According to the Alzheimer’s Association, AD is the sixth-leading cause of death in the country and the only cause of death among the top 10 in the United States that cannot be prevented, cured or even slowed. Estimates vary, but experts suggest that as many as 5.4 million Americans may have AD.

A fatal form of dementia, AD is a chronic neurogenetic disorder that results in a progressive decline in cognitive functions including memory, judgment, decision-making, orientation to physical surroundings and language. With the increasing life expectancy and the accelerated aging of the population, there is an urgent need to develop treatments for AD.

As of 2010, there are an estimated 36 million people in the world with dementia and this number is expected to increase to 66 million in 2030 and 115 million in 2050.  As many as 28 million of the world’s 36 million people with dementia have yet to receive a diagnosis, and therefore do not have access to treatment, information, and care.

Most people with dementia will be cared for at home by a family member.  Caring for a person with such a disease can cause emotional, psychological and physical problems.

Due in part to the high projected cost of the treatment, supportive care, and the emotional stress on families, in 2011 the US Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Alzheimer’s Project Act that instructs the US government to develop a strategic plan to slow the progression, delay the onset, and prevent AD by 2025.

New federal funding has been committed prior to the completion of the strategic plan.  In February 2012, the Obama administration announced it plans to spend an additional $50 million this year and will seek an extra $80 million in fiscal 2013 to bolster research for AD.  An additional $26 million will be allocated to goals outside pure research, including public awareness and support for caregivers.  The National Alzheimer’s Project Act also established an Advisory Council on AD research, which brings together some of the foremost experts in the field.  The next meeting for the Advisory Council is scheduled for April 17, 2012, and the plan is expected to be completed in 2012.

Beyond the government initiatives, 2012 represents a pivotal year for AD drug development, especially in view of expected results from ongoing Phase 3 trials, including solanezumab by Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY), bapineuzumab by Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Pfizer Inc. (PFE), and Elan Corporation plc (ELN), and tideglusib by Noscira/Grupo Zeltia.

Positive results from other ongoing clinical trials, the introduction of new tools for detection, such as Eli Lilly’s Amyvid™ imaging agent, and advances in understanding the causes and biology of AD could also enhance interest and much needed investment in the life science companies developing treatments for this disease.

New data in the field will be reported at the two main AD conferences in 2012.  The first event is the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) annual meeting being held July 14-19, 2012 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  The second is the International Conference on Alzheimer’s’ Disease (ICAD) annual meeting being held October 8-9, 2012 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

In view of recent progress, we believe that therapeutic success in AD could indeed occur as early as this year.  Accordingly, we produced a white paper titled “2012: A Pivotal Year for Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development” to provide an overview of product candidates in clinical trials and the more than 30 life science companies developing novel therapies for AD.

To request a free copy of the white paper, please click here.

Visibility for the disease is on the rise following the recent deaths of Apple, Inc. (AAPL) co-founder Steve Jobs and Ralph Steinman, a cell biologist who died several days before being named one of three winners for the 2011 Nobel Prize in Medicine.  While awareness is increasing, there is an urgent need for more effective treatments and diagnostics to detect the disease earlier due to the fact that the number of new pancreatic cancer cases is projected to increase by 55% from 2010 to 2030[3].

Difficult Disease

The disease remains one of the most difficult to treat due to its extreme resistance to treatment and few early symptoms.  At the time of initial diagnosis, 50% of patients have distant metastases to the liver or peritoneal surface, and more than 80% of the remaining patients have locally advanced tumors [confined to the pancreas but unresectable][4]. The majority of pancreatic tumors [95%] are adenocarcinomas that mainly develop from exocrine cells in the tissues of the pancreas[5]. The tumors are characterized by an aggressive behavior with a fast progression rate that makes them highly metastatic. In contrast, neuroendocrine tumors of pancreatic origin [pancreatic NET, also known as islet cell tumors] are not as common [<2%] and are considered less deadly[6].

Illustrating the difference between the two, Hollywood actor Patrick Swayze was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic exocrine cancer that had already spread to the liver in March 2008 and lost his battle with the disease in September 2009 at the age of 57.  Apple’s Steve Jobs underwent surgery for pancreatic NET in 2004 and didn’t succumb to the disease until October 2011 at the age of 56.

Treatment for Organ Confined Disease

In terms of treatment, surgical removal of the tumor represents the best option for pancreatic cancer patients without invasion into surrounding organs or distant metastasis.  Unfortunately, only 15–20% of all patients are candidates for potentially curative surgery[7].  Depending on the tumor localization, pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure], distal, or total pancreatectomy can be performed.  However, even with an optimal curative surgery, metastases often occur.  Median survival time without evidence of recurrent disease is 21.2 months after surgical resection[8].

Treatment for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Disease

For locally advanced or metastatic disease, an effective single agent for pancreatic cancer remains elusive and treatment is still palliative rather than curative.  Since its approval in 1997, Eli Lilly’s (LLY) Gemzar® [gemcitabine] is the only single agent that improves symptoms and overall survival [OS] in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic exocrine cancer.  However, gemcitabine is associated with a modest median OS of 5.7 months and one-year probability of survival rate of 18%[9]. No confirmed objective tumor responses were observed in the pivotal study.

Beyond Single Agent Gemcitabine

At least 35 Phase II trials of gemcitabine-containing regimens and 11 randomized Phase III trials have been performed to improve the efficacy of gemcitabine alone, but the progress to date has been incremental at best[10].  In these 46 trials, overall response rates ranged from 5% to 58% in the Phase II studies and 4.4% to 38.5% in the Phase III studies.  Median OS ranged from 4 months to 13.1 months in the Phase II studies and 5.4 months to 9 months in the Phase III studies.  Inclusion of heterogeneous patient populations in many of these studies may have confounded the results, as the median survival time for patients with metastatic disease and locally advanced disease is 3–6 and 9-13 months, respectively[11].  The only successful combination approved by the FDA in 2005 is gemcitabine plus Roche/Astellas Pharma’s Tarceva® [erlotinib], which modestly increased the median OS to 6.4 months and one-year survival to 23%.

Hope on the Horizon

Despite the long list of past failures, drug developers continue to explore new options for treating pancreatic cancer and more than a dozen new treatments are currently being evaluated in clinical trials [see Table 1].  One product was recently approved and several programs have demonstrated encouraging results with data from pivotal trials due in the next 6-12 months.  While a comprehensive review of investigational pancreatic cancer therapies is beyond the scope of this article, we briefly highlight some of the more high profile pancreatic treatments below:

Amgen, Inc. (AMGN)

Amgen is developing ganitumab (also known as AMG 479), an investigational fully human monoclonal antibody that targets type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor [IGF-1R], which plays an important role in the regulation of cell growth and survival.  At the 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] Annual Meeting, Amgen announced results from a Phase 2 study demonstrating that the addition of AMG 479 to gemcitabine resulted in an OS rate at six months of 56.6% versus 50.1% with gemcitabine alone[12]. Median OS was 7.3 months versus 6.2 months in the gemcitabine arm.  Amgen initiated a Phase III trial with AMG 479 for metastatic pancreatic cancer in the second quarter of 2011 with data expected in late 2013 or 2014 [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01231347].  This trial focuses on metastatic disease and therefore should represent a homogeneous patient population where the median OS is expected to be 3–6 months in the control arm.

Celgene Corporation (CELG)

Historically known more for its franchise in treating blood cancers, Celgene moved into the realm of solid tumors through its 2010 acquisition of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. for $2.9 billion.  As a result, Celgene is now developing Abraxane® [paclitaxel protein-bound particles for injectable suspension] for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.  Abraxane is currently approved for the treatment of breast cancer after failure of combination chemotherapy for metastatic disease or relapse within 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy[13].

In October 2011, positive Phase I/II study results with Abraxane in combination with gemcitabine in 67 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology[14].  In the Phase II component of the study, the overall response rate was 48% [21/44 patients], median OS was 12.2 months, and the one-year survival rate for patients was 48%.  This compares favorably with the median OS of 5.7 months and one-year probability of survival rate of 18% with single-agent gemcitabine.

The combination of Abraxane and gemcitabine is now the treatment arm of an ongoing, international, randomized Phase III clinical trial for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00844649].  Importantly, this study specifically excludes patients with only locally advanced disease and therefore represents a homogeneous patient population where the median OS is expected to be 3–6 months in the control arm.

Clovis Oncology, Inc. (private)

In November 2009, Clovis licensed rights from Clavis Pharma for CO-101 in the U.S., E.U., and select other countries.  CO-101 is an investigational, lipid-conjugated derivative of gemcitabine, currently in a pivotal Phase II randomized, open-label, multicenter study comparing CO-101 with gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01124786].  CO-101 is designed to improve upon the efficacy of gemcitabine by enabling the drug to enter cancer cells without requiring membrane expression of transporter proteins.  As a hydrophilic molecule, the entry of gemcitabine into tumor cells is dependent upon the expression of specific membrane transporter proteins, particularly human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 [hENT1].  Data from the pivotal Phase II trial are expected in the first half of 2012 and the inclusion criteria for only Stage IV patients [metastatic] represents a homogeneous population to study in this trial.

In April 2010, Clovis Oncology, Inc. and Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. entered into a collaboration for the development of a hENT1 immunohistochemistry [IHC] assay, which will be used in Clovis’ CO-101 clinical trials to identify patients with low level tumor expression of hENT1 protein.  Approximately 50% of pancreatic cancer patients have been shown to have low tumor expression of hENT1 and low levels of tumor hENT1 expression have been shown to correlate with poor survival outcomes after gemcitabine therapy[15].  These observations support the hypothesis that limited tumor uptake of gemcitabine in hENT1-low patients is responsible for a poor treatment effect in many patients and is an excellent example of a biomarker-driven clinical strategy.

Novartis AG (NVS)

In May 2011, the FDA approved Afinitor® (everolimus) by Novartis AG (NVS) for the treatment of progressive pancreatic NET in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic disease. Afinitor is an allosteric inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR], a serine-threonine kinase, downstream of the PI3K/AKT pathway that is dysregulated in several human cancers.  Approval of Afinitor represents the first new therapy for pancreatic NET in the US in nearly 30 years[16].  The approval was based on Phase III data from the RADIANT-3 [RAD001 In Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors] trial, showing treatment with Afinitor plus best supportive care more than doubled median progression-free survival [PFS], or time without tumor growth, from 4.6 to 11.0 months and reduced the risk of cancer progression by 65% when compared with placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic NET.

Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (THLD)

At the 2011 ASCO Gastro Intestinal Cancers Symposium, Threshold Pharmaceuticals presented results with its hypoxia-activated prodrug, TH-302, in combination with gemcitabine in 47 patients with previously untreated, locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma[17].  Of the 43 evaluable patients, one patient [2%] demonstrated a complete response as measured by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors] and 8 patients [19%] had a partial response.  In the gemcitabine plus TH-302 treatment arms, median OS was 8.5 months.  While this compares favorably with the median OS of 5.7 months with single-agent gemcitabine, recall that in 35 Phase II trials of gemcitabine-containing regimens in heterogeneous patient populations the median OS ranged from 4 months to 13.1 months.

In June 2011, Threshold Pharmaceuticals completed enrollment of patients with first-line, locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  The company expanded the study’s enrollment target from the original 165 patients to at least 200 patients.  As mentioned earlier, inclusion of a heterogeneous patient population may confound the study results [expected before the end of 2011], as the median OS for patients with metastatic disease and locally advanced disease is different.

Conclusion

As we approach Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month in November, visibility for the disease is on the rise following recent high-profile deaths.  Despite numerous late-stage failures, more than a dozen products are currently in clinical trials with key data expected in the next 6-12 months.  Going forward, early detection using biomarkers, more effective treatments, and novel drug targets could provide new hope for the treatment of this deadly disease.

NOTE: For more information, please visit the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [http://www.pancan.org], a national organization creating hope in a comprehensive way through research, patient support, community outreach and advocacy for a cure.

Table 1. Baker’s Dozen in Active Clinical Development for Pancreatic Cancer

References

Table 1. Old Versus New Paradigm in Biotechnology Collaborations

In addition, the negative considerations from large pharmaceutical partnerships are often overlooked, which begs the question: is it better to partner, or go alone?  To help address the topic, this article focuses on the oncology segment of the life science industry – one of the most popular therapeutic areas for partnering and merger & acquisition [M&A] activity.

Luck Vs Skill

Prior to addressing the question of whether or not a small biotechnology company should collaborate with a larger pharmaceutical organization, we solicited investor views regarding the process of corporate partnering.  Some of the feedback indicates there is a lack of transparency.

“As an investor, partnering activity is the most opaque part of our companies’ business,” said David Sable, portfolio manager, Special Situations Life Sciences Fund.  “Every small biotech CEO tries to create an image of limitless interest on the part of big pharma in each of the company’s projects, a dynamic that will inevitably result in a value-maximizing transaction.  Many management teams deliver on these promises; in retrospect, however, at least as many seem to have parked their molecule in the front yard with a ‘For Sale’ sign and hoped for the best.  While we can validate the importance of a molecular pathway, double-check market size predictions, run our own statistics and reality-check pricing assumptions, we have no way to identify talent in business development.”

Left at the Altar

One of the most important negative considerations for biotechnology companies looking to partner is that large pharmaceutical companies often shift resources and the focus of their pipeline development candidates over time, which may put their collaborators at risk.  Although sometimes done for strategic reasons rather than due to new clinical insight, the sudden departure of a large pharmaceutical partner can reflect poorly on an otherwise promising product candidate.

For example, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX) announced in September 2010 that the company would regain full worldwide rights to develop and commercialize rindopepimut [CDX-110] from Pfizer, Inc. (PFE).  The companies had entered into a global development and commercialization agreement in April 2008 for rindopepimut, an experimental therapeutic cancer vaccine that targets the tumor-specific molecule epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in patients with glioblastoma multiforme.  Pfizer informed Celldex that the rindopepimut program was no longer a strategic priority of Pfizer and terminated the agreement despite the fact that the product candidate met or exceeded all pre-determined safety and efficacy objectives across three clinical studies.  Shares of Celldex, which traded as high as $9.49 during 2010, reached a 52-week low of $2.91 on the news.

More recently, Transgene (TNG.PA) announced on February 22, 2011, that Roche Holding (ROG.VX) terminated their 2007 agreement under which Roche had been granted exclusive global development and commercialization rights to TG4001/RG3484, a therapeutic vaccine candidate currently in a 200 patient Phase IIb study to treat notably high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] lesions [CIN2/3] caused by human papilloma virus [HPV] infection.  While Transgene stated that Roche’s decision to terminate the license agreement was based on strategic reasons and wasn’t data driven, the company’s shares reached a 52-week low on the news.

Hopes and Dreams Vs Revenue Streams

Another potential negative is that by partnering a product candidate, the “hope and dream” multiple of a potential partnership or acquisition may be replaced by the realities of a “revenue stream,” such as milestone payments and future product royalties.  By discounting the economics of a partnership deal for certain risk factors, investors can assign a net present value to the company that may be quite different than the speculative valuation in the absence of a partnership.  Representing a unique opportunity to review the effect of partnering on market capitalization, three separate deals were announced for late-stage product candidates aimed at treating prostate cancer during 2009, while two companies have remained independent [see Table 2].

As the first transaction announced that year, Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ) acquisition of Cougar Biotechnology for nearly $1 billion in cash in May 2009 initially looked attractive.  However, following approval of Provenge® [sipuleucel-T] in April 2010, the market capitalization of Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) exceeded $7 billion, which demonstrates the potential benefit of remaining independent or retaining worldwide rights.  In contrast, more than a year after partnering their late-stage programs, the market valuations of two other companies, Medivation, Inc. (MDVN) and OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OGXI), are $605 million and $150 million, respectively.

Using Dendreon’s valuation as an example, it isn’t surprising that Bavarian Nordic A/S (BAVA.CO) announced earlier today that the company is reviewing alternate options to maximize value for shareholders and fund the pivotal Phase 3 trial of its “off-the-shelf” therapeutic vaccine product candidate Prostvac® on its own.  Keeping its options open, however, Bavarian Nordic is exploring opportunities to pursue independent development in parallel with continuing partnership discussions.

Table 2. Late-stage Prostate Cancer Programs

A Means to an End

The biggest argument against partnering is the fact that some of the most successful biotechnology companies to date are those that have commercialized their own products, such as Amgen, Inc. (AMGN), Celgene Corporation (CELG), and several others.

“Celgene is a unique example of success by taking a slightly different approach,” said Charles Duncan, managing director and senior biotech analyst at JMP Securities LLC.  “The company built a pipeline and worldwide infrastructure for Revlimid® [lenalidomide] that was funded and supported through its early sales of Thalomid® [thalidomide].”

“We viewed partnering our lead product as a critical strategic decision that would shape the company and significantly impact our vision,” said Sol J. Barer, Ph.D., Executive Chairman of Celgene Corporation.  “We felt that our pursuing the development of Revlimid worldwide alone was the best option consistent with our vision a of becoming a major global biopharmaceutical company over the next few years.  We clearly recognized the short versus long term trade-offs in the decision; nevertheless, our belief in the product and in our ability to manage the product globally was important in our decision not to partner.”

Some companies have also partnered a specific program in certain geographies or disease settings and use the validation and resulting economics to help advance their own pipeline – sometimes even in competitive areas.  For example, Amgen originally developed Epogen® [epoetin alfa], which the company commercialized as a treatment for anemia in dialysis patients and partnered non-dialysis rights with Johnson & Johnson [sold as Procrit®].  Amgen later developed and commercialized Aranesp® [darbepoetin alfa], an erythropoiesis stimulating protein with a longer half-life and increased biologic activity that was not partnered.

Similarly, Oncothyreon, Inc. (ONTY) has granted a license to Merck KGaA of Darmstadt, Germany for the clinical development, manufacturing, and marketing of Stimuvax®.  Oncothyreon is eligible for cash payments based on the achievement of certain process transfer events, regulatory submissions in first and second cancer indications, regulatory approval for first and second cancer indications, and for sales milestones.  Oncothyreon will also receive a royalty based on net sales.  If successful in the clinic, Stimuvax could also help validate another Oncothyreon product candidate, ONT-10, which is a completely synthetic MUC1-based liposomal glycolipopeptide cancer vaccine that could compete with Stimuvax.  Merck KGaA has a right of first negotiation with respect to ONT-10.

Geographically Undesirable

Although selective encumbered assets can still attract buyers, partnering a product candidate in certain geographies with one large pharmaceutical company may preclude an acquisition by another that is only interested in worldwide rights or control of key markets.  On the other hand, some partnerships can later lead to an acquisition – a strategy employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) on more than one occasion.

For example, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Medarex, Inc. formed a worldwide collaboration in 2004 valued at more than $530 million to develop and commercialize Yervoy® [ipilimumab, MDX-010], which was in Phase III clinical development at the time for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and multiple Phase II clinical trials in other oncology indications.  In 2009, Bristol-Myers Squibb acquired Medarex for $16.00 per share, a 90% premium over the prior day’s closing price of $8.40 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $2.4 billion.

What started as a lawsuit for infringement of its patents related to fusion protein technology in 2006, ZymoGenetics, Inc. signed a deal with Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2009 worth more than $1.1 billion for PEG-Interferon lambda, a novel type 3 interferon in Phase Ib development for the treatment of Hepatitis C, and its related development program.  The following year, Bristol-Myers Squibb acquired ZymoGenetics for $9.75 per share in cash [an 84% premium to the prior day close] in a transaction valued at approximately $885 million.

While ultimately thwarted by Eli Lilly & Co.’s (LLY) superior offer in October 2008, Bristol-Myers also attempted to acquire its partner ImClone Systems.  Back in September 2001, Bristol-Myers had entered into an agreement with ImClone to co-develop and co-promote Erbitux® [cetuximab, IMC-C225] in the United States, Canada and Japan.

All that Glitters is not Gold

Maintaining worldwide rights and commercializing a product without a partner doesn’t necessarily translate into a lofty market valuation.  Several companies have struggled to commercialize oncology products on their own.

Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (ALTH) developed Folotyn® [pralatrexate injection], a folate analogue metabolic inhibitor, and began commercializing the product in the U.S. for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma [PTCL] in October 2009.  Since the product’s launch, Folotyn sales have been below Wall Street analyst’s expectations and shares of Allos recently reached a 52-week low of $2.64.

Despite an inauspicious launch in the U.S., some analysts believe that Allos may finally be executing on a regional strategy with the recent filing of a Marketing Authorisation Application for European approval and the potential for a partner in Asia as highlighted during the company’s recent quarterly teleconference with investors.

“If Allos gets traction with an ex-U.S. approval and partnership, investor sentiment will most certainly improve as this will provide some external validation on the viability of a regulatory path and market opportunity in PTCL, despite it being a rare disease and there being emerging potential competition from Celgene’s Istodax® [romidepsin],” said Charles Duncan.  “At this point, all but the most patient, value-oriented investors have extricated themselves from the Allos story due to what we believe to be a lack of confidence in senior management, and having another company to shoulder the risk ex-U.S. will provide a much-needed boost to the capabilities and capital needed to profitably market Folotyn.  Perhaps this too could be an example where a collaboration discussion turns into an acquisition, although we anticipate that should such a scenario materialize, it would likely involve contingent-value rights [CVR’s] given the uninspiring early revenue trajectory.”

Summary

Looking ahead, the trade-off between equity dilution and asset dilution represents an important crossroad that many late-stage biotechnology companies will face in the near future [see Table 3 for a select list].  While one size doesn’t fit all, the fact that Dendreon has achieved the largest market valuation of any company in the late-stage prostate cancer segment of the market by commercializing its product without a partner helps support the notion that going alone may provide the highest value to stakeholders.  Such a strategy requires that the company can access resources and capital to develop and launch its product globally.  If not, a selective or global partnership may be the next best options – provided the terms are attractive and that there is a remaining pipeline to be leveraged in the future.  In the end, whether a company proceeds alone or with a partner, there is an attractive landscape of motivated buyers for late-stage and marketed products that may ultimately lead to M&A.

NEW – Click here to view this article in PDF format.

Table 3. Select Companies with Phase III Oncology Programs Not Yet Partnered

While the FDA usually follows advice stemming from its AdCom meetings, it isn’t required to do so.  In fact, there have been several high-profile situations where the FDA has gone against such recommendations.

For example, many investors recall the volatility of Dendreon Corporation’s (DNDN) stock around the time of an AdCom meeting for the company’s Provenge® [sipuleucel-T] product candidate back in March 2007.  Share of Dendreon, which were trading below $5 per share before the AdCom meeting, reached $25 following a positive 13-4 vote in favor of the product’s efficacy.  Several months later, however, shares of Dendreon once again traded at $5 after the company received a CRL from the FDA.

More recently, InterMune, Inc. (ITMN) suffered a similar fate with its EsBriet™ [pirfenidone] product candidate for the treatment of mild to moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF], a progressive and fatal lung disease.  Despite a 9-3 AdCom vote in favor of approving the drug, InterMune received a CRL from the FDA in May 2010, causing the value of its stock to decline from nearly $50 per share to less than $10.  Ironically, shares of InterMune rebounded significantly in December 2010 following a positive recommendation from the scientific body of the European Medicines Agency [EMA], which is responsible for reviewing all Marketing Authorization Applications [MMAs].

With this in mind, we tabulated the results from select FDA AdCom meetings conducted during 2010-2011 and compared the outcomes with the FDA’s ultimate decision to gauge how often the agency goes against its AdCom recommendations.  For the period, we found outcomes from 27 AdCom meetings for new drug applications [NDAs].  Of the 27 AdCom meetings, the FDA has not yet ruled on seven NDAs.  See Table 1 for details.

No Means No

Of the 20 AdCom meetings with corresponding decisions from the FDA, the agency agreed with all 9 of the negative AdCom recommendations and sent each of the sponsors a CRL.  In other words, a “no” vote from an AdCom meeting was unlikely to be overturned by the FDA during the period.  This doesn’t bode well for Eli Lilly & Co.’s (LLY) liprotamase product candidate for pancreatic insufficiency, which received a negative AdCom recommendation in January 2011 and is awaiting final FDA action.

In one situation where the AdCom vote was negative, the sponsor took action before the FDA rendered its final decision.  On December 17, 2010, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (KG) and Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ACUR) submitted an NDA for Acurox® (oxycodone HCl) without niacin following a 19-1 AdCom vote in April 2010 against approval of Acurox® with niacin.

Yes Means Maybe

During the period, the FDA went against the positive recommendation of its AdCom members 5 out of 10 times [50%] and issued a CRL to the sponsor.  This includes one unanimous vote [13-0] in favor of the efficacy for ezogabine, which is being developed by GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (VRX) for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures.  GlaxoSmithKline and Valeant indicated that the FDA cited non-clinical reasons for the CRL, but investors aren’t privy to the content of such documents.

The FDA is transparent with regard to drug approvals and withdrawals, but the contents of CRL’s are considered confidential because they represent part of an ongoing dialog between the agency and drug sponsor.  While many companies disclose whether or not a CRL contains a request for new clinical studies, translating into an investment of more capital and time, ambiguous phrases describing the contents of a CRL often leave investors in the dark with regard to handicapping the sponsor’s ability to address the issues in a timely and efficient manner – if at all.  Such secrecy has come under fire by members of the media, as evidenced by an October 2010 Forbes article titled “Why FDA Communications Must Be Public.”

For now, investors are warned that in the face of a positive AdCom recommendation, there is only a 50/50 chance that the FDA will promptly approve a product based on recent data.

Going Forward

The FDA has yet to rule on 7 product candidates with recent AdCom meetings, as indicated by “TBD” under FDA Action in Table 1.  While many of these AdCom meetings have positive outcomes, industry observers can flip a coin to determine whether or not the FDA will ultimately follow the AdCom’s advice in these situations based on recent data.  Even unanimous, favorable recommendations from AdCom members do not necessarily guarantee success with the FDA, although both Bayer AG (BAYRY.PK) and Oceana Therapeutics, Inc. (private) received such support for approval of their respective product candidates.

Investor’s expectations are very high for Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI), which was among the largest percentage gainers in the NASDAQ Composite with a staggering quadruple-digit return of +1,342% in 2009 following positive Phase 3 study results with its Benlysta® [belimumab] product candidate for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE].  The FDA is expected to render its decision by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA] date of March 10, 2011, and the company’s stock remains relatively unchanged around $25 per share following a positive 13-2 AdCom vote in November 2010.

Of the pending group, MELA Sciences, Inc. (MELA) appears to have the lowest probability of success with the FDA in view of the very narrow 8-7 AdCom vote in favor of the product candidate’s safety, efficacy and risk/benefit ratio, which led to new 52-week lows for the company’s stock.  The company is developing MelaFind®, a non-invasive and objective multi-spectral computer vision system designed to aid physicians in the detection of early melanoma, or skin cancer.

NEW – Click here to view this article in PDF format.

Table 1: AdCom Meetings and FDA Outcomes During 2010-2011

Adding to an already hectic schedule of one-on-one meetings during the week, the success of JPMHC has spawned numerous satellite events, such as Biotech Showcase, OneMedForum, New Paradigms Conference, and China Forum.  The latter event provides further evidence that China is emerging as an important component of the international biotechnology landscape, as 16 China-based life science companies also presented during an inaugural China Track at JPMHC.

In between offsite meetings, we roamed the familiar halls of the Westin St. Francis Hotel to assess the mood among participants and also monitored online media commentaries throughout the event.  In general, the plane flights and networking receptions were crowded as usual, industry observers “Tweeted” a sense of optimism, and attendees appeared more upbeat than in 2010.  However, we once again sought to construct a less subjective assessment by analyzing year-over-year statistics from the conference.

Accordingly, we extensively reviewed press releases issued by biotechnology companies during JPMHC from 2009 to 2011, with a particular focus on identifying the number of merger & acquisitions [M&A], licensing & partnering transactions, and financing deals announced each year during the four-day event.

Merger and Acquisitions

Back in 2009, several large M&A transactions were announced during JPMHC.  That year, four M&A transactions with an aggregate value of $702 million were disclosed during the first two days of the event.  The largest deal went to Cephalon, Inc. (CEPH), which announced a $100 million option agreement providing the company with an opportunity to purchase all outstanding capital stock of Ception Therapeutics, Inc., a privately held biopharmaceutical company, for an additional $250 million.

Despite ongoing discussions between Sanofi-aventis (SNY) and Genzyme Corporation (GENZ), only one significant M&A transaction was announced during JPMHC in 2011, marking the second year in a row with a paucity of deals.  Finland-based Biotie Therapies Corp., a drug developer focused on central nervous system [CNS] and inflammatory diseases, announced that it is acquiring Synosia Therapeutics Holding AG in an all-share deal that values the private Swiss company at approximately $125 million.  Synosia Therapeutics Holding AG is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing a portfolio of CNS product candidates licensed from Roche Holding AG (RHHBY.PK), Novartis AG (NVS), and Syngenta AG (SYT).

Table 1. Select M&A Transactions Announced During JPMHC from 2009-2011 ($ in millions)

Licensing and Partnering

In 2009, ten strategic licensing and/or partnering transactions with an aggregate value exceeding $2.4 billion were announced during JPMHC. The transactions included a $1.1 billion deal between ZymoGenetics, Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY), a $500 million deal between Peptimmune, Inc. and Novartis AG (NVS), a $396 million deal between Micromet, Inc. (MITI) and Bayer AG (BAYZF.PK), and a $200 million deal between FORMA Therapeutics the Novartis Option Fund to develop inhibitors for an undisclosed protein-protein interaction target in the field of oncology, among others. Interesting to note, Bristol-Myers Squibb later acquired ZymoGenetics Inc. for $885 million in cash during September 2010.

In 2010, there were only six transactions totaling $314 million announced at JPMHC, driven primarily by a $290 million agreement between privately held KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of the Sanofi-aventis, for the development and commercialization of KB001, an investigational new biologic for the treatment or prevention of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [Pa] infections.

In 2011, three major licensing and/or partnering transactions totaling more than $3 billion were announced during JPMHC, although three-quarters of the total value came from a single agreement:

• Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) and Boehringer Ingelheim announced a $2.4 billion global agreement to jointly develop and commercialize a pipeline of oral diabetes agents and basal insulin analogues.  The alliance also includes the option to co-develop and co-commercialize Eli Lilly’s anti-TGF-beta monoclonal antibody.
• Privately held Epizyme, Inc. announced a strategic alliance with GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) that could be worth over $650 million.  Epizyme is involved in the discovery and development of small molecule histone methyltransferase inhibitors, a new class of targeted therapeutics for the treatment of genetically-defined cancer patients, based on breakthroughs in the field of epigenetics.  Epigenetics refers to the regulation of genes with mechanisms other than changes to the underlying DNA sequence and such processes are widely believed to play a central role in the development and progression of almost all cancers.
• Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and Zinfandel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced an exclusive, worldwide licensing agreement regarding Zinfandel’s TOMM40 assay as a biomarker for the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, including potential use of the assay in combination with pioglitazone in high-risk older adults with normal cognition.  Pioglitazone is the active ingredient currently marketed in Takeda’s ACTOS® (pioglitazone HCl). Under the terms of agreement, Zinfandel will receive an upfront payment of $9 million and subsequent payments of up to $78 million for development milestones from Takeda.

Table 2. Select Licensing and Partnering Deals Announced During JPMHC from 2009-2011 ($ in millions)

Financing

While the quantity of public and private financing transactions announced during JPMHC has remained essentially flat from 2009-2011, the aggregate dollar value increased more than 60% in 2011.  Note that we excluded the $500 million convertible senior note transaction announced by Dendreon Corporation (DNDN), as it occurred after the market closed last Thursday [the last day of JPMHC].

Table 3. Select Financing Transactions Announced During JPMHC from 2009-2011 ($ in millions)

Outlook

At the start of 2009, we provided a positive outlook for the biotechnology industry.  Most of the drivers supporting our favorable view remain intact for 2011, such as the record number of products in clinical trials and annual industry R&D investment, improving access to capital, brisk pace of industry consolidation and licensing transactions, and attractive valuations among many small- and mid-capitalization companies, which we believe should continue to outperform their larger industry peers in 2011.

The +60% year-over-year increase in the aggregate value of financing transactions announced during JPMHC in 2011 supports our improving access to capital thesis, offset in part by the fact that both the quantity and value of M&A and licensing/partnering transactions during the period were below 2009 levels [excluding a single agreement for $2.4 billion in 2011].   Using 2010 as a guide, the mixed bag of activity emanating from JPMHC is simply the pause that refreshes and activity should accelerate throughout the year.

Looking beyond JPMHC, the key risk to our positive outlook in 2011 relates to the number of U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] drug approvals, which declined in 2010 and is more than 50% below the high of 56 new approvals in 1996 despite the fact that legislation passed in 2008 gave the FDA more money and resources.  There is no discounting the negative impact of clinical and regulatory setbacks on the psyche of biotechnology investors, as evidenced by the greater than 10% decline in the NASDAQ Biotech Index in late February 2009 following a spate of high profile disappointments.

According to the American Cancer Society, pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with the worst mortality rate and an overall 5-year survival rate lower than 5%.  Although accounting for only 3% of all cancers, this disease is the fourth leading cause of death and represents 6% of all cancer related deaths in the United States.

The disease remains one of the most difficult to treat due to late initial diagnosis and extreme resistance to treatment.  For example, about 50% of patients have locally advanced disease at the time of diagnosis, indicating that the cancer has grown beyond the confines of the pancreas to invade surrounding vital structures, and in 40% of patients the tumor has spread to distant sites, such as the liver and lungs [metastatic stage].  Case in point: Patrick Swayze was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer that had already spread to the liver in March 2008 and lost his battle with the disease in September 2009 at the age of 57.

The majority of pancreatic tumors [95%] are adenocarcinomas that mainly develop from exocrine cells in the tissues of the pancreas.  They are characterized by an aggressive behavior with a fast progression rate that makes them highly metastatic.  Neuroendocrine tumors [NET] of the pancreas [islet cell tumors] are much less common [1-2%] than exocrine pancreatic tumors and are considered less deadly.  For example, Steve Jobs, co-founder and chief executive of Apple Inc. (AAPL), was diagnosed with this rare, slow-growing pancreatic tumor in 2004.

In terms of treatment, surgical removal of the tumor represents the best option for pancreatic cancer patients without invasion into surrounding organs or distant metastasis.  Unfortunately, only 15–20% of all patients are candidates for potentially curative surgery.  Depending on the tumor localization, pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal or total pancreatectomy can be performed.  However, even with an optimal curative surgery, metastases often occur.  Median survival time without evidence of recurrent disease is 21.2 months after resection.

For locally advanced or metastatic disease, treatment is still palliative rather than curative, and chemotherapy remains the only option.  Since its approval in 1997, Eli Lilly’s (LLY) Gemzar® [gemcitabine] is the current standard first-line treatment in the U.S.  It has been shown to improve the median time to disease progression and overall survival [OS].

Just like lupus, sepsis, and several others, pancreatic cancer has been referenced as one of those challenging diseases where good drugs [and companies…] go to die.  Since 2005, nine late-stage clinical trials have been performed to improve the efficacy of gemcitabine with little success in terms of improving survival outcomes [see Table 1].  Such failures resulted in at least two companies filing for bankruptcy [both Aphton Corp and Therion Biologics in 2006].  In fact, the only combination approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is gemcitabine plus Astellas Pharma’s Tarceva® [erlotinib], which increased the median OS from 6.0 to 6.4 months.

Table 1. Prominent Late-stage Pancreatic Product Failures

Despite past failures, drug developers continue to explore new options for treating pancreatic cancer and more than a dozen new molecular entities are currently being evaluated in clinical trials [see Table 2].  Several programs have recently demonstrated impressive results in Phase 2 studies and are now enrolling patients in pivotal trials.  While a comprehensive review of investigational pancreatic cancer therapies is beyond the scope of this article, we briefly review some of the more promising pancreatic treatments currently in clinical development:

Celgene Corporation (CELG)

Historically known more for its franchise in treating blood cancers, Celgene moved into the realm of solid tumors through its recent acquisition of Abraxis BioScience, Inc.  As a result, Celgene is now developing Abraxane® [paclitaxel protein-bound particles for injectable suspension] for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.  Updated overall survival findings from a phase I/II study of Abraxane given in combination with gemcitabine demonstrated increased survival of the first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.  In 44 patients treated at the recommended dose of 125 mg/m² Abraxane plus gemcitabine [1000 mg/m²], the median OS time was 12.2 months, an impressive doubling of survival compared to historical control of gemcitabine administered alone.  The findings were discussed at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research [AACR] in 2010. The combination of Abraxane and gemcitabine is now the treatment arm of a randomized Phase 3 clinical trial that is currently enrolling patients [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00844649].

Novartis AG (NVS)

In June 2010 at the12th World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Novartis reported that its RADIANT-3 Phase 3 study of Afinitor® (everolimus), plus best supportive care met its primary endpoint, showing that the drug more than doubled median progression-free survival [PFS], or time without tumor growth, from 4.6 to 11.0 months when compared with placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic NET.  More recently, Novartis presented data from a second Phase 3 study called RADIANT-2 at the 35th European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO] Congress.  The study, which evaluated Afinitor® in combination with Sandostatin® LAR Depot (octreotide acetate for injectable suspension), demonstrated that everolimus plus octreotide LAR provided a clinically meaningful extension in the median time without tumor growth from 11.3 to 16.4 months when compared with placebo plus octreotide LAR.  However, the study did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS based on central radiologic review of the data (p=0.026 versus p=0.024 predefined).  According to the company, results from the two RADIANT trials will form the basis for regulatory filings later in 2010.

Amgen, Inc. (AMGN)

Amgen is developing AMG 479, an investigational fully human monoclonal antibody that targets type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor [IGF-1R], which plays an important role in the regulation of cell growth and survival.  At the 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] Annual Meeting, Amgen announced results from a Phase 2 study demonstrating that the addition of AMG 479 to gemcitabine resulted in an overall survival rate at six months of 57% versus 50% with gemcitabine alone and 39% versus 23% at 12 months. Median overall survival was 8.7 months versus 5.9 months in the gemcitabine arm.  AMG 479 is moving into a Phase 3 study for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (THLD)

At the 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting, Threshold Pharmaceuticals presented results with its hypoxia-activated prodrug, TH-302, in combination with gemcitabine in thirty-four patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer that had at least one evaluable post-treatment tumor assessment.  One patient [3%] demonstrated a complete response as measured by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors] and 8 patients [24%] had a partial response.  Of the 34 assessed patients, 28 had elevated carbohydrate antigen CA19-9 levels at baseline and 17 of 28 [61%] had a CA19-9 reduction of greater than 50%.  This is important, as a greater than 20% decrease in levels of this tumor-associated antigen has been shown to correlate with improved overall survival. The biomarker CA19-9 has been shown to be highly specific and sensitive for pancreatic cancer and approximately three-quarters of all pancreatic cancer patients have elevated baseline serum CA19-9 level at baseline.

Neogenix Oncology, Inc. (private)

Neogenix Oncology is develping ensituximab, a novel, chimeric monoclonal antibody intended for the treatment of advanced pancreatic and colorectal cancer. Pre-clinical studies have demonstrated that NPC-1C specifically targets pancreatic and colorectal cancer sparing healthy tissue.  In 2010, the company initiated a multi-center Phase 1 trial in patients with late stage pancreatic or colorectal cancer being conducted at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, and North Shore University Hospital.  Neogenix is also exploring the diagnostic and prognostic utility of ensituximab using a new serum ELISA test in a prospective study.  Preliminary results demonstrate that the biomarker test can differentiate between blood serum of healthy donors and that of patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer.  In addition, the results of the biomarker test indicate superior sensitivity as compared to commercially available CEA and CA19-9 assays.

Table 2. Select Pancreatic Products in Active Clinical Development*

* Based on ClinicalTrials.gov

Conclusion

In contrast to the prominent late-stage failures over the past five years, several drugs have recently shown promise for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.  Going forward, early detection using biomarkers, more effective treatments, and novel drug targets could provide new hope for the treatment of this deadly disease.

With few exceptions, companies with monoclonal antibody platforms have significantly outperformed the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index® (NBI) since the end of 2008 [see Table 1].  Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to offer several key factors that help explain the above average returns for monoclonal antibody companies during this +18-month period – a trend that we believe is likely to continue.

Table 1: Select public companies with monoclonal antibody platforms

Higher rate of success

In order to determine the appropriate current value for a biotechnology company, an investor would normally consider projected future cash flows resulting from product sales, probability of success, and a discount rate to reflect the risks that the company faces.

With regard to probability of success, one of the greatest considerations for a biotechnology company is the fact that new drug candidates must receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] before they can be marketed in the United States.  Receiving FDA approval is dependent, in part, on the drug candidate successfully passing a series of clinical trials that are generally conducted in three sequential phases.

Successfully transitioning from the early stages that establish safety [Phase I] to later phases where efficacy is demonstrated [Phase III] will improve the approval success rate [e.g., the odds that the drug will ultimately reach the market].  Interestingly, researchers from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University recently analyzed the average approval success rates for investigational drugs first tested in humans from 1993 to 2004 [Ref 3] and found substantial differences between large molecules [32% success rate] and small molecules [13% success rate].  Monoclonal antibodies represented the largest group [47%] of the large molecules evaluated in the study.

In view of the fact that nearly one-third of large molecule product candidates entering the clinic ultimately receive FDA approval and that they are nearly 2.5-times more likely to ultimately receive approval than small molecule compounds, companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies should be awarded higher valuations due to the higher probability of success.

Reduced concerns from biosimilars

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA], which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, included a provision amending the Public Health Service Act [PHSA] to permit approval of biosimilar biological products through an abbreviated biological license application [ABLA] submitted to the FDA.  Under the law, originators have a 12-year exclusivity period before a biosimilar is approved.

While many questions remain about the specifics of the ABLA process until the FDA releases its guidance, the PPACA does state that to support approval of a biosimilar, the sponsor must show that the product is “biosimilar to the reference product” based upon data derived from analytical, animal, and clinical studies.  As a result, it is unlikely that monoclonal antibody products will represent the first class of biosimilars on the market due to the fact that they have very specific binding properties and are typically larger and more complicated than other biologic drugs.

Regardless, according to a recent article by Ludwig Burger for Reuters, analysts expect price discounts of only 20 to 30 percent in markets affected by biosimilar competition, which compares with an average markdown of 90 percent for generic versions of small molecule drugs. This is likely due to the fact that development, production and marketing of a biosimilar costs more than making a generic copy of conventional chemical drugs.

Lastly, for those individuals that believe manufacturing biologic drugs is easy, a review of Genzyme Corporation’s (GENZ) recent challenges offers a different perspective.  See “Genzyme’s Manufacturing Disruption Highlights Investment Opportunities in Lysosomal Storage Disorders.”

Manufacturing processes have improved

In contrast to small molecule therapeutics that can be synthesized for $1 per gram and simple proteins like insulin that can be efficiently produced in bacterial hosts, monoclonal antibodies are normally produced in mammalian cells at a cost of $300-$5,000 per gram [Ref 4].

Fortunately, in parallel with the clinical and commercial success of monoclonal antibodies there have been major advances in cell line development, bioreactor construction and operation, purification strategies and analytics. For example, cell culture productivity has improved more than 100-fold in the last 15-years.  With these advances, global protein output using mammalian cell culture increased from under 500 kilograms in 2000 to 3,600 kilograms in 2005 and manufacturing costs have been reduced.

In addition to the aforementioned advances, new sources of inexpensive antibody production are being explored.  For example, antibodies have been expressed successfully in genetically modified plants and have been shown to retain their native functional forms.

Evolution from acute to chronic treatment

In the early 1980’s, most monoclonal antibodies were derived from mouse genes with major limitations such as inducing human anti-mouse antibody [HAMA] responses in patients, lack of effector functions and short plasma half-life [Ref 5].  Later that decade, genetic engineering techniques made chimeric and humanized versions available for study.  Until this point in time, most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies had been studied as acute treatments for cancer or immunological diseases [Ref 6].

By the late 1990’s, methods to produce human monoclonal antibodies were developed, including phage display and transgenic mice.  With the availability of human antibodies with reduced immunogenicity and increased efficacy, the biotechnology industry began studying monoclonal antibodies for the chronic treatment of non-life threatening diseases, which opened new market opportunities.

In this regard, KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (private) is applying its proprietary Humaneering™ technology platform to produce antibodies that are close to human germ-line in sequence while retaining the specificity and improving the affinity of the reference antibody.  KaloBios is developing an anti-GM-CSF human monoclonal [KB003] for the treatment of patients with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.  Sales of two marketed monoclonal antibodies indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, Humira® [adalimumab] and Remicade® [infliximab], are projected to reach $15.8 billion in combined sales by 2016 according to Evaluate Pharma [Ref 2].

In January 2010, KaloBios partnered with Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of sanofi-aventis Group (SNY), to develop the company’s Humaneered™ antibody fragment KB001 for the prevention and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) infections. KaloBios received an upfront payment of $35 million and is eligible for development, regulatory and commercial milestones totaling $255 million in addition to royalties on eventual product sales.

In addition, MacroGenics, Inc. (private) entered into a global strategic alliance with Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) in October 2007 valued at approximately $500 million for teplizumab, a humanized anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody currently being studied in a global pivotal Phase II/III clinical trial for individuals with recent-onset type 1 diabetes.

Licensing, merger, and acquisition dynamics

The higher average approval success rates with large molecules compared with small molecules appears to be partially reflected in the economics of some recent licensing and M&A transactions.

For example, in June 2010 OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (private) partnered with Bayer Schering Pharma AG (BAYRY.PK) to discover, develop and commercialize novel anti-cancer stem cell therapies including multiple antibody, protein therapeutics and small molecules targeting the Wnt signaling pathway.  For each drug candidate successfully developed through Phase III clinical trials and regulatory approval, OncoMed’s payments from Bayer could total up to $387.5 million for each biotherapeutic drug compared with $112 million for small molecule drugs.  Accordingly, potential payments for large molecules are 3.5 times greater than for the small molecules.

As another example, Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) acquired ImClone Systems, Inc. for $6.5 billion [5x sales of $1.3 billion], while Astellas Pharma, Inc. paid $4 billion for OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [3.3x sales of $1.2 billion].  Both ImClone and OSI received royalties on product sales from corporate partners.

ImClone’s marketed product Erbitux® [cetuximab] is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] and is indicated for the treatment of certain types of colorectal cancer and as a single agent or in combination with radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.  OSI’s comparable product Tarceva® [erlotinib] is a small molecule antagonist of EGFR and is indicated for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer.  While this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, it does help support the fact that premiums are being paid for monoclonal antibodies versus small molecules.

Investors are also likely placing M&A premiums on monoclonal antibody companies due to robust activity during the past five years [see Table 2].  In fact, there has been at least one deal announced each year during this period.

Table 2: Select M&A among monoclonal antibody companies

Access to capital

Despite a challenging financing climate, many public monoclonal antibody developers referenced in Table 1 have been able to raise capital through public offerings.  For example, ImmunoGen, Inc. (IMGN) raised $77.6 million at $8.00 per share in May 2010, Micromet, Inc. (MITI) raised $80.5 million at $7.00 per share in March 2010, and Seattle Genetics, Inc. (SGEN) raised $136 million at $10.75 per share in August 2009.  This demonstrates strong investor appetite for monoclonal antibody companies, which could bode well for future initial public offerings [IPOs] given the paucity of public options in the sector due to M&A activity over the past few years.

Summary

Biotechnology companies developing monoclonal antibodies have been outperforming the broader sector for the past 18-months, a trend that is likely to continue based on higher average approval success rates, reduced concerns from biosimilars, improvements in manufacturing and resulting impact on margins, broadening utility beyond treating cancer and inflammation, robust partnering and M&A activity, and access to capital.

References

1. Roche Annual Report 2009 (www.roche.com/gb09e.pdf)
2. Evaluate Pharma World Preview 2016 Report
3. DiMasi, JA. Et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Mar;87(3):272-7. Epub 2010 Feb 3.
4. Chen, C. Trends in Bio/Pharmaceutical Industry. 2009 5(3).
5. Chan, A. Et al. Nat Rev Immun. 2010 May;10.
6. Reichert JM. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2008 Dec;9(6):423-30.

Product pricing and reimbursement

The cost of Provenge has been set at $93,000 for a course of treatment, which consists of three infusions at approximately two-week intervals.  In view of the fact that Provenge has been demonstrated to extend survival by 4.1 months, this translates into an average cost of $23,000 per month of added survival.

In comparison, Taxotere® [docetaxel] by Sanofi-aventis (SNY) is indicated for the treatment of patients with androgen independent [hormone refractory] metastatic prostate cancer and administered every 3 weeks for 10 cycles.  Assuming an average monthly cost of $4,000 for Taxotere [source: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 1076], this is an approximate total cost of $40,000 per patient. In the pivotal TAX 327 study, median survival for prostate cancer patients receiving Taxotere was 18.9 months versus 16.5 months in the control arm, which results in an average cost of $16,666 per month of added survival.  Unlike Provenge, however, treating common adverse reactions with Taxotere, such as infections, neutropenia, anemia, nausea, diarrhea, and others, increases the total cost of therapy – so the pricing of Provenge doesn’t appear completely out of line. [note: updated survival analysis of the TAX 327 study demonstrates a 2.9 month survival advantage, which lowers the average cost to $13,793 per month of added survival with Taxotere.  Source: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 26, No 2 (January 10), 2008: pp. 242-245.]

Nonetheless, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] has initiated a National Coverage Analysis [NCA] of Provenge. In CMS’s announcement of the NCA, CMS is requesting public comments on the effects of Provenge on health outcomes in patients with prostate cancer. While the news doesn’t reflect a change in Medicare coverage policy or impact existing coverage decisions and a decision isn’t expected for a year, it does highlight sensitivity on the part of payors over the pricing of certain cancer treatments.

Supply constraints

Dendreon is making Provenge available through approximately 50 centers, all of which were approved Provenge clinical trial sites, and expects to increase capacity over the next year.  The increased capacity will be a result of the anticipated licensure of its expanded New Jersey, Georgia and California facilities in mid-2011.

In the short term, however, Dendreon officials have indicated that the company will only be able to supply 2,000 treatments to patients.  At a cost of $93,000 per treatment, this limits potential sales to approximately $186 million.

According to a June 28 article by Bloomberg reporter Tom Randall, Dendreon’s Chief Operating Officer Hans Bishop indicated that facilities will be able to churn out medicine each year valued at between $1.25 billion and $2.5 billion by the end of 2011.

Competitive landscape

In early April 2010, we published a 150-page industry report titled “Cancer Vaccine Therapies: Failures and Future Opportunities,” which included an overview of the cancer immunotherapy market, interviews with several key opinion leaders, profiles of nearly 40 companies, and a discussion of the scientific, clinical, and commercial considerations for the major industry participants.

In the report, we highlighted the fact that numerous active immunotherapies are in late-stage clinical development for prostate cancer.  In fact, nine product candidates are in clinical trials for the treatment of prostate cancer, representing the largest therapeutic area within the active immunotherapy market.  Beyond competition from other active immunotherapies, however, Provenge could also face competition from small molecule products.

For example, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) acquired Cougar Biotechnology, Inc. for approximately $1.0 billion in cash in 2009.  Cougar Biotechnology’s oncology portfolio included abiraterone acetate [CB7630], an orally active acetate salt of the steroidal compound abiraterone.  Abiraterone acetate, which can suppress testosterone production by both the testes and the adrenals to castrate-range levels, is currently in two Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of prostate cancer according to ClinicalTrials.gov [Trial identifier numbers NCT00638690 and NCT00887198].  Both studies list a primary completion date of mid-2011.

Insider sales

Trading conducted by corporate officers, key employees, directors, or significant shareholders must be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC], usually within a few business days of the trade.  Some investors follow the activity of insiders, believing that they might have better insights into the health of a corporation and that their trades convey important information – although this isn’t always the case.

In this regard, according to a Form 4 filed with the SEC, Dendreon’s Chief Executive Officer [CEO] beneficially owned 555,211 shares of the company’s common stock as of April 29, 2010 – the day Provenge was approved by the FDA.  The CEO sold more than half of those shares at prices ranging from $51 to $54.70, reducing his beneficial holdings to 224,359 the next day.  Other insiders also sold during the period.

Priced for perfection

Recall that Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) purchased ImClone Systems for $6.5 billion back in 2008.  ImClone’s only product – Erbitux® [cetuximab] – had generated annual sales of approximately $1.3 billion in 2007.  Therefore, ImClone was valued at a 5x multiple to prior year sales.

At its 52-week high, Dendreon had a market capitalization of approximately $7.8 billion.  At a 5x multiple, this would imply an annual revenue run rate of $1.56 billion, which is consistent with the company’s planned manufacturing capacity by the end of 2011 and many analyst projections over the coming years.

But Dendreon isn’t generating $1.56 billion in annual sales yet and concerns over pricing, reimbursement, and competition, combined with insider selling, help explain the decrease in market valuation since the approval of Provenge.

Perhaps the most prominent shareholder activist in biotechnology is billionaire investor Carl Icahn, largely through his Icahn Management LP investment fund.  He has created value for some biotechnology stakeholders, including a very quick return with MedImmune, Inc. and a longer-term payoff with ImClone Systems, Inc.

MedImmune, Inc.

On February 14, 2007, Icahn Management LP disclosed that it purchased 2.8 million shares of MedImmune, Inc., or just over one percent of the company.  The stock had ranged from $25 to $37 over the prior 12-months and Icahn had threatened to nominate a slate of opposing directors to MedImmune’s board unless the company put itself up for sale, adding that the firm suffered from “very lackluster management.”  In less than two months, MedImmune announced that the company hired investment bank Goldman Sachs to help evaluate whether third parties would have an interest in acquiring the company at a price and on terms that would represent a better value for its stockholders than having the company continue to execute its business plan on a stand-alone basis.  Less than two weeks later, AstraZeneca plc (AZN) announced the $15.6 billion acquisition of MedImmune Inc. for $58 per share in cash, representing a premium of approximately 53% to MedImmune’s share price the day before it was disclosed that the company was for sale.  At the time, MedImmune had several marketed products and posted $1.3 billion in 2006 sales.

ImClone Systems, Inc.

Icahn Management LP’s success with ImClone Systems, Inc. took a little longer to materialize – in fact, nearly a decade.  Icahn first reported a 5.1% stake in ImClone in October 1999 through a Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] filing, including the purchase of 594,100 shares from September 29, 1999 to October 10, 1999 at prices ranging from $22.09 to $32.05 a share.  At that time, Icahn Management LP reported owning a total of 1.29 million shares of ImClone.

The price of ImClone’s stock reached a high of $74 in early December 2001, but dropped to $14 by February 2002 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] raised serious doubts about test results for the company’s Erbitux® (cetuximab) product candidate for the treatment of colon, head and neck cancers.  Investigations, scandals [eg, Martha Stewart] and lawsuits ensued.

By March 2002, Icahn received clearance from the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act to acquire up to $500 million of ImClone’s stock, or about 40% of the company.  In August 2006, Icahn reached an agreement with ImClone to avoid a possible proxy contest by accepting the company’s offer to have him and three of his recommended candidates on the management slate of director nominees for the 2006 annual stockholders meeting.  The three nominees were Alexander Denner, a current ImClone director, as well as Charles Woler and Richard Mulligan.  Icahn replaced David M. Kies as chairman of ImClone and ousted Joseph L. Fischer, ImClone’s interim chief executive officer [CEO].  At the time, Icahn also reported in the filing that he increased his stake in ImClone to 12.89%.

It wasn’t until October 2008 that Eli Lilly (LLY) agreed to pay $70 per share in cash for a total of $6.5 billion for ImClone Systems, a 51% premium to ImClone’s closing price on July 30, 2008, the day before an initial $60 per share offer by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) was made public.  At the time, ImClone had one drug on the market, Erbitux, which posted $1.3 billion in 2007 sales worldwide, up 18% from 2006.

Three Recent Activist Wins

In view of major coups with MedImmune and ImClone, we reviewed Icahn’s current biotechnology holdings as reported in SEC filings (see Table 1) and identified three companies that have significantly underperformed the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (NBI) over the past five years, but have very recent successful activist outcomes that could positively impact future performance.  In particular, Alexander Denner, who has served as Managing Director of entities affiliated with Carl Icahn and as a director of ImClone, has recently been elected as a director at each company.  Consider the following:

• Biogen Idec Inc. (BIIB): On June 9, 2009, Biogen Idec Inc. reported that Icahn won two seats on the board, giving him leverage to push for change at the company.  Alexander Denner and Richard Mulligan, both formerly with Icahn at ImClone, were appointed to Biogen Idec’s board.  Icahn owns about 5.6% of Biogen Idec, his largest current biotechnology holding, and has urged the company to consider a break-up or sale to a large pharmaceutical company.  Biogen Idec, with more than $4 billion in annual revenue for 2008, sells three FDA approved drugs for cancer, multiple sclerosis [MS] and rheumatoid arthritis.  While Biogen Idec possesses a strong pipeline with several drugs in Phase 2 and Phase 3 development, the company’s flagship product Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) will soon face competition from Extavia®, a branded version of interferon beta-1b by Novartis AG (NVS) for the treatment of MS that will be introduced this fall.  Avonex represented more than half of Biogen Idec’s revenue in 2008.
• Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMLN): On August 24, 2009, three months after a high profile proxy battle resulted in the ouster of its chairman, Joseph C. Cook, Jr., Amylin Pharmaceuticals announced the appointment of a new chairman.  Paulo F. Costa, who formerly headed the U.S. operations of Novartis AG as President and Chief Executive Officer of Novartis U.S. Corporation, took over as chairman after gaining a seat on Amylin’s board in May 2009.  At that time, two board members recommended by Icahn and Eastbourne Capital Management, Kathleen Behrens and Alexander Denner, were also elected.  Amylin’s top drug Byetta® (exenatide), which it sells with partner Eli Lilly & Co (LLY), is a GLP-1 agonist for patients with type 2 diabetes that is administered twice daily as a subcutaneous injection.  Amylin, with more than $840 million in annual revenue for 2008, has set a goal of becoming operating cash flow positive by the end of 2010.  An important near-term catalyst for the company, Amylin, Eli Lilly, and Alkermes, Inc. (ALKS) are working together to develop exenatide once weekly, which would represent the first weekly therapy to treat type 2 diabetes with glucose control and weight loss.  A New Drug Application [NDA] for exenatide once weekly was accepted for review by the FDA in July 2009.
• Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ENZN): In May 2009, Alexander Denner and Richard Mulligan, both formerly with Icahn at ImClone, were appointed to Enzon’s board.  More recently, on July 23, 2009, Enzon appointed Alexander Denner as non-executive Chairman of the Board, separating the role of CEO and Chairman.  Jeffrey H. Buchalter, who previously served as executive Chairman, continues to serve as a Director as well as President and CEO.  DellaCamera Capital, which beneficially holds approximately 8.3% of the shares of Enzon had been making a case for removal of Jeffrey Buchalter as CEO due to excessive compensation, poor stock performance, and questionable expense levels.  DellaCamera recently withdrew its consent solicitation to remove the CEO in order to better allow the Company`s new Chairman and new independent director to bring positive change to the Board.  Enzon, with more than $48 million in annual revenue for 2008, has a portfolio of four marketed products, Oncaspar®, DepoCyt®, Abelcet® and Adagen® along with a royalty revenue stream from licensing partnerships for other products developed using Enzon’s PEGylation technology.

Table 1: Icahn’s biotechnology holdings (as of 6/30/09)

A Word of Caution

Not all of Icahn’s biotechnology investments turn out like MedImmune and ImClone, so investors should conduct their own due diligence regarding Biogen Idec, Amylin, and Enzon before blindly following the billionaire investor.  For example, shares of Telik, Inc. (TELK) plunged more than 70% in a single trading session – falling from over $16 per share to below $5 per share – in late December 2006 after the company reported that its most advanced development compound, Telcyta® (canfosfamide HCI), failed to improve survival in patients with advanced lung cancer or in patients with ovarian cancer.  At one point, Icahn Management LP reported nearly a 10% holding in Telik but reported holding zero shares as of December 31, 2008.  Shares of Telik recently traded below a dollar.

# # #

About MD Becker Partners LLC

MD Becker Partners is a boutique management and strategy consulting firm focusing on both public and private companies in emerging growth industries, such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, and cleantech. The firm’s mission is to bring experience-based insights gleaned from the three independent disciplines of investor relations, strategic advisory and operational improvement together and apply them to carefully conceived and expertly enacted strategies that help companies increase visibility, unlock value and access resources to grow their business. For more information, visit the website: http://www.mdbpartners.com/

Disclaimer: This article contains the author’s own opinions, and none of the information contained therein constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. To the extent any of the information contained in the article may be deemed to be investment advice, such information is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any specific person.

In healthy patients, insulin is released from pancreatic B cells in response to elevated glucose which causes depolarization through the closing of ion gated K+ channels and opening of Ca2+ channels.  The increased intracellular Ca2+ levels results in insulin release from the B cells entering the circulation.  The primary target of insulin is the insulin receptor found in many tissues including the liver, brain, and muscle.  Activation of this receptor initiates a complex signaling network resulting in energy storage, cell growth, and metabolism. Circulating insulin is cleared through the liver (60%) and the kidneys (40%).

Diabetes is a chronic, long-term disease with treatments focusing on disease management.  This includes drugs and devices that alter and monitor insulin levels.    Patients with abnormal insulin levels or who are insulin resistant may develop a series of complications as a result of metabolic derangements such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, nephropathy, retinopathy, peripheral neuropathy, renal failure, and amputations of the extremities. Therefore, new medications that allow for tighter control of insulin levels are needed. 

There are a number of drugs available for patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus. The oral anti-diabetic agents are categorized in four classes based on the mechanism of action: biguanides (reduced gluconeogenesis) thiazolidinediones (PPAR-g ligands), insulin secretagogues (closure of K+ channels on B cells), and a-glucosidase inhibitors (inhibitors of a-glucosidases).  Many of these drug classes have more established profiles such as the insulin secretagogues and biguanides and are the first line of therapy for early stage type-2 diabetes.  In addition, several of these drugs are available in generic forms.  Many patients with type-2 diabetes unable to make lifestyle modifications are unable to achieve normal glucose levels and require a combination of oral anti-diabetic medicines and insulin analogs. 

Several different insulin analogs are available for type-1 and advanced type-2 diabetic patients.  The injected insulin types differ in their onset and duration.  The main players in this area are many of the larger pharmaceutical companies including Lilly (LLY), Sanofi-Aventis (SNY), Novo Nordisk (NVO) and Pfizer (PFE).  Total sales of insulin analogs in 2006 were greater than $4 billion. 

Current strategies for physicians treating diabetics are through the drug classes mentioned above resulting primarily in diabetes management.  Many new insulin altering drugs have entered the market in the past 10 years, but there is mixed evidence that these new drugs are superior to more established therapies (Ref 2-5) probably because many of these drugs are active on the same molecular sights as previously approved drugs.  Importantly, as the number of patients with diabetes increases, developing new medicines that reduce the cost of long-term treatment for this chronic disease will become a necessity. 

PPAR and GLP-1 receptor agonists

As discussed at the recent ADA meeting, new technology and approaches for treating these patients is changing and the competition to secure the growing market is fierce (see Table 1 below for a summary). Eli Lilly and Co. and Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (AMLN), makers of Byetta, recently announced a new formulation of this drug that changes the dosing from twice daily to weekly.  Positive results from this clinical trial are encouraging for many of the patients who are non-compliant with this medication.  Roche (RHHBY) also announced that it would begin a phase 3 trial for its PPAR-g agonist R1439, which demonstrated improved cardiovascular morbidity in high-risk diabetes patients.

Xoma

XOMA (XOMA) presented data from one of its diabetes antibody candidates XOMA-52, which is a clinical stage IL-1b antibody for patients with type-2 diabetes.  IL-1b plays a role in the auto-inflammatory response leading to decreased beta cell function.  XOMA-52 is unique to other IL-1b inhibitors because of its high affinity (K_D is fM) and long half-life (22 days).  As a result, patients need to be injected with XOMA-52 once monthly and should increase patient compliance.    In addition to safety and pharmacokinetic data, the Phase I trial demonstrated decreased HbA1c levels, a key indicator of blood sugar control, and improved beta cell function.  XOMA-52 is an attractive drug candidate because it preserves endogenous insulin production in patients with advancing type-2 diabetes. In addition to clinical data, XOMA also presented detail mechanistic rodent and in vitro data on XOMA-52, confirming the results seen in the clinical study.   

Halozyme

For patients with type-1 diabetes, Halozyme (HALO) recently presented Phase 2 data that showed improved pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics with patients receiving Lilly’s Humalog and co-administration of Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme. PH20 is a recombinant hyaluronidase enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of hyaluronic acid, a major constituent of the interstitial barrier, and increases tissue permeability. This study demonstrated an improved blood glucose metabolism profile in patients taking the combination therapy, reflecting a more physiologic glucose profile thereby likely reducing the amount of exogenous insulin needed along with some potential complications such as hypoglycemia.

Appetite Control

In addition to reformulations, several companies presented data on new drug targets and technologies. VIVUS, Inc. (VVUS) presented data from a year-long Phase 2 trial with Qnexa demonstrating reduced HbA1c levels and helped patients achieve and maintain significant weight loss through appetite suppression.  Qnexa is a combination therapy of FDA approved phentermine and topiramate, which in combination have synergistic effects through unique molecular targets resulting in reduced appetite and increased satiety.  Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ARNA) presented Phase 3 data from its BLOOM (Behavioral modification and Lorcaserin for Overweight and Obesity Management), demonstrating significant weight loss and reduced secondary endpoints associated with cardiovascular disease after one year of treatment compared to placebo. Lorcaserin is a novel serotonin 2C receptor agonist; selective activation of this Gq-coupled GPCR in the hypothalamus leads to appetite control and increased metabolism. 

Isis

Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ISIS) presented preclinical data on ISIS-SGLT2Rx, an antisense biologic targeting knockdown in sodium dependent glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) levels that resulted in a significant reduction in blood glucose levels in multiple animal species. Isis is experienced in RNA targeting drugs and has already commercialized the world’s first antisense drug.   This novel technology allows Isis to target dysfunctional proteins through decreased transcriptional levels thus modifying signaling pathways not attainable through small molecule inhibition.  Antisense technologies may play a key role in finding drugs with unique targets previously unreachable ultimately leading to improved disease management and quality of life.  

Sangamo

Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. (SGMO) presented data from its Phase 2 trial for SB-509 as a treatment for diabetic neuropathy (DN) resulting in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in subjects. DN is a severe physiological consequence of chronic elevated blood glucose levels and is seen in many patients with advanced diabetes.  SB-509 is an injectable plasmid encoding a DNA-binding Zinc Finger DNA-binding Protein (ZFP) Transcription Factor (ZFP TF™) designed to upregulate the endogenous expression of the gene encoding vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a peptide responsible for angiogenesis. 

The preclinical and clinical data presented at the ADA gives investors, physicians, and patients a preview of the new drugs and technologies to come.  Many of these drugs are several years away from commercialization; however, because of the new technology, new target, or new delivery method, the outlook remains positive for these drugs and companies in the expanding market of diabetes control.

Table 1: Summary

References

1. Canaccord Adams. Diabetes 2007 and Beyond: Innovation, Demographics and Lifestyle Trends Drive Industry Growth. August 2, 2007
2. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998; 352: 854–65.
3. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837–53.
4. Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise A, et al, for the ADOPT Study Group. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin or glyburide as monotherapy in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2427–43.
5. Nathan DM. Finding new treatments for diabetes—how many, how fast… how good? N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 437–40.

# # #

About MD Becker Partners LLC

MD Becker Partners is a boutique management and strategy consulting firm focusing on both public and private companies in emerging growth industries, such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, and cleantech. The firm’s mission is to bring experience-based insights gleaned from the three independent disciplines of investor relations, strategic advisory and operational improvement together and apply them to carefully conceived and expertly enacted strategies that help companies increase visibility, unlock value and access resources to grow their business. For more information, visit the website: http://www.mdbpartners.com/

Disclaimer: This article contains the author’s own opinions, and none of the information contained therein constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. To the extent any of the information contained in the article may be deemed to be investment advice, such information is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any specific person.