi trigger folly of the early days of RNAi Therapeutics (à Acuity Pharmaceuticals, Sylentis, Quark, and Sirna/Allergan to name just some of the worst offenders of sound science).

The reason why antisense and RNAi are both staging a comeback in ophthalmology is due to the use of higher affinity chemistries (e.g. cET by ISIS) and self-delivering RNAi triggers, both in the form of (partially) double-stranded (e.g. sd-rxRNAs by RXi Pharmaceuticals) and single-stranded RNAi triggers (à ISIS Pharmaceuticals).  The increased stability and lipophilicity combined with small molecular size should allow such an RNAi approach to efficiently penetrate the vitreous of the eye following needle injection and reach deep into the retina and other ocular structures.  Similarly, what used to be a mediocre 40% knockdown for ASOs could now be a genetically much more useful 70-80% knockdown with gen2.5 RNaseH.

It is too early to tell whether RNaseH gen2.5, ssRNAi, or sdrxRNAs will win out in the end.  At least in terms of timing, it will be as much a matter of investing in the technologies as it is about their potential.  In particular, I am disappointed by the failure of RXi Pharmaceuticals to recognize the need to further develop their sd-rxRNA chemistry.

So keep your eyes peeled as clinical results from the new wave of gene-modulating Oligo Therapeutics will start to emerge in 2016 and beyond.  It is possible that QPI-1007 by Quark Pharma for ocular neuroprotection for NAION may be earlier than that, although the chemical nature of this ‘2^nd generation’ non-AtuRNAi trigger remains unclear to me and therefore might be, or might not be a 'self-delivering' RNAi trigger.  If not this one, the upcoming clinical development of CTGF-targeting RXI-109 for retinal scarring by RXi Pharmaceuticals should be an interesting one to follow.

Big Pharma and RNAi Therapeutics: In-house Platform Development is ‘Out’, External Product-specific Deals are ‘In’

As if to add insult to injury, a few month after Roche exiting RNAi Therapeutics, plans emerged that Pfizer is about to shut down internal oligonucleotide therapeutics development efforts. This is depressing news for sure to me, and I would assume the wider RNAi Therapeutics community. But then again maybe not that surprising, and it would shock me no more to see Last-Man-Standing Merck shut down as well if the Tuschl trial goes against them.

Just as Big Pharma jumped onto the RNAi Therapeutics bandwagon 3-5 years ago, seemingly believing that all you need to do is to inject an siRNA into the blood and all those multi-billion dollar patent expiration woes will go away, the Big Pharma herd is now running for the exits. If you study this quarter’s financial results by Pfizer and Merck, you’ll know that there is little or no room for developing a new technology platform. Rather, it is about rescuing the top-line through Mega-Mergers with the few stilll growing large pharmaceutical companies, phase III, launch, and emerging markets, and managing the bottom-line by cutting in-house R&D. We’ve all heard it, again and again.

In essence, it is an acknowledgment that Big Pharma has failed as an innovation engine and R&D is no more a place to hide from responsibility in Big Pharma. The industry has decided that internal efforts that just serve as evaluation units of external technologies (e.g. delivery) without spearheading cutting-edge R&D themselves are not an efficient use of capital. Instead, if a therapeutic business unit was interested in a specific RNAi Therapeutics candidate, they can deal with the external company directly without the need for an in-house middleman. In fact, Pfizer has already pursued this alternative pathway as they have partnered the ddRNAi program for HCV with Tacere and a synthetic siRNA candidate from Quark for wet AMD. In both cases, there seemed to have been little involvement by Pfizer’s in-house oligonucleotide therapeutics unit.

This is not a criticism of the individuals themselves that have been part of those platform development units, but more one of an organizational nature. The more I learn about Big Pharma, the more I am struck by how little co-ordination there is within these sprawling organizations. For example, a group in one part of the world may utilize RNAi for target discovery and validation, but may not be fully aware of the technologies available from units elsewhere which work on the therapeutic aspects of RNAi.

It is, however, also a criticism of the arrogance of some organizations that innovation will happen if only you throw money at it. More than $500M by Roche, more than $200M by Pfizer, and more than $1.5B by Merck, and little to show in terms of delivery progress compared to a company like Tekmira with much more limited means. What is frustrating is that often money is spent on trying to replicate what already exists, such as LNP delivery, instead of admitting that innovation can’t be manufactured and if you really want to bring it in-house, then it is by buying it where it emerges, wherever in the world.

Almost on cue, the same day that Pfizer’s plans emerged, Marina Biotech announced a product-specific development deal with Swiss drug licensing and development company Debiopharm. This deal covers a pre-clinical stage RNAi Therapeutics program for bladder cancer (via topical LNP-siRNA administration) where much of the early development work will stay with Marina, but which will all be funded by Debiopharm, with potential downstream development milestones and royalties for Marina Biotech. Given the circumstances, severe cash crunch I would think, it is a good deal for Marina given the early stage of the program (pre-clinical). And who knows, maybe some of the work by Marina Biotech and Tekmira with Pfizer will similarly result in product-specific development deals with Pfizer therapeutic area units if results obtained thus far have been promising.

The Pfizer news is definitely not good for building investor confidence in RNAi Therapeutics, but long term it may just mean that companies with already viable clinical technologies will succeed as it will allow them to efficiently churn out and monetize high-quality development candidates, somewhat akin to what Quark’s and ISIS’ business models have been until now. That’s not to say that this is ideal for RNAi therapeutic technology development, but with maybe the exception of Alnylam, most companies won’t have many other choices.

Note: I am currently planning to resume more regular blogging as clinical results come in. Only these will be able to turn around sentiment for RNAi Therapeutics in a lasting manner.

The Race to Knocking Down Cardiovascular Disease

Given the burden of cardiovascular disease in the Western world representing a multibillion dollar drug market, finding a drug to complement statins in reducing complications due to high levels of bad cholesterol is naturally high on the priority list of many drug developers. The recent OTS Meeting and a Press Release by Alnylam emphasising their leadership by having obtained first-ever data on safely and effectively knocking down PCSK9 with RNAi in non-human primates, illustrate home the promise of RNA-based therapies for CVD. The interest is largely rooted in the fact that targets such as PCSK9, ApoB100, and potentially microRNA-122, well known determinants of blood cholesterol levels, but which have proven impossible to target by traditional small molecule approaches. Moreover, these targets are expressed in the liver, and it is clear by now that current systemic oligo delivery technologies allow them to be knocked down in vivo. Hence, the race is on to who will be first to develop a safe and efficacious oligonucleotide-based therapy for hypercholesterolemia and stand to reap the benefits of a potential blockbuster in the first phase of RNA-based drugs.

Assuming that it is a safe bet that cholesterol levels can be reduced with oligo-based strategies, what will determine regulatory success? Given that low cholesterol is a life-long effort, any drug taken over a long period of time, even before disease onset, will have to be safe first of all. Risk can be largely grouped into four categories: target risk, risks inherent to the therapeutic platform, sequence risk, and risks associated with route of delivery and drug formulation. Arguably the target best validated on the grounds of human genetics is PCSK9, a protease that degrades LDL-receptors and therefore inhibits clearance of bad cholesterol from circulation. Research mostly from the University of Texas Southwestern has shown that mutations that increase the activity of PCSK9 increase cholesterol levels, whereas individuals with nonsense mutations in PCSK9 that reduce PCSK9 activity have lower cholesterol levels and, importantly, a much reduced risk for cardiovascular events. Moreover, the absence of any functional PCSK9 throughout life has no obvious adverse side-effect while retaining the health benefits of low cholesterol.

Before PCSK9 came to the fore, ApoB100, a protein required for the assembly of LDL-cholesterol, used to be the target of choice. Indeed, the development of PCSK9-based treatment strategies have extensively made use of ApoB100 as a marker protein for evaluating RNAi delivery and knockdown in the liver. Pioneering research mostly by ISIS Pharmaceuticals has shown that indeed ApoB100 knockdown has the ability to lower LDL-cholesterol. Although ISIS has not seen fatty liver in clinical trials and preclinical research of their lead antisense compound ISIS 301012 (currently in late phase II) to be a problem, various other groups have observed this side-effect following ApoB100 knockdown, which would not be that surprising given the role of ApoB100 in fat metabolism. However, even if fatty liver will be observed in larger phase III trials and post-approval, ISIS has made the right decision to test 301012 first for patient populations most at risk for CVD.

Similar to ApoB100 and PCSK9, inhibition of microRNA-122 by antisense technologies has been now shown numerous times to also have LDL-cholesterol lowering effects. Strangely, despite the fact that this is by far the most abundant microRNA in the liver, no obvious toxicities have been associated with miR-122 inhibition. Consequently, a number of groups such as Regulus and Santaris hope to develop this into a treatment for hypercholesterolemia.

Taken together, my bet is on PCSK9 knockdown to lead the way in oligo-based therapies for the long-term treatment of hypercholesterolemia. New targets, however, should emerge, partly as a result of now being able to apply RNAi itself for target identification, for example by transiently targeting essentially any gene of interest in the liver in vivo and the use of transgenic RNAi mice (Artemis), a combination of the two latest Nobel prize-winning technologies.

Next to target choice, the nature of the knockdown technology, antisense versus RNAi, itself will also have important safety implications. As I am quite fascinated about the prospect of RNAi for various reasons, please keep in mind that my natural inclination is to favour RNAi any time. In terms of potency, once equal amounts of oligos get delivered into the cell, RNAi has been shown frequently to be generally superior to antisense oligos (ASO), although antisense technologies can be quite diverse. Lower dosages will not only reduce cost of a treatment that has to be taken long-term, but, more importantly, allow for dosages that fall well within therapeutic windows. Moreover, in the case of RNAi, I feel quite comfortable with a technology where the risks such as immuno-stimulation, off-targeting, and potential interference with the endogenous microRNA pathway are reasonably well understood, intensely studied, bioinformatics- and chemistry-based solutions devised, and well taken into account in current RNAi-based drug development efforts. This in fact reflects a new awareness in RNA-targeted therapies, largely driven by the renewed interest generated by the discovery of RNAi. Accordingly, the therapeutic utility of any two RNAi compounds, or antisense compounds for that matter, may differ dramatically due to sequence-dependent toxities.
These toxicities may also be linked to route of delivery and related oligo formulation. A technically quite uncomplicated approach, as taken by 301012, is to simply administer relatively large amounts of unformulated oligos (200mg/week in the case of 301012) to make sure that enough of it ends up in the liver. By contrast, liver uptake of siRNAs is thought to require additional formulation. Indeed, liposomal formulations that are set to enter the clinic within the next year increase liver uptake of siRNAs from less than 1% of injected material to over 30%, allowing for lower dosages to be used. Some toxicities, however, were observed at relatively high dose levels with some of the cationic liposomes, and it remains to be seen whether lipidoids and other “not-so-cationic” liposomes will come to dominate the liver delivery field. Also, while most of the disclosed liposomal delivery vehicles efficiently enhance liver uptake, they are often not specific for uptake into the hepatocyte population in the liver, the cell type of interest. Particularly uptake into Kupffer cells, a type of immune cell in the liver, can lead to dosing and safety complications, and ultimately the path taken recently by scientists from Mirus, which by the way has an RNAi delivery collaboration with Pfizer, to specifically target formulated siRNAs to hepatocytes, but not other liver cell types, may substitute non-specific liposomes in the second wave of RNAi-based therapies for hypercholesterolemia. While delivery is often described as the Achilles Heel for RNAi therapeutics, the charge (ironically) and chemical similarity of siRNAs as a class makes them ideally suited to devise drug targeting strategies that can be broadly applied and should lead to safer therapies, something that is nearly impossible for say small molecules.

ISIS’ ApoB100-targeting antisense 301012 has good chances of becoming the first oligo-based therapy for CVD, at least for people with familial hypercholesterolemia and for whom statins don’t work. Although only a fraction of the overall market, the sheer size of the cholesterol market makes this a lucrative goal nonetheless. I am somewhat surprised that, to my knowledge and despite potential target risk, there is little talk of other ApoB100-targeting therapies. It will be interesting to see what companies like Merck, which has clearly stated their admiration for 301012 at the last OTS Meeting, are willing to pay for rights to 301012. PCSK9-targeting therapies are in late preclinical development and therefore about 3 years behind 301012, but I believe these to be the safest bet for a widely applied oligo-based drug for hypercholesterolemia with a number of organisations ramping up their PCSK9 programs.

Alnylam appears to be leading this race with the recent announcement of first-ever non-human primate data of an RNAi compound that safely and effectively knocked down PCSK9 with concomitant reductions in total and LDL-cholesterol. An IND is planned for the end of this year, or early next year, and probably will depend on finding the delivery solution that most importantly is safe for long-term administration. Importantly, Alnylam enjoys a particularly strong IP position and know-how in targeting PCSK9 by RNAi, due to their own position in fundamental RNAi technology, and important collaborations on the biology of PCSK9 with UT Southwestern, which has been leading in the genetics of PCSK9, as well as in delivery with the Anderson/Langer lab at the MIT and exclusive access to Tekmira’s cationic liposomal delivery IP for RNAi. Sirna-Merck may want to dispute this with an patent on targeting the same PCSK9 by RNAi that issued recently and was filed in July 2006 as part of their brute-force approach to patenting genes for RNAi. Alnylam, however, presented their first PCSK9 RNAi data in mice at last year’s 2nd Annual OTS Meeting, and it is anybody’s guess when their or rather UT Southwestern’s first lab-book entry on PCSK9 RNAi occurred. Probably at a similar stage to Alnylam is the PCSK9-antisense collaboration of ISIS with Bristol-Myers Squibbs for which mouse data have been published earlier this year. Santaris’ antisense compounds for PCSK9/ApoB100 and miR-122 should also be heading soon towards the clinic.

New delivery technologies, including oral formulations, and targets should ensure that the oligo-CVD field will remain lively in the years to come. Also, since there have been a number of recent data demonstrating efficient targeting of RNAi to the endothelia of blood vessels, new RNAi strategies aimed directly at the atherosclerotic plaques may emerge.

It would not be the first time that several similar compounds, small molecule, antibody or recombinant protein, with essentially the same molecular targets, would co-exist in a market, a concept also very familiar to the hypercholesterolemia field. IP, careful clinical development involving the best scientists in both oligonucleotide technology, delivery and the biology of the drug targets, together with a bit of luck, will decide who will reap the largest benefits from the potentially first knockdown blockbuster.

Impressions from the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Oligonucleotide Therapeutics Society: Day 1

The 3rd Annual Meeting of the Oligonucleotide Society (OTS) got under way in the stylish Langenbeck-Virchow Auditorium situated in the centre of a culturally vibrant Berlin. The OTS brings together the many disciplines in the rapidly expanding field of oligonucleotide-based drug development, ranging from aptamers, ribozymes, antisense, immunostimulatory nucleic acids to RNAi. Reports from clinical studies of these treatment modalities and oligonucleotide chemistries were at the centre of today’s lecture sessions.

Brett Monia from ISIS Pharmaceuticals chaired the first session and set the stage by reporting that while there are only four approved oligo-based therapies, more than 50 are currently in clinical development. Many of these are designed for cancer applications, but infectious, metabolic, and inflammatory disease applications are emerging as major new focus areas. This may not only be due to considerable unmet medical needs, but also because these may offer better success rates for clinical development. A few talks on cancer therapies with ASOs (antisense oligos) documented the challenges of designing smooth clinical trials for cancer therapies. One problem is the heterogeneity of cancers and matching the gene target with the right cancer. Early trials on a given compound typically involve small patient numbers with a wide spectrum of cancer manifestations. Although safety trials, almost anecdotal evidence of biological activity in a few patients then often guide the design of later phases of clinical development. Clearly, for cancer, there is a need for the development of more reliable biomarkers as early indicators of therapeutic efficacy and for patient stratification, which may be something that Rosetta Genomics’ microRNA diagnostics may be able to facilitate.

Focusing on diseases like viral infection and metabolic disease where efficacy can be routinely evaluated in early stages of clinical development (viral titers, LDL-cholesterol, glucose) should therefore be lower hanging fruits for the next wave of oligonucleotide-based therapeutics. This transformation in the industry is illustrated by ISIS’ new focus on metabolic disease and its out-licensing of the more challenging ASO applications. Rosanne Crooke recounted the clinical experience with 301012, ISIS’ lead compound for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. As I wrote earlier, one major concern with targeting ApoB100 is the risk of steatosis of the liver due to inhibition of a protein required for the export of triglycerides and which has indeed been observed by a number of groups targeting ApoB100 by RNAi. Possibly motivated by the existence of individuals with null mutations for PCSK9, the new target of choice for hypercholesterolemia, with no evidence for adverse effects due to lack of the LDL-receptor processing protein, a conference participants asked about the existence of ApoB100 knockout mice. Interestingly, no such mice exist, because ApoB100 would have additional roles during development.

Despite reports of steatosis due to knockdown of ApoB100 with RNAi, Sirna Therapeutics is yet another biotech company interested in targeting it for lowering cholesterol. In a talk about siRNA delivery to the liver, Barry Polisky, CSO of Sirna Therapeutics/Merck also noted that in Sirna’s experience, there are genes that can be knocked down extremely well (e.g. ApoB100) and some that are relatively refractory to knockdown by RNAi. Although anecdotal, given the extensive experience of Sirna Therapeutics with screening for effective siRNAs by tiling them across entire genes, and similar findings by Qiagen and others, it will be interesting to determine what makes a gene a good target for RNAi, particularly whether it involves its normal regulation by microRNAs.

Polisky further focused on the need for siRNA modifications to make RNAi therapeutics a reality. Currently, Sirna’s standard siRNA design seems to involve si(R)NAs that lack essentially all 2’OH groups, except for the three 5’ nucleotides of the guide strand, while the passenger strand has 5’ and 3’ modifications that avoid it to be loaded into RiSC to reduce off-targeting. Other speakers and posters also noted that since most nucleotide modifications had been developed with antisense therapies in mind, new modifications may exist for optimal RNAi efficacy, particularly in vivo. Indeed, new synthesis strategies are being developed that will allow this to be tested, such as the 6-membered carbohydrate substitutions of ribose reported by Piet Herdewijn from the University of Leuven, Belgium.

Polisky further characterized siRNA delivery to the liver as efficient, albeit not optimal. Progress is clearly illustrated by the fact that >30% of siRNA formulated into liposomal nanoparticles now end up in the liver with first-pass kinetics with no evidence for toxicity in the 1-9mg/kg range (mostly rodent studies), whereas >99% of unformulated siRNAs are rapidly filtered out by the kidney.

The liver is also the organ where the first microRNA-based therapies are likely to be targeted. Like Regulus and Rosetta, I was amazed, or maybe not, at how many groups are currently working at abrogating miR-122 function for treating either hypercholesterolemia or HCV infection. LNAs, owned by the privately held Danish company Santaris, appear to be a particularly promising oligonucleotide class for achieving potent microRNA down-regulation in vivo. Similarly, antisense strategies based on LNA appear to rival siRNA potency in a number of settings, and it will be interesting to learn more about the toxicologies of these compounds, which would certainly be facilitated if Santaris decided to enable to field by allowing better access to their technology. It also highlights the need for specialized chemistries for therapeutic targeting of microRNAs which in my mind is something that Regulus ought to consider.

With regard to delivery outside the liver following systemic administration, PEI-formulated siRNAs (see recent PolyPlus-Alnylam deal) are now being used successfully by a number of groups for lung delivery. Other interesting delivery data was presented by a Portuguese group in a poster on RNAi in the brain. By non-covalently adding transferrin protein to cationic liposome-siRNA particles, they were able to efficiently target neuronal cells both in vitro and in vivo which, similar to cancer cells (see Calando’s cancer cell targeting with transferrin), are studded with transferrin receptors.

PS: A nuisance to most scientists in the field, immunostimulation by oligonucleotides is exploited by Dynavax as an adjuvant for vaccines. Poor adjuvants activity lead to insufficient immune responses and the need for multiple booster injections affecting compliance. HBV vaccination is a case in point, and as a consequence around 50% of patients in the US fail to successfully complete vaccination. Very high HBsAg antibody titers after only two injections of recombinant HBsAg with an immunostimulatory oligo from Dynavax as adjuvant, instead of alum, suggests that they may be able to greatly improve on those numbers.