Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
[Way OT] FDA approves Restylane:
[Restylane is a shoo-in blockbuster that I expect will be even bigger than Allergan’s Botox].
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031212/125539_1.html
>>
Medicis Announces FDA Approval of Restylane, the First and Only Dermal Filler Made of Stable, Biodegradable Non-Animal Hyaluronic Acid
Friday December 12, 5:56 pm ET
New Treatment Designed To Correct Facial Wrinkles And Folds For Longer Than 6 Months
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 12, 2003-- Medicis (NYSE:MRX - News) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Restylane®, an injection for the correction of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and folds, such as nasolabial folds, the lines between the nose and mouth. Restylane is the first and only FDA-approved dermal filler made of a biodegradable non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA(TM)). Hyaluronic acid is a natural substance found in all living organisms and provides volume and fullness to the skin.
"The approval of Restylane is not only a very important milestone in the history of Medicis, but also represents a significant advance in cosmetic dermal fillers," said Jonah Shacknai, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Medicis. "With its proven track record for long-lasting efficacy and safety in more than one million procedures worldwide, we believe that Restylane will set a new standard for non-invasive cosmetic procedures."
Restylane is formulated as a clear gel and uses a dual mechanism of action to correct wrinkles and folds. Upon being injected beneath the skin's surface, the NASHA gel adds natural volume and lift to smooth wrinkles and folds. The NASHA gel integrates into dermal tissue then attracts and binds to water molecules to help maintain volume. Restylane is gradually degraded by the body's own mechanism and disappears without any residue. Results can be seen immediately following treatment and last six months, or even longer.
"The arrival of Restylane to the U.S. has been long-awaited by physicians and consumers alike given its worldwide safety record and reputation as the ideal solution to eliminate wrinkles and facial folds," said Rod J. Rohrich, M.D., F.A.C.S., Chairman of the Department of Plastic Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and President of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. "Restylane represents the future of cosmetic dermal fillers in that it's completely natural and biodegradable, is non-animal derived so it does not pose a risk of disease transmission, and has been shown to last longer than six months, which is better than any currently available non-permanent dermal filler."
Restylane is marketed and sold in more than 60 countries outside the United States where it has been used in more than one million procedures. Since 1996, dermatologists and plastic surgeons outside the U.S. have used it to contour and restore volume to skin and temporarily eliminate wrinkles and facial folds. Additionally, in countries other than the U.S., Restylane is also approved to enhance the appearance and fullness of lips, although the safety or efficacy of Restylane for the treatment of lips has not been established in controlled clinical studies submitted to the FDA.
Medicis anticipates shipping Restylane during the next 30 to 60 days. McKesson will serve as U.S. distributor for Restylane. Physicians wanting to place orders for Restylane should call McKesson directly at 1-877-520-0500. Restylane will be available to patients through licensed practitioners.
Restylane is manufactured by Q-Med in Uppsala, Sweden.
"Restylane promises to make its mark as the non-invasive treatment of choice in the U.S. given the unique advantages it offers to both patients and physicians," added Dr. Rohrich. "For patients, Restylane is safe, its results are evident right after treatment, and there is no six week wait for allergy testing. For physicians, Restylane is readily prepared and easy to inject, requires less material to achieve desired volume than collagen and given its durability, requires fewer treatment sessions."
Clinical Study
The 6-month randomized, multi-center double-blind study evaluated 138 patients seeking correction of bilateral nasolabial folds (smile lines). Patients received Restylane (non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid 20 mg/mL) in one nasolabial fold and Zyplast® (cross-linked bovine collagen 35mg/mL, INAMED Corporation, Santa Barbara, CA) in the opposite nasolabial fold.
Clinical efficacy assessments were then conducted at two, four and six months after baseline using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS)(1) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS)(2). Adverse events were assessed by the treating investigator for severity and relationship to the study treatment.
The study found that Restylane showed a statistically significant difference over Zyplast with respect to the change (from pre-treatment) in WSRS score at all post-baseline timepoints (p less than 0.0001). Specifically, at six months post-baseline, Restylane was better than Zyplast in 56.9 percent of patients while Zyplast was better than Restylane in 9.5 percent of patients (p less than 0.0001). In addition, at six months, 67.2 percent of Zyplast-treated folds had returned to pre-treatment condition, compared with only 29.9 percent of Restylane-treated folds. Further, the total injection volume needed to produce an "optimal cosmetic result" was lower for Restylane (mean 1.0mL; range 0.3-2.8mL) than Zyplast (mean 1.6mL; range 0.1 - 5.0mL).
The most commonly reported adverse events were redness and swelling, which typically occurred at the injection site and were transient and mild to moderate in intensity.
About Restylane & NASHA
Restylane is the first and only dermal filler made of crystal-clear gel called NASHA (Non-Animal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid). NASHA is developed using a unique stabilization process that results in its long duration of effect in contrast to non-stabilized hyaluronic acid, which lasts only days to weeks, at most. As opposed to other hyaluronic acid products, NASHA is not derived from animal sources. It is produced biotechnologically by natural fermentation in a sterile laboratory environment. This significantly diminishes the risk of transmitting diseases between species or of eliciting allergic reactions in patients who are sensitive to common foods, such as beef, chicken and eggs. NASHA has been extensively researched for over a decade and proven to be safe and effective. Restylane does not require any allergy or skin test prior to injection.
<<
Re: REGN’s VEGF-Trap:
>> [VEGF-trap] might show slightly better results than Lucentis and Macugen if delivered locally, will probably discover some-side effects during their phase I/II due to systemic administration and will have to switch to a local way of administration and be compared to the final results of Lucentis and Macugen, because they are quite late…<<
isolution: You have been right on target with every forecast you have made in this arena, so I no reason to doubt your assessment of the prospects for VEGF-Trap. All I can say is that, if you are correct, it would seem that Aventis grossly overpaid for the rights to this product. I wonder what they could be seeing in VEGF-Trap that we are not seeing…
Squalamine in diabetic ophthalmic indications:
>> I do not recall diabetic macular edema ever being associated with squalamine. Am I correct in concluding that squalamine does not affect DME? <<
Most drugs used to treat AMD can be expected to have some efficacy in diabetic retinopathy / diabetic macular edema and I’m not aware of any reason that Squalamine would not also be effective there. However, efficacy in these diabetic indications cannot be taken for granted –a full clinical-development program is needed to prove that an AMD drug is safe and effective in these settings.
Safety is likely to be more of an issue in DR/DME than in AMD because diabetics’ overall health is more fragile than the general population’s. So it makes sense that companies would want to defer studies in diabetic patients until gleaning more knowledge about safety from trials in AMD. Moreover, the addressable market in DR/DME is smaller than the AMD market, so the upside from rapid clinical of the diabetic indications is not as compelling as it is for AMD.
P.S. Another great question, peru. You are on a roll!
Re: Characterization of the Macugen deal:
>> I don't have a good feel for Big Pharma / development-stage biotech deals. Would you characterize this deal as "front-end loaded" or "back-end loaded"? <<
Somewhere in the middle, but closer to the back-loaded pole than the front-loaded pole. We can’t say for sure because EYET’s royalty on PFE’s Macugen sales has not been disclosed. My guess is that the royalty is relatively low, perhaps 10-15%; if I’m right, this can’t be characterized as a true back-loaded deal.
On the other hand, about 60% of the total $745M in combined up-front and milestone payments is based on post-approval milestones such as attaining specified sales levels. So this deal is not front-loaded either. Maybe the best descriptor is “mid-loaded.”
Great question, BTW. Glad you asked.
More on Merck and their cancer non-pipeline:
[I think this article actually misses the boat; Merck’s current woes do not stem from avoiding oncology but rather from the failure of MRK’s expected blockbusters in areas such as diabetes and depression to pan out. MRK’s avoidance of spending big bucks to in-license cancer compounds may be a smart choice because the cancer space is extremely crowded and the chances of obtaining a good return on investment are relatively low. JMHO. Dew]
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031212/health_merck_cancer_1.html
>>
Merck trails in cancer fight, plans new effort
Friday December 12, 9:52 am ET
By Ransdell Pierson
NEW YORK, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Merck & Co. is the only large U.S. drugmaker that has developed no significant cancer drugs in recent decades and is testing none in current human clinical trials, a shortcoming industry analysts say has hurt the company's prestige and earnings prospects.
Merck research chief Peter Kim said earlier this week the company is looking forward some day to having a "substantial program in oncology," but acknowledged no studies of its possible cancer drugs have progressed beyond the petri dish or animal-testing stage.
"A scientific explosion has occurred in understanding oncology and what allows a tumor to be maintained," said Kim, who took the helm of Merck's research labs nearly a year ago. He spoke at a meeting with industry analysts to review the company's pipeline of experimental medicines.
Merck launched a leukemia drug called Elspar in 1970 and a product called Cosmegen for rare types of cancer in 1965. And it introduced an anti-vomiting pill this April for patients on chemotherapy, which had negligible third-quarter sales.
By contrast, rival U.S. and European companies have steadily produced major cancer-related drugs that racked up sales of $32 billion last year, a number that will zoom to $61 billion by 2007, according to SG Cowen.
Kim did not predict when the world's No. 3 drugmaker will deliver new cancer treatments, but said they will come from Merck laboratories and through partnerships with other drugmakers, such as its deals this year with GenPath Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Alnylam Holding Co.
Cancer is the second-biggest cause of death in the United States. The number of newly diagnosed cancer cases -- now about 1.3 million a year -- is expected to rise with the aging population and better screening techniques.
"This is clearly a big area and Merck is in a weaker position than any major rival," said Gordon Carey, senior vice president of Cambridge Pharma Consultancy.
Newer cancer drugs like Novartis AG's (NOVN.VX) Gleevec and Genentech Inc.'s Rituxan hit specific molecular targets linked to cancer and thereby cause milder side effects than standard chemotherapy.
Such targeted therapies, which typically cost $5,000 to $25,000 per year, are expected to be mainstay treatments in the next decade. And another 200 cancer products are now in clinical development -- the most active area of pharmaceutical research. [This number is actually about 350; the 200 figure is close if you include only late-stage trials –Dew]
Carey said Merck's limited record against cancer is "ironic" given that its recently retired research chief, Edward Scolnick, had been one of America's most noted cancer experts when he was hired to oversee Merck's labs 18 years ago.
Sam Islay [sic], managing partner of investment firm OrbiMed Advisors, said it would take Merck many years to develop its own cancer drugs. To become a significant player, he said Merck will have to pay ever-increasing fees to license or co-market cancer drugs developed by other companies.
"The cost of obtaining rights to a cancer drug even in the earliest stages of development is now about $125 million, triple what it would have cost three years ago," Isaly said.
Many promising early-stage drugs have already been licensed to other companies, so competition for other desirable products will likely boost the price of future partnership deals, Isaly said.
Merck expects its earnings to decline this year due to generic competition for its treatments for hypertension, ulcers and high cholesterol and the company's inability to launch any big new drugs since 1999. So its budget for cancer-drug partnerships could be limited.
Cambridge Pharma's Carey said he has no doubts that Merck is serious about developing cancer drugs.
"Merck has been overtaken in recent years as the top dog in the drug industry because its innovation and number of new products has slipped," Carey said.
"Oncology is a major new focus because they probably see it as one way of taking them back to the No. 1 spot." (Additional reporting by Jed Seltzer)
<<
Apropos to management integrity:
[Geron is a company that might be the polar opposite of GENR in terms of integiry, depite the similarity of the Nasdaq ticker symbols. I’ve commented skeptically on Geron in the past (http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=7077012&tid=magn&sid=7077012&acti... ), but Feuerstein of TSC really nailed them today –Dew]
http://www.thestreet.com/tech/adamfeuerstein/10131472.html
>>
In Hyping Cancer Vaccine, Geron Ignores Its Partner
By Adam Feuerstein
Senior Writer
12/11/2003 03:05 PM EST
Geron (GERN:Nasdaq) CEO Tom Okarma says it's entirely appropriate for his company to claim ownership of its telomerase cancer vaccine for prostate cancer. But Okarma also acknowledges that Geron might not own the experimental product for much longer, raising questions about how the company has promoted the drug and profited from its potential.
In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Okarma insisted the vaccine -- known colloquially as TVAX and currently in a phase I clinical trial -- is a genuine Geron pipeline product, and investors should treat it as such.
But Okarma did not dispute a story here last month that reported Geron could lose control of TVAX if its partner Merix Bioscience decides to exercise a first-rights option to take over development of the vaccine and advance it beyond phase II studies. (Executives at Merix, a small, privately held biotech firm based in Durham, N.C., declined to comment for this story.)
This means that if TVAX pans out, there's a possibility that it becomes Merix's drug to market and sell, leaving Geron with only a small slice of the proceeds. With a market cap already approaching $400 million, Geron can't afford to lose control of TVAX, especially because it is the biotech firm's only product in human clinical trials.
For now, Geron essentially "rents" TVAX. So is it really accurate for Okarma and Geron to continually refer to the vaccine as "our product?"
"Absolutely," says Okarma. "From the beginning we've said this [TVAX] is a collaborative development deal and we mention Merix in every press release. It's true that we don't have the full sweep of technology required to market this vaccine, but the key ingredient is telomerase," which Geron does own.
But Geron doesn't always mention partner Merix in its TVAX press releases and public presentations. [Based on the webcasts I have heard, I can corroborate this assertion –Dew] It fails to do, particularly, it seems, when it needs positive news about TVAX to help raise cash or boost its stock price. For example:
· On March 18, Geron issued a press release reporting the publication in a medical journal of preclinical research that supported the use of telomerase as a target for cancer vaccines. The release talked about TVAX and the ongoing phase I clinical trial without mentioning Merix. The March 18 press release sent Geron's stock soaring nearly 2.5 times to $4.20 per share, on above-average volume of almost 18 million shares.
· On April 7, Geron issued a press release and held a conference call to discuss "positive" preliminary findings from the TVAX phase I clinical trial. Again, there was no mention of Merix. The next day, Geron sold 4 million shares of stock at $4.60 per share in a private equity sale, raising gross proceeds of $18.4 million.
· On Sept. 22, 2003, Okarma gave a presentation at the UBS Global Life Sciences Conference in New York, in which he provided additional -- and what he claimed were positive -- clinical data from TVAX's phase I study. Okarma never mentioned the role Merix plays in TVAX at the UBS presentation, according to a transcript of the event. Nor did he tell investors that Geron stands a chance of losing control of TVAX to Merix.
Three weeks later, on Oct. 15, Geron announced a common stock offering of 5 million shares, raising gross proceeds of $60 million; UBS was the lead underwriter. Okarma says that when he was making his presentation at UBS' conference, the company was not considering an equity offering. [LOL –Dew] He also says the additional TVAX data he presented -- which are in dispute (see below) -- to investors at the conference were accurate.
The risk statement section in Geron's S-3 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission points out that Merix holds the rights to the ex vivo dendritic cell technology used to produce the vaccine, while Geron owns the rights to the telomerase target. "If we were no longer able to use the Merix technology, we would need to develop or obtain rights to use a different technology and restart the trial using that different technology, or abandon entirely the development of an ex vivo telomerase vaccine, which would significantly and adversely affect our business," the S-3 states.
But the registration statement doesn't mention that under the existing agreement, Geron has rights to fund and do studies on TVAX only in phase I and II trials. After that, Merix has right to take over the drug, conduct phase III studies and push for Food and Drug Administration approval. (To do so, Merix would have to license the telomerase target from Geron, something Geron has already done with other companies.)
Data Dissention
Meanwhile, another aspect of Geron's TVAX story is in dispute. Dr. Johanness Vieweg, the principal investigator in charge of the TVAX phase I study, presented data culled from prostate cancer patients enrolled in the study Monday at the American Society of Hematology meeting in San Diego. The data presented by Dr. Vieweg, a Duke University professor, was early and encouraging. But in some notable instances, it was significantly less positive than the presentation made by Okarma at the Sept. 22 UBS conference.
Asked about the discrepancy between his presentation and that of Okarma's, Dr. Vieweg grew noticeably uncomfortable, saying that his goal was to present an accurate picture of the progress being made with TVAX. His assessment included a belief the vaccine requires a lot more work before definitive questions about its efficacy can be answered. Dr. Vieweg said he's had minimal contact with Geron, has no financial interest in the company and that Geron wasn't even funding his work in the phase I trial.
Said Okarma of Dr. Vieweg: "I was with him last week. Johanness and I are colleagues and friends. He was not upset at all."
Okarma also refuted Vieweg's statement that Geron wasn't funding the current TVAX study: "We have funded it, and the National Institutes of Health have funded it. [Dr. Vieweg] is forgetting," Okarma said. "We paid for preclinical work, our own work and the beginning part of the clinical work. I don't know how [Duke] utilized our money, but I have the check stubs sitting here."
Through Wednesday's close, Geron shares had fallen almost 17.5% since Friday, with much of the drop following Dr. Vieweg's presentation at the American Society of Hematology conference. Early Thursday afternoon, the stock was down 17 cents, or 1.7%, to $9.97.
<<
But as a Sox fan, Kevin Brown is the first Yankees’ maneuver that truly has me concerned. When he is on. that guy is an order of magnitude better than Pettitte, IMHO.
Anti-angio Mab from JNJ enters phase 1:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/phth001_1.html
>>
Medarex Announces Commencement of Phase I Clinical Trials by Centocor of Anti-Angiogenesis Antibody, CNTO 95
Thursday December 11, 6:00 am ET
Preclinical Data Indicates Inhibition of Tumor Growth and Tumor-Induced Angiogenesis
PRINCETON, N.J., Dec. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Medarex, Inc. (Nasdaq: MEDX - News) announced today that its licensing partner, Centocor, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has commenced a multi-dose Phase I clinical trial of CNTO 95, a fully human antibody targeting the integrin receptors that are implicated in tumor-induced angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels and plays an important role in tumor growth and metastasis.
Preclinical data presented by Centocor at the 94th annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) indicated that blockade of the integrin receptors by CNTO 95 inhibited the growth of new blood vessels in vitro and also inhibited growth of human melanoma tumors in nude mice (Abstract #754). CNTO 95 was generated at Centocor using Medarex's UltiMAb(TM) technology and is the third UltiMAb-derived antibody in clinical development by Centocor and the fourteenth UltiMAb product being tested in human clinical trials.
<<
Obesity news:
[deCODE (DCGN) is a stock I used to own, but I sold quite a while ago because I did not feel comfortable with the company’s management. DCGN appears to be making great strides scientifically, but I remain skeptical of the business model.]
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth016_1.html
>>
deCODE Isolates Two Major New Obesity Genes Under Alliance With Merck
Thursday December 11, 5:10 am ET
Common Forms of These Genes Confer Significant Predisposition to Obesity
REYKJAVIK, Iceland, Dec. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- deCODE genetics (Nasdaq: DCGN - News) today announced that it has isolated two new genes as part of its alliance with Merck & Co, Inc. to develop drugs for the treatment of obesity. Following the gene discovery announced in September, deCODE scientists have discovered common versions of two additional genes that significantly predispose individuals to obesity. The companies are now analyzing the genes and the biological pathways they delineate to select optimal targets for the development of new drugs.
The genes were identified through population- and genome-wide linkage scans and association analyses of at-risk haplotypes utilizing genetic and clinical data from the 17,000 participants in deCODE's obesity program in Iceland. The discovery of one of the genes resulted from the analysis of high-density SNP and microsatellite genotyping of more than 900 men with high body-mass index (BMI) and several hundred non-obese relatives and random controls. The at-risk haplotypes, or versions of the gene linked to obesity, were found in more than one in four individuals with high BMI, and were three times more common in these individuals than in controls. This gene, which the companies believe is involved in regulating how the body stores and uses energy, implicates a novel pathway in human obesity.
The at-risk versions of the second gene, which was identified through analysis of 125 families that include multiple women with a high percentage of body fat (PBF), were carried by 22% of those with high PBF. These haplotypes increase the risk of obesity by a factor of five. This gene appears to contribute to obesity through the regulation of appetite.
"These findings demonstrate yet again the power of our capabilities in human genetics for discovering major new targets and pathways involved in the most complex medical conditions. We have identified common alleles of genes that contribute significantly to both of the principal processes involved in obesity -- basic energy metabolism on the one hand and the regulation of appetite on the other," said Kari Stefansson, CEO of deCODE. "With our partners at Merck we are bringing together these findings with extensive work in mouse genetics and biology, giving us a strong starting point for beginning the development of novel drugs for the treatment of obesity."
The prevalence of obesity continues to increase throughout the developed and developing world. Obesity, through its co-morbidities such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and hypertension, contributes greatly to human disease. Together, deCODE and Merck are working to identify novel mechanisms to be targeted by drugs for the treatment of obesity.
<<
How much is Nomar worth?
Nomar is good for a high BA, but he doesn’t walk much so the OBP is now so hot. Moreover, he seems to get a lot of cheap hit off the Green Monster (but probably not as many as Mo Vaughn or Wade Boggs) –would like to know his career BA home vs away.
He doesn’t run much and his fielding may be overrated. Overall, I doubt Nomar is worth even $10M –never mind the $12-15M the Sox have offered.
Comments?
Thanks for the additional slides and clarifications.
I can’t recall if you have previously commented on REGN’s VEGF-Trap –i.e. whether it is likely to show better results than the kind of VEGF inhibition achieved by Avastin/Lucentis. If not, then perhaps now would be a good time to chime in
I know that REGN’s partner, AVE, has plans to conduct human tests of VEGF-Trap in AMD. Moreover, VEGF-Trap has been given systemically in animal studies of AMD.
Thanks, isolution! Some comments and questions:
Slide 5: Any idea what “Supplemental Oxygen” refers to?
Slide 15: This slide is missing from your post.
Slide 17: Unlike GENR’s Squalamine trial, CA4P patients were allowed to have received prior Visudyne. I wonder how this will complicate analysis of the effect of CA4P.
Slide 18: “FA and OCT immediately after first infusion, and just prior to next 3 infusions”. I do not know what FA and OCT mean.
Slide 19: It says four patients have completed treatment, but I do not see a reference to “18 eyes” having been treated as was mentioned on the OXGN message board. Is that information in there somewhere?
Slides 20-31: If it’s not too much trouble, I would be interested in these results.
T.i.a. Dew
[From #534]:
>> Even though Oxigene is the leader in vascular targeting agents based on inhibition of tubulin polymerization in endothelial cells, my attention was caught recently by other drugs being developped as combretastatin analogs by 3 other companies: <<
So are you saying that you see a likelihood of overlapping patents by various companies for the various Combretastatin analogs?
Your English is fine. I just want you to express your ideas more fully. T.i.a.
>> IP=Intellectual property <<
LOL, my fault for being unclear. What I meant was: Why do you prefer GENR’s IP?
>> I have a little preference for Squalamine, mostly in terms of IP valuation, <<
isolution: I’m not sure what you mean by “IP valuation.” Can you clarify?
>> I am picking up from this stunning single case success that dozens of vascular targeting agent Bio houses (like PPHM patent house holds) perhaps have an effective vessel killer in their untested (for wet AMD application) patent inventory.
Perhaps, but that does not follow automatically. Each of these VTA’s still has to be tested and proven in the clinic.
I just picked up some more OXGN at 8.95. Surprised it has not reacted more strongly to today’s news.
Let’s cut to the chase: if you are a big-pharma executive responsible for in-licensing a drug for AMD and/or cancer, which is your first choice: CA4P or Squalamine?
>> It may only concerns one patient, but their decision to increase R&D in that field suggest that they have more (good) results not published yet,<<
Agree. Good call (again) in #256. Do you own any OXGN?
Breaking news on OXGN:
[This is not about OXGN’s phase-1/2 trial in AMD but rather one specific patient with a different eye condition who benefited from treatment with OXGN’s CA4P. The significance, particularly for GENR, is that OXGN now plans to step up its CA4P program in ophthalmology based on this outcome. We should upgrade OXGN a notch or two on the competitive pecking order, IMHO. (Luckily, I bought a bunch of OXGN shares yesterday at 8.57.) ]
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031210/105113_1.html
[All emphasis added by Dew]
>>
OXiGENE Launches Significant Expansion of its R&D Program in Ophthalmology
Wednesday December 10, 7:01 am ET
Patient with Myopic Macular Degeneration Shows Dramatic Improvement Following Treatment with Company's Lead Vascular Targeting Agent
WALTHAM, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 10, 2003-- OXiGENE, Inc. (NASDAQ: OXGN, XSSE: OXGN) today announced a significant expansion of its research and development program in ophthalmology, including plans to begin human studies in several retinal degenerative indications and to develop formulations of its lead vascular targeting agent, Combretastatin A4 Prodrug (CA4P), for local delivery to the eye.
OXiGENE determined to broaden its ophthalmic clinical program after a 35-year-old man suffering from myopic macular degeneration showed dramatic improvement following treatment with CA4P. The patient was treated this fall by clinical investigators at the Wilmer Eye Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The Wilmer Eye Institute is conducting a human study of CA4P for the treatment of a related condition, wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD. The trial is being led by Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology Quan Dong Nguyen, M.D., and Professor of Ophthalmology Peter Campochiaro, M.D. Although the specifics of the patient's condition excluded him from participating in the wet AMD trial, the patient was treated by these investigators under a special U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exemption.
Prior to beginning a regimen of CA4P treatments, the patient had visual acuity of 20/50 in the study eye with active leakage in both eyes that had persisted following other treatment approaches. After the patient was treated with the systemically administered CA4P, his vision has been restored to 20/20 with significantly reduced leakage in each eye.
"The clinical investigators have told us that the patient has clearly responded to CA4P and has had a significant improvement in vision," said OXiGENE President and Chief Executive Officer Fred Driscoll. "This significant improvement in visual acuity and underlying pathology seen in this first patient, together with our current understanding of the safety profile of CA4P gleaned from our numerous ongoing oncology and ophthalmology studies, has stimulated us to expand our development strategy. We now plan to broaden our research and development initiatives and expect to launch a clinical study in myopic degeneration and other diseases complicated by subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. In addition, we will actively pursue the introduction of local formulations of CA4P and other non-systemic methods of administering the compound for ophthalmic indications.
"The decision to broaden our focus in ophthalmology in no way affects the clinical progress CA4P has made in oncology," Driscoll said. "Today's announcement reflects the fact that, based on this encouraging clinical development in ophthalmology, OXiGENE intends to be fully engaged in the development of our vascular targeting agents on both major fronts, oncology and ophthalmology."
High myopia (extreme near sightedness) is a condition in which the feedback mechanisms that tell the eye when to stop growing are dysfunctional and so the eye gets larger than normal. But not all of the tissues continue to grow; rather, they stretch and thin out. The retina and Bruch's membrane (the tissue behind the retina that separates it from the blood vessels of the choroids) are two of the tissues that stretch and become thin. The thinning of the retina in the macula can result in gradual decrease in vision and is called myopic macular degeneration. The thinning of Bruch's membrane can result in cracks through which new blood vessels can grow from the choroid underneath the retina. When this occurs beneath the fovea, it is called subfoveal choroidal neovascularization and often causes sudden and severe loss of vision. There are several other conditions that occur in relatively young patients, such as Ocular Histoplasmosis and Angioid Streaks, in which breaks in Bruch's membrane occur and are complicated by subfoveal choroidal neovascularization.
CA4P is believed to work by damaging and destroying newly formed blood vessels. Pre-clinical studies involving mouse and rabbit models of ocular disease conducted at leading research institutions have reported that CA4P blocks the development and, most importantly, promotes regression of choroidal neovascularization.
"From a research perspective, what makes this so exciting is that this significant response in man replicates what independent researchers have seen with CA4P in their animal models of ocular neovascularization," said Dai Chaplin, Ph.D., OXiGENE's head of research and chief scientific officer. "The response to CA4P in this patient with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization due to myopic degeneration suggests that CA4P should be tested in all the conditions in which breaks in Bruch's membrane lead to subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Also it gives us the impetus to accelerate our development of non-systemic delivery routes for CA4P. Early data in preclinical models has already established that when CA4P is delivered to the eye by means of drops it can be detected in relevant posterior compartments of the eye."
"The results achieved in this patient are especially significant and provide great hope for other patients with myopic macular degeneration. These patients have few treatment options and ultimately experience debilitating vision loss," said Gerald Chader, Ph.D., chief scientific officer of the Foundation Fighting Blindness, which is funding the wet AMD trial. Dr. Chader also is a former scientific director of the National Eye Institute. "We applaud OXiGENE for its initiatives in the area of retinal degenerative disease and its decision to significantly expand its research and development efforts."
<<
Let’s say the Sox can make the Ramirez/A-Rod swap for an extra $5M/yr, and say that unloading Nomar frees up $12M they would have to pay to keep him. Then the question is: who are they gonna get with the net $7M they save from all these machinations? It has to be a heck of a good player for the overall scheme to be a net plus in talent.
Re: Merck:
>> Actually it may make sense that since merck doesn't have any products for amd they might be more willing to go into that area because there won't be any scientist with a vested interest of keeping their pet project going. There won't be anyone with anything to lose if a new project is picked up. <<
For drugs which have advanced as far as phase 2, licensing decisions by companies like MRK are a joint decision by the marketing and R&D staffs. The marketing people will evaluate the fit for the company’s in-house sales force, and they will tend to downgrade a product that would require training salespeople in a new specialty such as ophthalmology.
If we were talking about Trodulamine instead of Squalamine, that would be right up MRK’s alley. In Tuesday’s R&D webcast, MRK’s R&D chief mentioned that MRK has three early-stage candidates for obesity using three distinct MOA’s. Maybe they would consider adding a fourth…
Another nutrition link with AMD:
[I believe this research is circa 2001 and has been updated with the latest data. In any event , I plan to continue eating my nuts and fish –Dew]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&e=7&u=/nm/20031209/hl_nm/fat_blindne...
>>
Fat Intake May Speed Age-Related Blindness
Tue Dec 9, 5:27 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Consumption of fats, especially those in processed baked goods, may promote the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a condition that is the leading cause of blindness from age 65, new research shows. Fat in nuts is the only type that appears to protect against disease progression
There are few therapeutic options for advanced stages of AMD, and little is known about modifying the risk once AMD is established, Dr. Johanna M. Seddon, from Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues report in the Archives of Ophthalmology.
Based on a possible link between AMD and heart disease, the authors conducted a study of 261 patients age 60 or older with AMD. During nearly five years of follow-up, AMD progressed to more severe disease in 101 patients.
People who consumed the highest amounts of fat were nearly three times more likely to experience disease progression than those who consumed the lowest amounts. The association was stronger for vegetable fat than for animal fat.
Fish intake did not reduce the rate of AMD progression, except among subjects with low linoleic acid intake. Eating nuts at least one time each week lowered the risk by about 40 percent, however.
Seddon's group posits that dietary fat may increase AMD progression by promoting plaque build-up in the arteries in the eye, or by producing chemicals that damage the macula portion of the eye.
"A substantial number of people may benefit from raising awareness about the importance of a healthy, fat-conscious diet as a means of maintaining good eye health, as well as cardiovascular health, in later years," they conclude.
SOURCE: Archives of Ophthalmology, December 2003.
<<
What a fool! Nomar could have had his $15M/year for 4 years. I'm pretty sure that figure represents the actual offer made last spring.
Oldie but goodie:
GENR article from CBS:
[If ever there was an article capable of persuading an investor to plunk down hard-earned money on a development-stage, microcap biotech company, this is it. I am reposting the article for the benefit of newbies and to assure the article’s survival in case CBS MarketWatch should ever decide to prune its archive. The article appeared in the wee hours of May 21, 2003, when GENR’s stock price stood at $1.17.]
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&gui...
>>
Genaera walks the research tightrope
Commentary: Drugs offer promise, but cash is burning
Mike Tarsala
Last Update: 12:04 AM ET May 21, 2003
PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa. (CBS.MW) -- Shareholders should know by fall whether Genaera will run out of cash or if there's still a chance for the biopharmaceutical firm to make one of its drugs a blockbuster.
Money-losing Genaera doesn't look pretty on paper. The 22-employee company has all of $7.8 million in cash and short-term investments -- which management says will be enough to last through the end of the calendar year.
The company is also facing a possible Nasdaq delisting by September 18, if management can't show that the stock can trade above $1 a share for a required amount of time. It now trades at $1.17 on Nasdaq.
But the company's CEO Roy Levitt, a former faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, isn't worried. He said this week that upcoming drug trial announcements planned this summer will help the company meet its listing requirements. He adds that upcoming trials should also help take care of the company's cash crunch -- possibly by attracting a large drug company as an investor.
"I'm optimistic that the stock price is not a concern at this point," Levitt said. "We have turned the corner as a company. There are no promises on the outcomes, but we have a lot of news flow coming, and a lot of activity -- and none of these are with tiny products. If any one of them succeeds, the company will be very successful."
Genaera, a $41 million company based outside of Philadelphia, has three potential drugs that are all targeting multi-billion-dollar markets. One of its best-known candidates is called Squalamine, which is in the second phase of trials for treating macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness. It's also in trials for treating prostate and lung cancer.
Levitt says Squalamine has multi-billion-dollar sales potential. He points out that Pfizer agreed to pay a New York-based biotech called Eyetech $100 million up front and as much as $645 million later for the rights to develop a similar drug that was in late stage, Phase III, trails [sic] from Pfizer also agreed to pay the costs of most of the drug's clinical trials.
Squalamine was initially targeted for treating ovarian cancer, and analysts once thought the drug would be a candidate quick approval by the Food and Drug Administration. But in August 2002, Ganaera's [sic] management decided to scrap a Phase III cancer trial, in order to target macular generation -- in part because it was a larger market opportunity and one that might receive FDA approval faster.
Even if Squalamine never gets the FDA's OK, Genaera seems to have an equally promising treatment in the hopper for asthma, called the Interluken-9 antibody program. The company's scientists discovered a gene called Interluken-9 that's pivotal in creating allergy-caused asthmatic mucus in the lungs. MedImmune, an $8.6 billion drug maker, has agreed to give Genaera up to $55 million to develop the treatment, which will begin trials in the third quarter. Levitt says the so-called IL-9 program has the potential to generate $1 billion in sales for treating moderate to severe asthma.
Genaera's stock crawled out from the sub-$1 cellar late last week, after a presentation at the company's annual meeting. The presentation came ahead of the release of preclinical data demonstrating the potential for the asthma drug candidate. The technology was developed a few years ago, and has since been confirmed by third-party research. The stock was at 67 cents last Thursday, and nearly doubled to $1.36 by Tuesday.
Yet another Genaera drug in the works is called Lomucin. It is being evaluated for treating chronic bronchitis, sinusitis and cystic fibrosis. The drug candidate helps stop mucus from forming at its source, helping respiratory inhaled steroids and other asthma drugs work better. Genaera has already received $170,000 from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for the drug's development, and can access more than $1.5 million more from the foundation.
After a long delay, Genaera could receive its first patents on the methods and use of Lomucin this summer.
More Genaera announcements could follow. The company is expecting to report macular degeneration results for Squalamine at some point in the second or third quarter. Phase II Lomucin results for cystic fibrosis should also be released mid-year 2003.
Long-term, if what Levitt says is true and if any of the company's drugs represent even $1 billion in future sales, a deal with a big drug-maker that would give Genaera just a 10 percent share of that future revenue would represent about $175 million today, applying a conservative 35 percent discount rate into the future. That would represent more than four times the company's current stock value.
The question for shareholders: can upcoming announcements attract an investment deal from a big pharmaceutical firm before Genaera runs out of cash?
Levitt says he thinks he can avoid running out of money and having to arrange financing that would dilute the stock. He says cash can be had from multiple sources. He won't name names, but he says he's been in talks about buying a cash-rich company, as well as being acquired by a more established drug industry player. Genaera is also trying to get additional government and private grants.
A short-term loan might be necessary until a larger company agrees to fund Genaera's research, and share future revenue -- what Levitt says is the company's best option. The company is considering a bank loan if the terms are favorable, or even a loan from one or more employees.
"I feel strongly that we can get a deal with a drug company," Levitt says. "I just can't say whether will get one before we have to go out and raise some money."
Alan Schmidt, portfolio manager with Northgate Partners in New York, and one of Genaera's major shareholders, says Levitt may be underestimating the company's potential. Schmidt is betting that Genaera will have some sort of deal with a big company by year's end -- possibly after the company gets its Lomucin patent.
Schmidt says the company's cash situation isn't good, but not as bad as Levitt says it is. Genaera has reduced its cash burn to under $500,000 a month, meaning that the company's cash could last more than a year. And in counting the cash, the company hasn't included funding from MedImmune, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the Department of Defense, the latter of which is kicking in funding to test Squalamine for treating prostate cancer.
"Genaera's management is always very conservative," Schmidt says. "The last thing they want to have happen is to overstate the case."
If the flow of press releases over the summer months is positive, Schmidt may be proven right. Genaera's case may prove to be understated. And the stock could be headed even higher.
Mike Tarsala is a San Francisco-based reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com.
<<
[Thanks, Mike!]
>> Do you therefore now think that MRK is not likely to enter into a partnership agreement with GENR? <<
MRK’s R&D chief re-iterated that the company has a huge number of prospective deals on its radar screen (the number is now 80, up from the 70 mentioned in Ray Gilmartin’s Reuters interview a few weeks ago ), so I suppose anything is possible. However, I think the likelihood of MRK’s partnering on Squalamine has to be downgraded a few notches after today’s webcast.
For better or worse, MRK seems to be casting its lot in the areas of diabetes, cardiovascular, pain/anti-inflammatory, and vaccines.
Merck update:
MRK’s 5-hour “R&D Day” webcast is now ending, and there has been nary a peep all day about drugs in ophthalmic diseases. Even more surprising, there has been virtually no discussion of oncology. FWIW
>> Also the volume of this stock seems quite high for a small bio. Any reason other than it's a good buy, or are a lot of traders pushing this around? <<
The share volume is fairly high, but I don’t think the dollar volume is unusually high for a small biotech.
--
Do you any particular reason for focusing on the second-generation aminosterols? GENR is working with the NCI on an oral formulation.
My impression is that AVE plans to pursue AMD via REGN’s VEGF-Trap rather than via their in-house VTA.
[OT] Competition for ConjuChem and AMLN/LLY’s Exenatide:
MRK has on oral diabetes drug called MK-431 that inhibits an enzyme called DP-4 which in turn metabolizes GLP-1. Hence MK-431 allows GLP-1 to hang around longer in the body and perform its feedback-loop function vis-a-vis insulin production.
MRK will initiate phase-3 trials in 2Q04 and expects to file an NDA in 2006.
[This info from MRK’s “R&D Day” webcast in progress.]
The Pfizer-Eyetech licensing deal:
[In response to rkcrules’ question on Yahoo, I am posting the 12/18/02 PR announcing the Macugen deal]:
http://www.pfizer.com/are/investors_releases/mn_2002_1218a.cfm
>>
PFIZER, EYETECH PHARMACEUTICALS ENTER GLOBAL COLLABORATION FOR POTENTIAL TREATMENT FOR BLINDNESS
NEW YORK, Dec. 18 - Pfizer Inc and Eyetech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. today announced they have entered into an agreement to jointly develop and commercialize Eyetech's Macugen(TM) (pegaptanib sodium), a potential treatment for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME), both leading causes of blindness.
Under terms of the deal, which is subject to government approval, Pfizer will make initial payments of $100 million, with the potential for an additional $195 million in milestone payments based on worldwide regulatory submission and approvals. Eyetech also has the potential to receive up to an additional $450 million in milestone payments, which are contingent upon successful commercialization of Macugen(TM) and based on attainment of agreed-upon sales levels.
Pfizer will also fund the majority of the ongoing development costs for both the AMD and DME indications. Further, if approved, Macugen(TM) will be co-promoted by Eyetech and Pfizer in the United States where Eyetech will have an ophthalmology sales force and record sales. Outside of the United States, Pfizer will market the product exclusively under a royalty-bearing license. Additional payments are subject to worldwide Macugen(TM) sales. Further terms of the deal were not disclosed.
"This is a landmark accomplishment for a young biotechnology company. We are excited to partner with the world's leading pharmaceutical company to bring a potentially innovative therapy to so many patients who are at risk of losing their sight," said Dr. David Guyer, Eyetech Pharmaceuticals' co-founder and chief executive officer.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Macugen(TM) "fast-track" status for the treatment of exudative, or "wet" form of AMD as well as for DME because of the product's expected potential to fulfill a significant unmet medical need.
"We are very pleased to partner with Eyetech on what we believe will be a breakthrough treatment for a devastating medical condition," said Pfizer President Karen Katen. "As the world's population ages, there will be an increasing number of people at risk for macular degeneration."
Administered by intravitreal injection, Macugen(TM) is an aptamer that selectively binds to and neutralizes Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF). In early clinical studies, Macugen(TM) was shown to inhibit abnormal blood vessel growth and stabilize and/or reverse blood vessel leakage in the back of the eye resulting in improved vision by three lines or more on standard eye charts in 26 percent of patients.
Eyetech's Phase III development program for wet AMD involves nearly 1,200 patients at 117 investigational sites in the United States, Canada, South America, Europe, Israel and Australia, the largest clinical development program of its kind. Macugen(TM) is being developed as monotherapy as well as in combination with photodynamic therapy.
Wet Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
The leading cause of irreversible vision loss among Americans over the age of 55, AMD occurs in two different forms: dry AMD and wet AMD. The wet form accounts for approximately 200,000 new cases annually, with a prevalence of 1.2 million cases in the United States alone.
Wet AMD is characterized by the growth of abnormal blood vessels into the area beneath the retina. This process, known as angiogenesis or neovascularization, results in fragile blood vessels that leak fluid and blood into the macula, the portion of the retina responsible for central vision. This leakage damages the area and results in a rapid loss of central vision, which is critical for tasks such as reading, driving, watching television and recognizing faces.
Laser photocoagulation and photodynamic therapy are the only current treatments for certain types of patients.
Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)
DME affects roughly 135,000 Americans with diabetes each year and is the leading cause of blindness in adults under the age of 55. The decreased vision that characterizes DME results from fluid and lipids leaking from retinal blood vessels.
Eyetech Pharmaceuticals (http://www.eyetk.com) is dedicated to the discovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics and delivery systems to combat the vision loss associated with ophthalmic diseases. Founded in 2000, the privately-held, New York City-based company is focused on meeting the medical needs of patients with diseases that affect the back of the eye. Its investors include partners and affiliates of JP Morgan Partners, BB Biotech, MPM Capital, Alta Partners, Schroder Ventures, Life Sciences and International BioTechnology Trust plc, and Merrill Lynch KeCalp.
<<
Asthma product from AZN:
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/031209/0618000616_2.html
>>
AstraZeneca Submits EU Application For Symbicort SiT
Tuesday December 9, 6:18 am ET
LONDON -(Dow Jones)- AstraZeneca announced Tuesday the submission of an E.U. regulatory application for the new asthma treatment concept Symbicort Single inhaler Therapy (SiT). Symbicort SiT is the management of persistent asthma with a single inhaler, Symbicort Turbuhaler.
This new treatment concept is a further development of Symbicort adjustable maintenance dosing, which has already shown overall better asthma control than treatment with a higher average fixed maintenance dose. Symbicort Single inhaler Therapy, once approved, will make asthma treatment more effective and simpler for both the physician and the patient.
"Asthma is a variable disease, where patients experience periods of good control, but also periods of worsenings, which can develop into acute events. The Symbicort Single inhaler Therapy treatment concept will provide one single inhaler for all situations; for baseline therapy, for increasing the dose during worsenings as well as for acute situations. A separate reliever or rescue bronchodilator will no longer be needed," said Dr Anders Ekblom, Vice President & Head of the Respiratory & Inflammation Therapy Area, AstraZeneca.
"This new treatment concept is focused on the individual needs of each person with asthma treated with Symbicort and is very easy and intuitive to follow."
Symbicort is the only combination treatment that allows patients to adjust their dose with the same single inhaler. The prescriber currently has the discretion to advise the patient on which type of Symbicort therapy would be suitable for the individual and how to adjust the dose of Symbicort within the approved dosing range.
This adjustable treatment concept is expanded with SymbicortÒ Single inhaler Therapy. With Symbicort SiT, patients take a regular daily dose of Symbicort, can take additional inhalations when needed to improve control and can now also use the same inhaler to provide acute relief instead of using the traditional fast-acting bronchodilator. Thus patients do not require a separate rescue bronchodilator with SymbicortÒ Single inhaler Therapy.
The current worldwide market for fixed combination asthma products is estimated to be worth $3.5bn. To date, Symbicort is launched in 62 markets and approved in more than 80 countries.
<<
I, too, replied to the Forbes author:
>>
Dear Ms. Moukheiber:
Your Bull’s Eye article [December 22, 2003] left readers with the impression that the recently completed Macugen trials produced reasonably good clinical data. However, I believe it is more accurate to consider these trials a clinical failure.
The benefit-risk tradeoff is not especially compelling as only 6% of the patients in the overall patient pool gained three or more lines on their visual acuity reading (the standard threshold for a positive response), yet 2% of these patients experienced a serious adverse event such as a cataract, infection, or detached retina.
Although the Macugen data look better when viewed in terms of “stable vision” (defined as a result no worse than a loss of two lines), one would presume that Pfizer and Eyetech were hoping for much more when they entered into their lucrative licensing pact for Macugen.
The door is open for competing therapies in the wet form of macular degeneration such as Genentech's Lucentis and Genaera's Squalamine.
<<
drbio: Please check your laura mail.
Re: Forbes:
>> Zina the author of the article mentions the wet and dry form of amd and that the dry form can turn to the wet form. She didn't make the connection that since squalamine works systemically it may either prevent the second eye from ever becoming the wet form or even if the eye does progress it may take care of the problem before the disease progresses and causes too much damage to the eye so that it can't be repaired. <<
She needs to leave some good stuff for the next article –the one that will be written about the partnership deal for Squalamine
Overall, I thought it was a fairly well-written article, although it was clearly too dismissive of the shortcomings in the recently released Macugen data.
Forbes article on Macugen and AMD (GENR mentioned):
[Annotations in italics by Dew]
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1222/232.html
>>
A much-touted cancer treatment could end up fighting something completely different: the dreaded macular degeneration
Selwyn Paskowitz was driving six years ago when suddenly out of his left eye he saw roadside lamp poles freakishly warp. Less than a year later Paskowitz could no longer make out people's faces, and dusky blotches like something out of a Mark Rothko painting marred his central vision. "It was annoying," says the 65-year-old retired naval officer, a bit stoically.
Paskowitz is one of nearly 9 million Americans suffering from age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, the leading cause of blindness in people over 50. Eight out of ten people with AMD have the milder, "dry" form of the disease, but that can develop into the more serious, "wet" form of AMD that accounts for 90% of the afflicted population's vision loss. AMD can distort and block central vision within days of its onset, or slowly darken the world over years. The television drama ER ran a purplish three-episode story with Bob Newhart playing a builder of architectural models who develops AMD, descends into depression and finally puts a gun to his head. While there is no cure, sufferers can still see well from the periphery and may be affected in only one eye.
The federal National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md. estimates that every year 260,000 people will develop the disease, and the rate will increase as the population ages. [There are about 500,000 new wet AMD diagnoses each year, worldwide.] "It's an epidemic," says Frederick Ferris, an ophthalmologist at the institute.
Pharmaceutical companies have largely overlooked AMD, spending more time and effort treating cataracts and glaucoma, the latter of which affects 3 million Americans. Clinical trials for an AMD drug cost ten times more than a glaucoma trial because the latest imaging technology to examine the retina is expensive, as are the lengthy, complicated tests to diagnose AMD. [Another reason for the high expense to test AMD is that the FDA requires a minimum 12 months of patient follow-up.]
The only AMD treatment on the market now is Visudyne, a laser-activated drug from QLT Inc. and Novartis that stops blood vessels from leaking. Approved three years ago by the Food & Drug Administration, Visudyne treats only a particular type of macular degeneration that afflicts 25% of all wet-AMD patients. [Visudyne is approved only for the predominantly classic subtype of wet AMD in the U.S., but it approved more widely in certain countries.] Though it generates $350 million in annual sales, Visudyne hasn't lived up to its original hype, with most patients continuing to lose their vision. [That’s because Visudyne at best stops the leaking of the abnormal blood vessels, but it does not destroy them.]
But promising new treatments for macular degeneration are on their way, emerging, in an unlikely twist, from cancer research. Fighting both wet-form AMD and malignant tumors depends partly on squelching new blood-vessel growth, a process known as antiangiogenesis. In dry AMD vision is marred by yellow deposits called drusen. But in wet AMD rogue capillaries invade the retina, the thin film along the back of the eye that transmits images in the form of electrical signals to the brain. The spreading blood vessels leak their plasma under the macula, a quarter-inch-wide area that controls central vision. The macula swells and scars, robbing the eye's ability to see directly ahead; peripheral vision remains intact. "Macular degeneration is like cancer. You have very aggressive, abnormally growing vessels that are hard to turn off," says Carmen Puliafito, ophthalmology chairman at the University of Miami and an unpaid adviser on Macugen, an antiangiogenesis drug now in testing. [I find the analogy with cancer to be somewhat misleading because the blood vessels in AMD do not generally mutate and become refractory to treatment.]
Harvard Medical School's Judah Folkman pioneered the field of angiogenesis in the 1960s, but it wasn't until 1989 that Genentech researcher Napoleone Ferrara first isolated a protein crucial to angiogenesis called vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF. Genentech's first anti-VEGF drug, the colon-cancer fighter Avastin, has huge expectations and is anticipated to be approved in 2004.
Macular degeneration drugs from Eyetech Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Genaera are all targeting VEGF. Genentech's Lucentis, now in final-stage trials, is a chemical fragment of Avastin. Ophthalmic giant Alcon Laboratories just completed a late-stage trial for its drug Retaane, a modified steroid that targets enzymes produced by stimulated blood vessels.
But the leading candidate right now appears [I would say appeare*d* --Dew] to be Macugen, from Eyetech, based in New York. In November the company released results from a 1,200-patient trial. The drug, which is delivered through an injection in the eye, improved vision in 6% of patients at the end of one year, defined as the ability to read more than three lines on an eye chart (22% were able to read at least one more line). More good news:70% had less than a three-line loss of vision, compared with 55% in the group that was given a sham injection. "The goal is to try to retain as much vision as possible," says Puliafito. Eyetech could file for approval early next year. If approved, Macugen could potentially treat all three types of wet-form macular degeneration [i.e. predominantly classic, minimally classic, and occult].
Founded in 2000 by ophthalmologists David Guyer, 43, and Anthony Adamis, 44, Eyetech has raised $143 million in venture money and in September filed for a public offering. Guyer, who is chief executive, and Adamis, chief scientist, declined to speak, citing the company's regulatory "quiet period."
Adamis had worked in Folkman's lab at Harvard in the early 1990s and, in 1994, published his discovery that patients with macular degeneration have high levels of VEGF protein in the affected eyes, causing blood vessels to proliferate. His work caught the attention of Nebojsa Janjic, a director of drug discovery at NeXstar Pharmaceuticals [now part of GILD –see below] a biotech firm in Boulder, Colo. Janjic had developed a cancer drug using an aptamer, or small string of synthetic RNA, that binds to one of the five known forms of VEGF protein and prevents it from docking to its receptor on the endothelial cell and sending out a signal for vessels to grow.
But the aptamer didn't hold up to scrutiny, failing to stop tumor growth in rats. Aptamers were also expensive to manufacture. After reading Adamis' paper, Janjic guessed that the eye might make a better candidate, since small amounts of the anti-VEGF drug could be delivered locally, causing blood vessels to shrivel up.
In 1996 Janjic met with Adamis, who, along with colleague David Guyer, helped NeXstar design clinical trials for what would become Macugen. In 1999 NeXstar enrolled the first patients, but then Gilead Sciences acquired the company. Gilead, focused on antivirals, decided to sell the drug. Guyer and Adamis were more than happy to buy it. In February 2000 they formed Eyetech, raised $35 million in venture capital and licensed Macugen, paying Gilead $7 million up front, with up to $25 million more in future milestone payments, plus royalties.
Although only a handful of patients were tested for three months, the initial results were very encouraging, with 25% of patients able to read an additional three lines on an eye chart. The results excited Pfizer enough that it agreed last year to pay up to $745 million to codevelop and market Macugen.
The drug may still fail to win approval, and some patients will squirm at the idea of getting poked in the eye with a needle every month or so. Patients run the risk of infection, which can lead to blindness and retinal detachment. In Macugen's trial 16 patients out of 890 injected developed such complications. (Genaera's goes in the arm, and Retaane uses a blunt tube that swerves around the eyeball). "I'm pretty sensitive when people start messing with my eyes," says Paskowitz. "The treatment has to be 100% effective."
<<
FDA Panel Rejects Wider Aspirin Use to Help Heart:
[Biowatch: weren’t you and terryhallinan just joking that the FDA would never approve aspirin if someone applied today?]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=594&u=/nm/20031208/hl_nm/health_aspirin_dc&pr...
>>
GAITHERSBURG, Md. (Reuters) - A U.S. advisory panel on Monday voted against broadening the approved use of aspirin to include daily therapy to prevent a first heart attack.
Daily aspirin now is approved only for preventing heart attacks in patients who already have had a heart attack, which puts them at high risk for another attack. Aspirin maker Bayer Corp. has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to clear the wider use for preventing heart attacks.
By 11-3, the FDA advisers voted that the data Bayer presented did not prove the benefits of aspirin used by the wider group would outweigh the risks. The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels.
Aspirin can stop blood from clotting and causing a heart attack, but it also can cause potentially fatal stomach bleeding in a small percentage of patients.
Bayer wants the FDA to approve an updated label to reflect guidelines from the American Heart Association, which advises aspirin use for people who have not had a heart attack but are at moderate risk for having one.
Moderate risk is defined as having at least a 10 percent chance of having a heart attack over 10 years. An estimated 30 million Americans fall into that category, Bayer said.
"We can prevent this disease with aspirin therapy on a regular basis ... we believe there is a major public health benefit to be had," said Dr. Thomas Pearson, a Bayer consultant from the University of Rochester School of Medicine.
<<
Yet another flavor of VEGF:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031208/85387_1.html
>>
Findings of Next-Generation VEGF Cancer Agent Presented at ASH
Norris-USC Team Presents Data at ASH from Phase I Trial in Relapsed and Refractory Malignancies at ASH
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 8, 2003--The first in the next generation of VEGF inhibiting agents -- those that employ a three-prong approach to inhibiting tumor growth -- can be administered safely in a number of cancers and HIV-related malignancies through eight escalating dose levels, according to clinical data presented during the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology here today. The single-course, phase I, dose escalation and pharmacokinetic trial of the next-generation agent, VEGF-AS, (Veglin), was conducted by the Norris Cancer Center of the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, under the sponsorship of VasGene Therapeutics, Inc., among relapsed and refractory patients with a variety of tumor types. Used as a single agent, Veglin also demonstrated evidence of activity following one or two cycles of therapy in some patients.
VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) is an essential family of naturally-occurring growth factors found in humans and other animals that stimulates growth and supports survival of cells of the vascular system. VEGF is necessary for production of the blood vessels that transport nutrients and oxygen to cells and organs (angiogenesis). Without these vessels, tumors have limited capacity to grow. In addition, certain tumor cells themselves express the receptors for VEGF, and use VEGF as a growth stimulus.
In combination with chemotherapy, the inhibition of the VEGF family of proteins is being aggressively pursued as a strategy for treating cancer and other malignancies. It has been demonstrated that depriving tumors of blood supply can produce a substantial benefit in physically shrinking them indirectly, after several months of therapy. However, Veglin has demonstrated activity in advanced cancers after short durations of therapy as a single agent, and is therefore likely inhibiting the growth of the tumor cells directly, in addition to starving the tumor of nutrients.
"Veglin is the only agent in the VEGF antagonist class with this three-prong approach to inhibiting tumor growth by simultaneous inhibition of VEGF-A , VEGF-C and VEGF-D" (http://www.vasgene.com/products/veglin.asp), said Parkash Gill, M.D., Professor of Medicine (Hematology, Oncology and Pathology) at the Norris Cancer Center of the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.
The Phase I Norris-USC Trial
The 26 patients studied in the Phase I trial had a median age of 57. All patients had failed standard conventional therapy including chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy and stem cell transplantation. The study was conducted to determine the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose of Veglin given as an intravenous infusion, to evaluate Veglin's pharmakokinetic profile and to identify evidence of objective tumor response. The group of 26 patients studied includes those with lymphoma (5), AIDS-Kaposi's Sarcoma (4), renal cell carcinoma (3), sarcoma (3), colon cancer (2), lung cancer (2) and other malignancies (7).
The results presented today indicate that Veglin could be administered safely in doses from 15 mg/m2) to 85 mg/m2), with no evidence of hypertension or other side effects seen with other VEGF antagonists. Moreover, Veglin demonstrated evidence of activity following one or two cycles of therapy in some patients.
VasGene anticipates initiating Phase II clinical trials of Veglin during the first quarter of 2004.
USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital has been designated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a Regional Comprehensive Cancer Center. This exceptional designation identifies the USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital as a leader in cancer treatment, research, prevention and education.
Veglin is a potent antisense oligonucleotide which binds VEGF mRNA by Watson Crick base pairing, leading to mRNA degradation, and is the product of many years of fundamental research and product development work led by Dr. Gill and his team at Norris-USC. Dr. Gill is an international authority in angiogenesis and its role in the progression of a number of prevalent diseases including cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic retinopathy and macular degeneration. He is also a founder of VasGene.
VasGene is an early-stage biotechnology company dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative therapeutics based on the understanding of vascular biology. Breakthroughs in the basic understanding of the vascular networks combined with powerful new biotechnological tools, have provided the foundation for new, rational, and technologically sophisticated approaches to anti-angiogenesis agents, and have created an environment where this class of drugs is now poised for success.
<<
Cancer-drug factoid:
Of the approximately 700 new biotech drugs in clinical development, more than half –350 drugs-- are in oncology.
Source: Priory Healthcare Corp. (PHCC) webcast at the ML Healthcare Services Conference (12/3/03)
Re: Surveys:
rwwine et al:
Further to biowatch’s reply: I posted the results of two partnership surveys from Yahoo (one on the identity of the partner, and one on the deal value):
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=7077012&tid=magn&sid=7077012&acti...
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=7077012&tid=magn&sid=7077012&acti...
Additionally, there are two surveys here on iHub. Click on the “Surveys” link at the top of your page to see the results. (The two iHub surveys are still open for voting.)
If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to create additional surveys or to rerun prior surveys to see if there has been a shift in sentiment. Feedback welcomed.
Re: IL-9:
>> I can say that what I have seen so far in the literature is supportive of Dr. Levitt. I am not at all discouraged by this one article. <<
That coincides with my superficial layperson’s impression. It’s a little hard to believe that MEDI would be so demonstrably enthusiastic about the IL-9 program if it were such a flawed drug target.
>> I will be looking into the matter more deeply, but I hope others with more expertise in this area will also. <<
Please keep us apprised of your efforts. T.i.a. Dew