Become a Member

“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug”

Biotech Supertrader teases that "This May be the Most Radical Advance in Medicine in the Last 100 Years"

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, January 8, 2014

Robert Morris is helming a biotech-focused stock newsletter that’s called Biotech Supertrader (modesty has no place in the world of newsletter promotions, of course), and I’ve never covered this letter before so I thought I ought to have a look at the latest teaser we’ve been asked about.

Morris, incidentally, has been featured in our pages before — but that was back when he was editor of China Stock Insider at the same publisher. That letter, like almost all China-focused investment newsletters, seems to have disappeared quietly into that good night … which probably tells you that it’s time to invest in China again, since the newsletter publishers are ignoring the Middle Kingdom and rushing out their pitches about biotech and tech stocks. At the time, Morris was teasing NQ Mobile (NQ), which has turned out to be pretty good if you bought it down there in the $6-8 neighborhood (though it’s been a wild ride).

So now what’s he pitching for his Biotech Supertrader?

Well, the destruction of “Man’s deadliest disease”, of course. Here’s how the teaser gets our attention:

“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug on Man’s Deadliest Disease

“Their ‘Guided Missile Approach’ Could Save Thousands of Lives Each Year

“It’s about to become the most talked about advancement in cancer treatment in our lifetimes and you can lock in a life-transforming fortune if you act quickly….

“I’m urging my subscribers to load up on this stock NOW….

“I’ve just uncovered a tiny, unknown biotechnology company with a new cancer drug in phase 3 clinical trials which is showing remarkable success at treating several types of cancer.

“Their scientists have found an innovative approach to cancer care which involves a breakthrough in treatment. It goes deep inside the inner workings of our cells.

“Plus, this medicine looks to be many times more effective and with fewer side effects than the chemo, radiation, and drug therapies currently available.”

If there’s one thing that investors know can make them rich and make them feel good about themselves and the world, it’s a cure for cancer — we’ve seen that effective cancer treatments can and do (occasionally) turn little biotech stocks into gigantic successes, so the dream lives on that you’re going to catch one of these lottery tickets and own the next Genentech. Will we be so lucky? Well, let’s see which one he’s pitching:

“When this drug wins FDA approval – which I believe it will – this small company’s $4.16 stock price will go straight to the moon.

“And the market for this drug is absolutely huge!

“You see, this small biotech is targeting its new drug, let’s call it ‘drug S’, at cancers of the blood and bone marrow. And it is already in very promising phase 3 trials for these two types of cancer.

“But here’s where it gets really interesting. It looks like the drug this company is developing will also work on other types of cancer!

“There are positive signs it works on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) too. There are 1.1 million people with this type of malignancy. Just in the United States alone there are over 300,000 patients with this disease according to The American Cancer Society. Each desperate for a cure.

“Plus it looks like ‘drug S’ may turn out to be an effective treatment for ovarian Cancer. There are more than 204,000 new cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed worldwide each year with 22,280 of these in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute estimates.”

So … who is it? Thinkolator sez this is Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals (CYCC)

Cyclacel is indeed a little biotech around $4 (it closed at $4.35 yesterday), with a market capitalization of only about $80 million — so be careful, we’re a big enough group here that if just a small percentage of Stock Gumshoe readers got enthused about this stock it could drive the shares up, less than a million dollars worth of shares trade each day (Biotech Supertrader says they limited their readership to 750 people — I don’t know if that’s still their cap or if they’ve hit it, but we’ll have more folks than that reading this free article).

And like many biotech stocks, it’s got some impressive scientists and it’s been losing money for a long time as they’ve been searching for a viable drug (their current lead drug also was a big focus of theirs back when it was in Phase 1 trials five or more years ago, so that’s a good reminder of the time these things take, it’s just starting Phase 3 trials now). It looks like they must have gone public in 2004, when they were about eight years old, and a quick scan of ten years of their financials over at Morningstar indicates that they’ve never generated more than a token amount of revenue (meaning, they’ve probably had some research collaboration payments or partnership funding, but never got a product to market), and have accumulated more than $250 million in losses to date. And had two reverse splits to keep the price from sinking far into penny territory.

So that’s not unusual, but it means that — as with all developmental-stage biotechs — it’s not about the financials or the fundamentals, it’s about what’s going to happen in their clinical trials and whether things are going well enough that they can continue to finance the trials … which get much more expensive as you progress through Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


All I know about them so far is that they say they’ve got enough cash to get through enrollment in their key Phase 3 study for “drug S” (which is sapacitabine) as of September when they last updated their investor presentation, but I know nothing about the science or the competing cancer drugs that are out there or how fabulous this particular one might be, so I asked our favorite medical writer, Doc Gumshoe (who, yes, is not a doctor) to check them out quickly and chime in. Here’s what he could share after looking into them for a few minutes (he’s just looking at the medical stuff, not so much the “investor presentations”):

    Cyclacel’s Prospects

    Cyclacel has three drugs in development at this time, and is involved in eight clinical trials with these drugs, not including two clinical trials that have been terminated. Their top contender is sapacitabine which targets the division of cancer cells. If you can prevent cancer cells from dividing and reproducing, you have the cancer whipped, so targeting cancer cell division (or mitosis, which is the technical term) is a highly promising avenue for treating cancer. However, we need to take note of the fact that sapacitabine is one of a large number of drugs that propose to fight cancer by this method.

    At present, all eight of Cyclacel’s clinical trials involve sapacitabine. Of these, at least one has been completed – a Phase 1 study of the safety and pharmacology of the drug. Four others are current, with no information about results. These are likely Phase 1 or small Phase 2 studies, to assess safety, determine what a correct dose might be, and evaluate whether the drug does what it’s supposed to do in human subjects with the target diseases, which in this case include acute myeloid leukemia (AML), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and some advanced solid tumors. Prior to the clinical trials, sapacitabine has demonstrated impressive results in delaying the spread of metastatic liver cancers in mice.

    From what I can gather from public sources (i.e., the NIH Clinical Trials Registry), there is one Phase 3 trial, which started recruiting patients in February of 2013 and is expected to be completed in late 2015. The trial is in elderly patients with AML, and compares alternating cycles of sapacitabine and decitabine with decitabine alone. Decitabine (Dacogen) is FDA-approved for treating AML and also targets cancer cells’ replication by attacking their DNA.

    It is possible that the Phase 3 trial by itself could lead to FDA approval for sapacitabine, depending on the strength of the results. However, that trial would not get the drug approved for use as monotherapy, since it is not being investigated as monotherapy. My guess is that Cyclacel is planning more trials of sapacitabine as monotherapy, perhaps in younger patients. And my further guess is that FDA approval is still quite a long way off.

    Sapacitabine is also in a Phase 3 trial with cyclophosphamide and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cyclophosphamide (marketed under several trade names) is a well-established chemotherapy agent used in a number of cancers, and has led to remission in many cases; however, it is associated with truly harrowing adverse effects. Rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech) is used not only in cancers but in some autoimmune diseases. And sapacitabine is also being studied in patients with previously-treated non-small-cell lung cancers.

    Although the piece from Biotech Supertrader said that the drug – identified as “drug S” –is also a promising treatment for ovarian cancer, I find no clue that it is being studied in such patients. [ed note: that’s because that “promise” is in the lab still, not in people — they had a press release about this in the Fall, “75% of Ovarian Cancer Patient Samples Highly Sensitive to Sapacitabine”, not studied in patients but on patient samples]

    Cyclacel has two other drugs in development: selicilib and a drug designated as CYC116. One selicilib study has been terminated, and in a second Phase 1 study, selicilib is used with sapacitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Remember, however, that Phase 1 studies are many rungs of the ladder below what’s needed to gain FDA approval.

    CYC116 is an aurora kinase inhibitor, meaning that it blocks the action of an intracellular enzyme that facilitates cancer cell mitosis. This is a promising avenue of cancer treatment, however, the traffic on this avenue is fairly heavy, and includes several other classes of drugs including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and taxol based agents such as paclitaxel (Taxol, Bristol Myers Squibb); docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis), Abraxane (a newer formulation of paclitaxel from Celgene) and others.

    CYC116 supposedly also inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which induces the growth of blood vessels that nourish cancer cells. Inhibiting VEGF is a well-established means of combating cancer, and CYC116 could hardly be characterized as a radically new departure in cancer treatment.

    The one trial involving this agent has been terminated. That, of course, does not mean that development of CYC116 stops dead in its tracks – there are many reasons why a trial can be terminated, and ours is not to speculate without more information.

    Beyond those three drugs, it’s hard to guess what Cyclacel may have up its corporate sleeve. It is certainly true that a successful cancer drug – even if only moderately successful– can be transformational for the biotech that develops the drug. But the drugs that Cyclacel has under development do not appear to this skeptical observer to be radically new departures in cancer treatment.

    It’s important to remember, when trying to estimate the likelihood of a single drug demonstrating sufficient efficacy and safety to gain FDA approval and market share, that the competitive field is vast. As I mentioned earlier, Cyclacel has a total of 8 clinical trials in process at this time.

    For the sake of perspective, it’s worth knowing that at present there are 41,445 cancer trials being conducted. So those are the odds.

So there you have it — it’s almost impossible to find a development-stage biotech whose financials look great or that makes your heart go pit-a-pat over their valuation, especially in a biotech bull market like we’ve seen over the past year or so, and Cyclacel doesn’t jump out as spectacular on that front either, not unless you’re a big believer in the promise of their specific drug. They’re a small stock and they don’t get much attention, other than from the analysts who probably helped them sell shares in secondary offerings in recent years, and there aren’t any major “skin in the game” insiders as far as I can tell (the CEO owns $1 million worth of shares, but he gets paid more than that every year), and there’s only one really focused owner on the institutional side that seems to have any kind of biotech focus (Eastern Capital owns about 7% of the shares, roughly $5 million worth … don’t know much about them).

So I don’t see a lot to make them stand out other than Robert Morris’ apparent enthusiasm for the shares (which certainly goes over the top, he calls his special report “The End of Cancer Worries Forever“), and I don’t know enough about the science to be a believer (though, to be fair, I almost never speculate on developmental biotechs because they’re so hit-driven and I’m not smart enough to be a hit-picker in the sector). It is at least encouraging that they are enrolling patients for Phase 3, and that they probably won’t have to raise more money before they have some indication of how the trial is going, but sometime in the next year or two they’re probably going to have to either get good results from this trial that let them raise cash at a good price, or have promising enough results that some big pharma company wants to jump in and help fund development of “drug S” (or just buy up the whole company, as happens with some regularity when a little biotech gets promising results).

Oh, and they are presenting at an investor conference next week, so maybe they’ll have something interesting to share then. As you can tell, this one doesn’t jump into my cup of tea … but these kinds of stocks almost never do. Sound interesting to you? Interested in the science or the lottery-ticket possibilities of $80-million developmental biotechs? Have any experience with Robert Morris or know whether or not we should consider him a biotech savant? Let us know with a comment below.

Irregulars Quick Take

Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)
guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2.7K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
greenfire67
Irregular
March 11, 2014 9:42 am

RNN announces – so far so good, P1 dosing to stage 3 shows no toxicity. Moving on to dose 4. Shares jump 21% in US.
Also, TKMR an RNA co. ran from $5 to $30. Also an RNAi co.
Wish I had gotten into TKMR, but think I’ll just be patient & keep adding to BNIKF & RNN.

👍 83
KennyG
Guest
KennyG
March 11, 2014 9:45 am

This thread must be getting tired and worn out. I just made 2 post this morning and they showed up as post# 1278 and 1280 several days old. Both were good news on BNIKF and RNN

jer_vic
jer_vic
March 11, 2014 2:53 pm
Reply to  KennyG

I’m seeing the same thing – a new post of mine about PATZF ended up at 1287, rather than in the 1300s.
I wonder if Travis broke the “comment-space continuum” by moving the SVA comments over to another thread?

👍 338
👍 21811
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
March 11, 2014 11:00 am

RA Capital already owns 5m shares and if approved on April 10th meeting will have additional 5m shares of Benitec! Apart from that you are looking at 5m options in total!

The shares and options were issued to the following international institutional investors and existing institutional and professional investors in Australia (or their nominees): Recipient (or nominee) Shares Options
RA Capital Healthcare Fund, LP 5,887,850 2,649,532
Blackwell Partners, LLC 1,121,495 504,673
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. 350,467 157,710
Sabby Healthcare Volatility Master Fund, Ltd. 1,051,402 473,131
Titan Perc, Ltd. 182,243 82,010
Perceptive Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd. 1,219,626 548,832
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. 467,290 210,281
Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. 233,644 105,139
Special Situations Life Sciences Fund, L.P. 467,290 210,281
Auriga Global Investors SV, SA 303,738 136,682
Auriga Investors – Montserrat Global Fund 303,738 136,682
Ridgeback Capital Management, LLC 584,112 262,850
Empery Asset Master, LTD 606,766 273,045
Empery Tax Efficient, LP 186,000 83,700
Sphera Global Healthcare Master Fund 221,728 104,602
HFR HE Sphera Global Healthcare Master Trust 11,916 538
DAFNA Lifescience, Ltd. 58,411 26,285
DAFNA Lifescience Select, Ltd. 58,411 26,285
Capital Ventures International 467,289 210,280
Dalit Pty Ltd 362,150 162,967
Tigcorp Nominees Pty Ltd 373,832 168,224
Jetan Pty Ltd 140,187 63,084
Wakko Enterprises Pty Ltd 51,402 23,131
Wakko Investments Pty Ltd 7,009 3,154
Total  14,717,995 6,623,099

The shares and options will be issued to the following international institutional investors and existing institutional and professional investors in Australia (or their nominees)
Recipient (or nominee) Shares Options
RA Capital Healthcare Fund, LP 5,887,851 2,649,533
Blackwell Partners, LLC 1,121,495 504,673
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. 350,467 157,711
Sabby Healthcare Volatility Master Fund, Ltd. 1,051,402 473,131
Titan Perc, Ltd. 182,243 82,010
Perceptive Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd. 1,219,626 548,832
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. 467,290 210,281
Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. 233,644 105,139
Special Situations Life Sciences Fund, L.P. 467,290 210,281
Auriga Global Investors SV, SA 303,739 136,683
Auriga Investors – Montserrat Global Fund 303,738 136,682
Ridgeback Capital Management, LLC 584,112 262,851
Empery Asset Master, LTD 606,766 273,045
Empery Tax Efficient, LP 186,000 83,700
Sphera Global Healthcare Master Fund 221,729 104,604
HFR HE Sphera Global Healthcare Master Trust 11,916 538
DAFNA Lifescience, Ltd. 58,411 26,285
DAFNA Lifescience Select, Ltd. 58,411 26,285
Capital Ventures International 467,290 210,280
Dalit Pty Ltd 432,243 194,509
JGM Investments Group Pty Ltd 303,738 136,682
Jetan Pty Ltd 140,187 63,084
Wakko Enterprises Pty Ltd 51,402 23,131
Wakko Investments Pty Ltd 7,009 3,154
Total  14,717,999 6,623,105

Add a Topic
4878
Add a Topic
570
Add a Topic
1340
👍 673
KennyG
Guest
KennyG
March 11, 2014 11:15 am

Maybe it’s me? I read the latest BNIKF announcement as very good news for the company and stockholders. The company did a good job explaining who the buyers are as you stated and how they will be using the funds. Yet – – the market moves the stock price down. Logic does not apply to these microcap stocks. I plan on buying more on dips.

Add a Topic
5971
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
March 11, 2014 11:08 am

The way i see it is that they will have 31.5m from the shares issued $1.07 and if options fully exercised at A$1.26 we get additional 16+m totaling 48m in funding. So Benitec does not need to raise any funds for a long time to come!

Add a Topic
570
👍 673
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
March 11, 2014 11:16 am

DRTX might break out and we might see higher highs!

👍 673
KennyG
Guest
KennyG
March 11, 2014 11:32 am

Welcome back to this thread Subramania. Missed you and Siva. Now just got to get his words of wisdom back here….

miller
miller
March 11, 2014 2:17 pm

it would seem to be more effective if Dr. Kss would just give a buy hold or sell on stocks he has an opinion on-no need for model portfolios-he can add adl. cos. as we proceed & makes chanhes to but hold & sell as necessary-all with normal caveat that everybody needs to take sole responsibility for any actions they take on those recommendations

Add a Topic
3932
jer_vic
jer_vic
March 11, 2014 2:38 pm

Dr. KSS. Is it worth re-visiting Patrys?

Is this the data you were looking for from the ASH meeting last Dec.?
http://www.patrys.com/images/stories/scientificpresentations/Poster%20ASH%202013%20Read-Only%20Compatibility%20Mode.pdf

Someone named Dr. Dax Marcus Calder bought a bunch more shares from Sept. 2013 to Dec. 2013 (note the huge amount purchased on Dec. 19, after the ASH meeting):
http://www.patrys.com/images/stories/mediareleases/372_1293198.pdf

Shareholder update:
http://www.patrys.com/images/stories/mediareleases/376_PAB_ASX_Release_-_Shareholder_Update_230114_-_Final.pdf

Commentary on 1/2 year report (to Dec. 2013):
http://www.patrys.com/images/stories/mediareleases/378_ASX_Half_Year_Report.pdf

Add a Topic
3932
👍 338
jer_vic
jer_vic
March 11, 2014 3:08 pm

Regarding the weird comments out of order issue a few of have been seeing: hopefully old comments are not being overwritten with the new ones….

This post is a test of that theory. Results to follow in a reply….

👍 338
jer_vic
jer_vic
March 11, 2014 3:11 pm
Reply to  jer_vic

Oh crap! IT IS overwriting old comments! The above post should have been #1309, but it replaced the original 1288, which was by frank archambeau:

“Dr Karma I recall listening to debates among Drs. about the pros & cons of insurance.[at the time cost was < $20 a month for family] Those that viewed medicine as a ” healing art” & those more “progressive” who viewed as a business. An older surgeon I knew said ” if it is business soon accountants will be telling doctors what they should do” 60+ years later he seems to have been prophetic. When govt. begins to regulate dog bathers soon only Govt. approved,licensed & sanctioned will be allowed to wash a dog. IMO"

👍 338
jer_vic
jer_vic
March 11, 2014 3:13 pm
Reply to  jer_vic

Ok, false alarm. It’s not overwriting the old comments, it’s just inserting, and re-numbering. I see franks’s post is now #1289.

Whew!

👍 338
KennyG
Guest
KennyG
March 11, 2014 3:21 pm
Reply to  jer_vic

Yeah… I noticed that as well. It’s getting difficult to track conversations now. I had to search for all March 11 posts in order not to lose anything.

analog68
analog68
March 11, 2014 7:51 pm

I am going to post this here as it relates to KSS’s little jewel. It is copied and pasted from HotCopper as the article is behind a paywall at Nature Biotechnology. It’s nice to see Benitec mentioned. It’s amazing how much more of this I am beginning to understand from all the reading.

BELOW FROM NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY

Benny has a long way to go but hopefully Callimune releases some great results this summer. Also Louis Breton (Callimune CEO) is speaking this week at the “Is Gene Therapy Risky Business?” conference at L.A.’s City of Hope Campus this Thursday ….any gumshoers live in SoCal?

Nature Biotechnology | Editorial

Is this really the RNAissance?
Nature Biotechnology 32,201(2014)doi:10.1038/nbt.2853Published online 10 March 2014

Renewed investor interest in RNA interference (RNAi) is enabling pioneering companies to forge ahead in the clinic. Does this signify a renaissance in RNAi therapy?

Champagne corks have been popping at several RNAi drug developers in recent weeks. The New Year celebrations started when RNAi bellwether Alnylam announced it had brokered deals to acquire Merck’s entire Sirna Therapeutics portfolio for just $175 million and to sell rights to several of its rare disease assets to Sanofi/Genzyme, the latter company taking a 12% stake in the Cambridge, Massachusetts–based biotech (p. 203). In February, fellow RNAi developer Dicerna staged a staggeringly successful initial public offering, raising $90 million (p. 204). Festivities continued over at Arrowhead Research, which raised $104.2 million in a follow-on financing. This influx of investment into the sector is enabling RNAi companies to push ahead with clinical testing of lead candidates. But even though some pundits have greeted these announcements as signs of an “RNAissance,” is this really what we’re witnessing?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word renaissance (ren·ais·sance) as “a revival of, or renewed interest in, something.” Certainly, it has been sometime since the pharmaceutical industry showed interest in RNAi therapeutics. As boardrooms have become more concerned about the next quarter rather than the next breakthrough, Roche, Pfizer and Abbott have all exited the RNAi sector; now Alynlam’s January deal signals Merck is also out of the game. The only large companies left with serious RNAi efforts are Novartis and Sanofi.

Conversely, one might view the flux of investors into the sector as something of a turnaround—particularly with pharma backing so scarce. Part of this renewed investor enthusiasm relates to positive clinical data. In July 2012, Alnylam’s stock jumped 53% after it presented compelling phase 1 data for its short interfering (siRNA) therapy against transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis. Last August, results from a phase 2 trial showing that the same drug could knock down levels of transthyretin by 93%, together with data from a subcutaneously delivered version of the drug, again cheered investors—the market cap today is $5.7 billion (up from $1.5 billion 12 months ago).

Last year, Arrowhead announced that its hepatitis B siRNA therapy was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial and subsequently filed to begin phase 2a testing, all of which helped the company’s market cap to reach $891 million (a 30-fold rise). Currently, Benitech Biopharma, CalImmune, Gradalis, Nitto Denko, Quark Pharmaceuticals, RXi Pharmacueticals, Silence Therapeutics, Senesco Technologies, Silenseed, Sylentis and Tekmira Pharmaceuticals all have human safety testing of siRNA drugs under way.

Clinical progress could not have taken place without numerous research advances over the past decade. Serum stability has been improved through the introduction of new oligonucleotide chemistries, such as 2′-O-methyl (2′-O-Me) ribose groups, 2′ fluoro-ß-D-arabinonucleotides or unlocked nucleic acids. Potency and off-target effects have been addressed through siRNA seed element design using algorithms (e.g., GC content, asymmetric thermostability, interaction scanning with 3′ UTRs across the genome) or novel architectures (e.g., blunt 2′-O-Me RNA duplexes that reduce passenger strand loading into RISC). Similarly, increased understanding of the role of oligonucleotide length and GU-rich content in siRNA interactions with toll-like receptors 3, 7 and 8, RIG-I and PKR has reduced immunogenicity concerns.

But it is perhaps delivery where the greatest strides have been made. Refinements in Tekmira’s small nucleic acid lipid particles have allowed companies like Alnylam to achieve 100- to 1,000-fold improvements in therapeutic index. Other platforms, such as neutrally charged polyconjugates (e.g., Arrowhead’s DPC technology) or simple conjugates (e.g., Alnylam’s trivalent N-acetyl galactosamine conjugates) also show promise, particularly for delivery to hepatocytes. Last month’s formation of Voyager Therapeutics also raises the possibility that novel adeno-associated viral vectors may be combined with DNA-directed RNAi drugs to achieve the same goal. Startup Solstice Biologics is pioneering an alternative approach in which the siRNA backbone is directly modified with amidite chemistry to facilitate delivery (p. 229).

Thus, the liver, which captures nanoparticle drugs by means of endothelial fenestrations and the reticuloendothelial system, has become a dominant focus for many advanced siRNA drug programs: Alynlam is focusing on hemophilia and dyslipidemia, Arrowhead on hepatitis B, Benitec on hepatitis C and Gradalis on liver metastases.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that the path to market is clear. As for any therapeutic modality, moving from proof-of-concept trials to large-scale human testing will bring drug attrition surprises related to target biology and unanticipated off-target effects. To some extent companies are aiming to improve their odds by focusing on rare diseases with monogenetic components or developing oligos against established targets (e.g., PCSK9 or hepatitis B) already drugged by small molecules or antibodies.

A big question surrounds the long-term toxicities of lipid nanoparticles. Thus far, these have mostly been used to enhance approved chemotherapies or fungicides, and these preparations have fairly toxic side effects, sometimes requiring administration of corticosteroids or antihistamines. Stringent oversight of the potential effects of these delivery agents on humans will likely be a major focus for regulators.

But there remains reason for optimism. Sanofi’s option on Alnylam’s siRNA clinical programs indicates that the era of investing in RNAi as a technology platform is coming to an end—the era of product-specific partnerships is beginning. The shift of many companies from a focus on heroic, last-ditch cancer treatments to drugs against potentially ‘more tractable’ rare diseases also indicates maturation. RNAi drugs represent an intriguing opportunity, enabling the modulation of targets undruggable by antibodies or small molecules, all with facile manufacture and short preclinical development times. So although this may not be a RNAissance, it certainly looks like a rally.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
899
Add a Topic
4030
👍 389
analog68
analog68
March 11, 2014 8:00 pm

Nature Biotechnology | Editorial

Is this really the RNAissance?
Nature Biotechnology 32,201(2014)doi:10.1038/nbt.2853Published online 10 March 2014

Renewed investor interest in RNA interference (RNAi) is enabling pioneering companies to forge ahead in the clinic. Does this signify a renaissance in RNAi therapy?

Champagne corks have been popping at several RNAi drug developers in recent weeks. The New Year celebrations started when RNAi bellwether Alnylam announced it had brokered deals to acquire Merck’s entire Sirna Therapeutics portfolio for just $175 million and to sell rights to several of its rare disease assets to Sanofi/Genzyme, the latter company taking a 12% stake in the Cambridge, Massachusetts–based biotech (p. 203). In February, fellow RNAi developer Dicerna staged a staggeringly successful initial public offering, raising $90 million (p. 204). Festivities continued over at Arrowhead Research, which raised $104.2 million in a follow-on financing. This influx of investment into the sector is enabling RNAi companies to push ahead with clinical testing of lead candidates. But even though some pundits have greeted these announcements as signs of an “RNAissance,” is this really what we’re witnessing?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word renaissance (ren·ais·sance) as “a revival of, or renewed interest in, something.” Certainly, it has been sometime since the pharmaceutical industry showed interest in RNAi therapeutics. As boardrooms have become more concerned about the next quarter rather than the next breakthrough, Roche, Pfizer and Abbott have all exited the RNAi sector; now Alynlam’s January deal signals Merck is also out of the game. The only large companies left with serious RNAi efforts are Novartis and Sanofi.

Conversely, one might view the flux of investors into the sector as something of a turnaround—particularly with pharma backing so scarce. Part of this renewed investor enthusiasm relates to positive clinical data. In July 2012, Alnylam’s stock jumped 53% after it presented compelling phase 1 data for its short interfering (siRNA) therapy against transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis. Last August, results from a phase 2 trial showing that the same drug could knock down levels of transthyretin by 93%, together with data from a subcutaneously delivered version of the drug, again cheered investors—the market cap today is $5.7 billion (up from $1.5 billion 12 months ago).

Last year, Arrowhead announced that its hepatitis B siRNA therapy was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial and subsequently filed to begin phase 2a testing, all of which helped the company’s market cap to reach $891 million (a 30-fold rise). Currently, Benitech Biopharma, CalImmune, Gradalis, Nitto Denko, Quark Pharmaceuticals, RXi Pharmacueticals, Silence Therapeutics, Senesco Technologies, Silenseed, Sylentis and Tekmira Pharmaceuticals all have human safety testing of siRNA drugs under way.

Clinical progress could not have taken place without numerous research advances over the past decade. Serum stability has been improved through the introduction of new oligonucleotide chemistries, such as 2′-O-methyl (2′-O-Me) ribose groups, 2′ fluoro-ß-D-arabinonucleotides or unlocked nucleic acids. Potency and off-target effects have been addressed through siRNA seed element design using algorithms (e.g., GC content, asymmetric thermostability, interaction scanning with 3′ UTRs across the genome) or novel architectures (e.g., blunt 2′-O-Me RNA duplexes that reduce passenger strand loading into RISC). Similarly, increased understanding of the role of oligonucleotide length and GU-rich content in siRNA interactions with toll-like receptors 3, 7 and 8, RIG-I and PKR has reduced immunogenicity concerns.

But it is perhaps delivery where the greatest strides have been made. Refinements in Tekmira’s small nucleic acid lipid particles have allowed companies like Alnylam to achieve 100- to 1,000-fold improvements in therapeutic index. Other platforms, such as neutrally charged polyconjugates (e.g., Arrowhead’s DPC technology) or simple conjugates (e.g., Alnylam’s trivalent N-acetyl galactosamine conjugates) also show promise, particularly for delivery to hepatocytes. Last month’s formation of Voyager Therapeutics also raises the possibility that novel adeno-associated viral vectors may be combined with DNA-directed RNAi drugs to achieve the same goal. Startup Solstice Biologics is pioneering an alternative approach in which the siRNA backbone is directly modified with amidite chemistry to facilitate delivery (p. 229).

Thus, the liver, which captures nanoparticle drugs by means of endothelial fenestrations and the reticuloendothelial system, has become a dominant focus for many advanced siRNA drug programs: Alynlam is focusing on hemophilia and dyslipidemia, Arrowhead on hepatitis B, Benitec on hepatitis C and Gradalis on liver metastases.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that the path to market is clear. As for any therapeutic modality, moving from proof-of-concept trials to large-scale human testing will bring drug attrition surprises related to target biology and unanticipated off-target effects. To some extent companies are aiming to improve their odds by focusing on rare diseases with monogenetic components or developing oligos against established targets (e.g., PCSK9 or hepatitis B) already drugged by small molecules or antibodies.

A big question surrounds the long-term toxicities of lipid nanoparticles. Thus far, these have mostly been used to enhance approved chemotherapies or fungicides, and these preparations have fairly toxic side effects, sometimes requiring administration of corticosteroids or antihistamines. Stringent oversight of the potential effects of these delivery agents on humans will likely be a major focus for regulators.

But there remains reason for optimism. Sanofi’s option on Alnylam’s siRNA clinical programs indicates that the era of investing in RNAi as a technology platform is coming to an end—the era of product-specific partnerships is beginning. The shift of many companies from a focus on heroic, last-ditch cancer treatments to drugs against potentially ‘more tractable’ rare diseases also indicates maturation. RNAi drugs represent an intriguing opportunity, enabling the modulation of targets undruggable by antibodies or small molecules, all with facile manufacture and short preclinical development times. So although this may not be a RNAissance, it certainly looks like a rally.

Louis Breton – CEO, CalimmuneArgyros Auditorium, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope – “Is Gene Therapy a Risky Business?”

Breton will be speaking in SoCal? LA

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
899
Add a Topic
4030
👍 389
sfimar
sfimar
March 12, 2014 1:09 am

Hello All,

I just want to share some information I have been collecting about some stocks mentioned here (mostly with good comments from Dr. KSS)…always do your own DD before buying!!

Alchemia “ACL.AX” (australian stock) phase 3 results expected 2Q2014

AcelRX “ACRX” Pdufa July 27th

Durata “DRTX” Ad-com meeting March 31st Pdufa May 26th

Exact Science “EXAS” Ad-com meeting March 27th (cannot find any comments from Dr. KSS on this one)

QRXPharma “QRX.AX” (australian stock)Ad-com May 23rd

Pdufa stand for “Prescription Drug User Fee Act” (FDA is OK with the drug)
Ad-com stand for “Advisory Committe” (experts take a look at the new drug and provide marketing approval recommendations that the FDA may or may not choose to follow)

Hope this is helpful…by the way, I am long acl.ax, acrx, drtx, exas, qrx.ax

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3022
👍 150
sfimar
sfimar
March 12, 2014 1:12 am

Hello Travis, dont know if there are simply too many comments in this thread…I just wrote one comment after #1313 but mine is now at #1291…go figure..

👍 150
Elliot Sedlecky
Guest
Elliot Sedlecky
March 12, 2014 11:13 am

Cautiously added to my Benitec position by 50% today. Any thoughts on where this is going short term? Should I be prepared for this thing to keep dropping?

Add a Topic
899
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
March 12, 2014 11:58 am

Elliot, Good entry point as i see it forming at base around 1.65 to 1.70 level.
The 20MA is at 1.54 &
50MA is at 1.01.
The RSI is down to 64

👍 673
KennyG
Guest
KennyG
March 12, 2014 12:49 pm
👍 673
ockrazor
ockrazor
March 12, 2014 1:59 pm

FMI on hot fire still. Exas countdown is on

👍 132
sivapann
Member
sivapann
March 12, 2014 10:17 pm

I do not know this Doctor (Dr. Ben Kim)personally, but have been following his newsletters for the last 2 years and I have found them very useful. He puts things in right perspective. In the link below, he talks about cholesterol and its correlation with risk of heart disease.

http://drbenkim.com/articles-cholesterol.html
Snippets of the above article.
Guidelines for Healthy HDL, LDL, Total Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels:

What follows are my personal guidelines on monitoring cholesterol, based on the research that I’ve done on this issue, and evaluating the blood test results and health of hundreds of people I have worked with over the past several years.

Ideally, it’s best to have a blood cholesterol level of over 150 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). But if your blood cholesterol level is lower than this, so long as you are eating a nutrient-dense, plant-centered diet and not suffering from any health challenges, there is likely no cause for concern.

Low cholesterol over the long term may lead to depression, increased risk of stroke, and numerous problems related to hormonal imbalances. If you are not getting enough vitamin D from your diet, having low cholesterol may lead to vitamin D deficiency, as sunlight creates vitamin D in your body by acting on cholesterol found in your skin.

Ideally, your HDL/total cholesterol ratio should be above 25%. Generally, the higher this ratio, the better. If this ratio is 10-15 percent or lower, there increased risk of eventually experiencing a heart attack.

Ideally, it’s best to have a triglyceride/HDL ratio of 2.0 or lower.

If your HDL/total cholesterol and triglyceride/HDL ratios are in the ranges listed above, and you are eating mainly undamaged cholesterol, having a total cholesterol of more than 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/L) most probably isn’t a cause for worry. In fact, even people whose genetics cause them to have total cholesterol above 350 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) have been shown to have no elevated risk of heart disease as long as their ratios are fine and they stay away from eating damaged cholesterol.

Here’s my take-home perspective on cholesterol and your health:

Rather than focus just on the numbers from your latest blood test, your health is best served by:

Ensuring regular intake of a wide variety of nutrient-dense plant foods (vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, and small amounts of nuts and seeds).

Ensuring regular intake of healthy fats, such as those found in avocados, olives, coconuts, organic eggs, and perhaps some cold water fish on occasion.

Minimizing intake of animal foods that have been highly processed and/or exposed to high cooking temperatures.

Striving to live a balanced life that includes adequate rest, physical activity, exposure to fresh air and sunlight (without getting burned), meaningful relationships, and a sense of purpose.

Add a Topic
3820
Add a Topic
1340
Add a Topic
3820
👍 4
sivapann
Member
sivapann
March 12, 2014 10:26 pm

Also the current standard of care is using lipid profile to determine the risk profile of one’s heart disease. The other factor that can cause plaque in your heart is availability of calcium specks in the walls of the arteries. I’m completely befuddled why this is not included to measure the risk profile of one’s heart. By doing this test much early in the process, you will know how far you are on the curve to develop plaques and thus you can prevent or reverse the calcification.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/cscan

👍 4
Randyman
Member
Randyman
March 12, 2014 10:36 pm

Where did everyone go? Been away for awhile and i see the discussion is all but ceased.??

Randyman
Member
Randyman
March 12, 2014 10:39 pm

Are we having technical difficulties?

tanglewood
March 12, 2014 10:49 pm

Hi Randyman; Your post is number 1298 and, near the bottom, they seem to be no longer in chronological order. March 11 postings follow March 12. Another thread was started with the Dr KSS article and it looks like things may be shifting over there.
http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2014/03/microblog-nash-an-all-too-common-liver-disease-and-a-company-aiming-to-treat-it/

Add a Topic
3932
👍 644

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x