Approval of ipilimumab is the second victory for the field of active immunotherapy in oncology within a year.   On April 29, 2010, the FDA approved the very first active immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer – Dendreon Corporation’s (DNDN) Provenge® [sipuleucel-T] for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC].  The fact that two active immunotherapies have demonstrated improved survival in randomized Phase 3 trials and subsequently been approved by the FDA has reignited enthusiasm for the field of active immunotherapy, which has experienced nearly a dozen failures in Phase 3 clinical trials.

A Long Time in the Making

The idea to stimulate one’s own immune system to treat cancer dates back to 1891 when William Coley, Professor of Clinical Surgery at Cornell University, noticed the curative effect of an accidental bacterial infection in a patient with inoperable sarcoma.  It would be 119 years since Dr. Coley’s discovery before the FDA approved the first active immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer.

As the scientific understanding of the immune system has significantly increased since Dr. Coley’s time, scientists and physicians developed successful immune system related strategies to fight cancer, viral infection and autoimmune diseases.  Today, mAbs are among the most successful modern immunotherapies and provide clinical benefit to a vast array of diseases – with three blockbuster mAbs generating approximately $17 billion in sales in 2009.

Melanoma Losing Streak

In addition to helping renew interest in the field of active immunotherapy, the FDA’s approval of ipilimumab provides a much-needed boost to companies developing product candidates for melanoma.  Among the eleven Phase 3 failures with active immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer, more than one-third of them have occurred in melanoma [see Table 1].

Table 1. Select Active Immunotherapy Failures in Phase 3 Trials

Crowded Market

While ipilimumab is the first new drug approved for the treatment of melanoma in 13 years, there are four competitive active immunotherapy programs in Phase 3 development [see Table 2].  In fact, melanoma is second only to prostate cancer as the most crowded clinical development segment within the active immunotherapy field.

Table 2. Select Phase 3 Active Immunotherapy Product Candidates in Melanoma

Five by 2015

As highlighted in our firm’s April 2010 report titled “Cancer Vaccine Therapies: Failures and Future Opportunities,” there are a number of additional catalysts that could ignite further interest in the field of active immunotherapy for cancer.  Nearly 50 clinical programs are currently underway, including nearly a dozen that are in pivotal Phase 3 development.

Using the history of passive immunotherapy development as a guide, it would not be surprising to see five active cancer immunotherapies approved within five years, which leads to our “5 x 2015″ projection.  With the approvals of both sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab in hand, the next three may come from the following list of Phase 3 product candidates [in alphabetical order]:

• Amgen (AMGN), OncoVEX[GM-CSF], melanoma and head & neck
• AVAX Technologies (AVXT.PK), MVAX, melanoma
• Bavarian Nordic (BAVA.CO), Prostvac®, prostate cancer
• Biovest International (OTCQB: BVTI), BiovaxID®, NHL
• Cel-Sci (CVM), multikine, head & neck
• Celldex Therapeutics (CLDX), rindopepimut/CDX-110, glioblastoma
• GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), MAGE-A3 ASCI, NSCLC and melanoma
• Novarx (private), Lucanix™/belagenpumatucel-L, NSCLC
• Oncothyreon (ONTY)/Merck KGaA, Stimuvax®/BLP25 liposome vaccine, NSCLC
• Oxford BioMedica plc (OXB.L), Trovax®, renal cell
• Transgene (TNG.PA)/Novartis (NVS), TG4010/MVA-MUC1-IL2, NSCLC
• Vical (VICL)/AnGes, Allovectin-7®, melanoma

The tale seems fitting to illustrate the evolution of drugs that target the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase [PI3K] pathway [see Table 2 for a listing of compounds in clinical development].  Despite ample evidence that pan-PI3K inhibitors and dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors might offer a therapeutic advantage, tailors continue to weave new compounds targeting individual components of the pathway with presumably superior properties.  But does the “mTOR” really have new clothes?

Pathway Layout

The PI3K pathway regulates cell growth, survival, proliferation, migration, and the process of angiogenesis and is frequently deregulated in cancer, which makes it one of the most attractive targets for anticancer therapy.  Big pharma’s interest in the target is evidenced in part by Sanofi-aventis’ (SNY) licensing of two early-stage PI3K inhibitor programs [XL147 and XL765] from Exelixis, Inc. (EXEL) in May 2009 that could result in development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments to the company that total over $1 billion in the aggregate [including $140 million in cash upfront], as well as royalties on sales of any products commercialized under the license.

In general, the pathway comprises the following three components starting near the cell membrane and continuing towards the nuclear machinery at the heart of cellular processes:

1.     PI3K

-       Held in check by the phosphatase PTEN, PI3K can be activated by upstream tyrosine kinase receptors

-       Four class I isoforms of PI3K [α, β, γ, δ, or alpha, beta, gamma, delta]

2.     Akt

-       Gets recruited to the proper location in the cell needed for activity [cell membrane] and is changed into the required active conformational state by phosphorylation of T308 by the action of PI3K

3.     mTOR

-       Promotes increased protein synthesis in part driven by activated Akt

-       Forms complexes called mTORC1 and mTORC2, of which mTORC2 directly increases Akt by phosphorylation on S473

Dysfunction of PI3K, Akt, and/or mTOR is associated with cancer and while cellular signaling becomes more complex on almost a daily basis, much has been discovered about the best way to effectively block the pathway in cancer cells.  Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to highlight some of the latest advances in our understanding of the PI3K pathway along with the leading companies working in this market segment.

Good, Better, and Best

Pfizer, Inc.’s (PFE) Torisel® [temsirolimus] and Novartis AG’s (NVS) Afinitor® [everolimus], both for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, were among the first PI3K pathway inhibitors [via inhibition of mTORC1] to reach the market – Torisel in May 2007 and Afinitor in March 2009.  While inhibition of mTORC1 through rapamycin or the rapalogs [“Good”] demonstrated sufficient clinical activity for U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval, there is clear evidence that blocking only mTORC1 activity paradoxically leads to activation of the PI3K pathway through redundant or alternative signaling mechanisms.  For example, mTORC2 can activate Akt by phosphorylation on the S473 position.  This led to the design of mTOR complex catalytic site inhibitors [“Better”] that block the activity of both mTORC1 and mTORC2.  While effective in shutting down mTOR activity, this approach still provides for partial activation of Akt on T308 by PI3K.  Therefore, simultaneous inhibition of both PI3K and mTOR kinase activity with a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor [“Best”] would be expected to more effectively shut down PI3K-Akt-mTOR signaling and such an agent could remain effective in situations where the activity of mTOR inhibition has been circumvented.

Isoform Selectivity: Is Less Really More?

In addition to the benefits of dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition as described in the prior section, there is also compelling biological rationale for inhibiting all four of the class one PI3K isoforms [α, β, γ, δ, or alpha, beta, gamma, delta] rather than inhibiting only a subset.  The most compelling support for pan-PI3K inhibition is the recent disclosure that the activity of any class 1A PI3K isoform [alpha, beta, or delta] can sustain cell proliferation and survival [ref 1].  Additionally, both in vitro and in vivo studies indicated that for PTEN-negative tumors inhibition of the beta isoform is needed [ref 2].  Moreover, evolving analyses of cancer tissues provides additional rationale for inhibiting the various isoforms as for example the recent finding that the gamma isoform has tumor-specific overexpression in pancreatic cancer [ref 3].

The role of PI3K in a wide range of normal biologic processes raised potential toxicity concerns about pan-PI3K inhibitors and dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, which led to the development of isoform-selective inhibitors.  However, clinical data presented at the 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] annual meeting demonstrated relatively consistent toxicity profiles among pan-PI3K, dual PI3K/mTOR, and isoform-selective PI3K inhibitors, with no discernable safety advantage among the class [see Table 1 below].  The most common side effects reported with these inhibitors included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue [ref 8].  Liver damage, as evidenced by elevated aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT] levels, were reported only with orally administered pan-PI3K, dual PI3K/mTOR, and PI3K delta isoform-specific inhibitors and were dose limiting in some cases.  Interestingly, insulin resistance [hyperinsulinaemia or hyperglycaemia] was originally predicted to be one of the most likely toxicities resulting from on-target effects of PI3K inhibitors, but has not been widely observed in clinical trials to date.

Table 1. Adverse Event Profiles as Reported at 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting

+ = Adverse event listed among the top five most frequent Grade 1 or 2 in the trial

++ = Dose limiting toxicities

* = For GDC-0941, results are from GDC4254g study; for PX-866, AST/ALT toxicity is only in the continuous daily dosing arm

n/r = Grade 1 and 2 data has not been reported

Helping explain the lack of variation between pan-PI3K, dual PI3K/mTOR, and isoform-selective PI3K inhibitor toxicity profiles is the translation of data from in vitro potency to in vivo settings.  For example, while Calistoga Pharmaceuticals’ (private) CAL-101 product candidate demonstrates relative selectivity for the PI3K delta isoform using traditional two-dimensional [2D] monolayers of cancer cells, the significant blood levels seen clinically suggest that all isoforms may be inhibited at least part of the time.  In addition, in a PTEN-null PC3 xenograft model Roche Holding AG’s (RHHBY.PK) PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941 at 75mg/kg daily [ref 4] showed similar inhibition of about 80% of tumor growth as Semafore Pharmaceuticals’ (private) dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor SF1126 at 20mg/kg three times per week [ref 5] even though SF1126 is reported to be at least 10-times less potent on all PI3K isoforms.  Two recent publications help further support the dramatic differences between 2D and 3D cell cultures and perhaps shed some light on how potency translates, or fails to translate, into in vivo models [refs 6,7].

Future Directions

Prodrugs

One of the most widely studied PI3K inhibitors, LY294002 possesses a unique mechanism of drug action through dual inhibition of all Class 1 PI3K isoforms and mTOR, inhibition of additional cancer kinases such as PIM1, DNA-PK, and PLK1, and the molecule’s ability to induce apoptosis and oxidative stress through other mechanisms.  However, the strong hydrophobicity of LY294002 drastically limits its use in natural form.  In addition, there is the aforementioned concern for toxicity through the non-specific, indiscriminate inhibition of the PI3K pathway in normal cells.  Therefore, Semafore Pharmaceuticals sought to improve the use of LY294002 by enhancing its solubility, selectivity and in vivo delivery by preparing a functional prodrug that selectively accumulates in tumor areas to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity.  The resulting new chemical entity, SF1126, has been tested in more than 50 patients in Phase 1 trials.

Disease Settings and Biomarkers

In general, the standard paradigm for early drug development is to test compounds in a broad range of cancers to identify those in which the compounds work, which then forms the basis for future clinical development and regulatory strategy.  Such has been the case with development of PI3K inhibitors.

Across the nine mixed solid tumor Phase 1 studies reported at ASCO 2010, 114 out of 469 patients [24%] showed stable disease, prolonged in some cases, as the best response [ref 8].  Only 5 partial responses out of 469 patients [1%] of unknown duration were reported from the group in total.  Of these 3 were in breast cancer patients, one was in non-small cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], and one was in a patient with lung cancer/Cowden disease.   On this basis, there is no clear direction for development of PI3K inhibitors in the solid tumor setting.

In contrast, significant responses in hematological cancers have been reported with PI3K inhibitors.  For example, Calistoga Pharmaceuticals’ delta selective PI3K inhibitor CAL-101 demonstrated overall response rates of 57%, 67%, and 30% in indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma [NHL], mantle cell lymphoma [MCL], and chronic lymphocytic leukemia [CLL], respectively.  However, in acute myeloid leukemia [AML], multiple myeloma [MM] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] there were no responses and no stable disease.  Accordingly, several pan-PI3K inhibitors and dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors are advancing clinical development in the responsive B-cell malignancies both alone and in combination with potentially synergistic agents.  Updated clinical data from various PI3K inhibitor programs is expected at the upcoming American Society of Hematology [ASH] annual meeting held December 4-7, 2010, in Orlando, FL.

Instead of testing compounds in mixed patient populations, another strategy is to use the most compelling preclinical data to guide genotype-directed trials.   For example, preclinical work suggests that cancers with PIK3CA mutations might be most sensitive [ref 9] and cancers with KRAS mutations might be difficult to treat with single agent PI3K inhibitors [refs 10,11].

Dual Pathway Inhibition – Better than Best?

Beyond the aforementioned PI3K pathway redundancies highlighting the potential benefits of dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition, recent data demonstrate crosstalk between the mitogen-activated protein kinase [MAPK] pathway and PI3K pathway.  This can serve as a back-up pathway to survival, particularly in the case of mutations in the MAPK pathway such as KRAS mutations [ref 10].

This discovery has led to the unusual step of evaluating clinical combinations of unapproved PI3K and MAPK inhibitors.  For example, Novartis’ PI3K inhibitor BKM120 is being combined with GlaxoSmithKline plc’s (GSK) MEK inhibitor GSK1120212 in a Phase 1 study focused on tumors with RAS/RAF mutations and triple negative breast cancer [ref 12].  In addition, Merck & Company, Inc.’s (MRK) allosteric Akt inhibitor MK-2206 is being combined with AstraZeneca plc’s (AZN) MEK inhibitor AZD6244 [ref 13] and Roche Holding AG has a trial combining their PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941 and MEK inhibitor GDC-09773 [ref 14].

Developing one investigational drug is challenging enough, but developing two investigational compounds simultaneously can be daunting.   Complexities can arise from trying to match different administration schedules and differing pharmacokinetics [PK], distribution, and metabolism profiles between the combined agents.  A single molecule that simultaneously inhibits both PI3K and MAPK would therefore be preferable and the following three companies are currently pursuing this single-molecule, dual pathway inhibition strategy with their respective preclinical product candidates:

1.     AEterna Zentaris, Inc. (AEZS): preclinical molecule [AEZ132] that inhibits PI3K and Erk

2.     Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PGNX): preclinical molecule [PGNX-01/02] that inhibits mTOR/PI3K and MNK [downstream of Erk]

3.     Semafore Pharmaceuticals: preclinical molecule [SF2626] that inhibits PI3K and MEK

Conclusion

Our understanding of the PI3K pathway has advanced significantly since the FDA approved the first mTORC1 inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma in 2007/2009.  Promising results have been demonstrated in the area of hematological malignancies with next-generation PI3K inhibitors and new insights into the pathway biology has led to the development of new molecules and combination approaches that will allow us to realize the ultimate potential of this pathway as a therapeutic target for a variety of diseases.

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

Table 2: Select PI3K Pathway Inhibitors in Clinical Development

REFERENCES:

1. Lazaros C. Foukasa, Inma M. Berenjenoa, Alexander Grayb, Asim Khwajac, and Bart Vanhaesebroeck  “Activity of any class IA PI3K isoform can sustain cell proliferation and survival”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 22, 2010; vol. 107, No. 25, 111381-11386.
2. Kyle A. Edgar, Jeffrey J. Wallin, Megan Berry, Leslie B. Lee, Wei Wei Prior, Deepak Sampath, Lori S. Friedman, and Marcia Belvin, “Isoform-Specific Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase Inhibitors Exert Distinct Effects in Solid Tumors”, Cancer Research, February 1, 2010; vol.70, No. 3, 1164-1171.
3. Charlotte E. Edling, Federico Selvaggi, Richard Buus, Tania Maffucci, Pierluigi Di Sebastiano, Helmut Friess, Paolo Innocenti, Hemant M. Kocher, and Marco Falasca, “Key Role of Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase Class IB in Pancreatic Cancer”, Clinical Cancer Research, published OnlineFirst on September 28, 2010 as 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1210.
4. See Figure 5 of Reference 2.
5. Joseph R. Garlich, Pradip De, Nandini Dey, Jing Dong Su, Xiaodong Peng, Antoinette Miller, Ravoori Murali, Yiling Lu, Gordon B. Mills, Vikas Kundra, H-K. Shu, Qiong Peng, and Donald L. Durden, “A Vascular Targeted Pan Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase Inhibitor Prodrug, SF1126, with Antitumor and Antiangiogenic Activity”, Cancer Research, January 1, 2008; vol. 68, No. 1, 206-215.
6. Ville Harma, Johannes Virtanen, Rami Makela, Antti Happonen, John-Patrick Mpindi, Matias Knuuttila, Pekka Kohonen, Jyrki Lotjonen, Olli Kallioniemi, Matthaias Nees, “A Comprehensive Panel of Three-Dimensional Models for Studies of Prostate Cancer Growth, Invasion and Drug Responses”, PLoS ONE May 2010, vol. 5, e10431
7. Maria Laura Polo, Maria Victoria Arnoni, Marina Riggio, Victoria Wargon, Claudia Lanari, Virginia Novaro, “Responsiveness to PI3K and MEK Inhibitors in Breast Cancer.  Use of a 3D Culture System to study Pathways Related to Hormone Independence in Mice”, PLoS ONE May 2010, vol. 5, e10786.
8. Joseph Garlich, Candace Shelton, Wenqing Qi, Xiaobing Liu, Laurence Cooke, Daruka Mahadevan,”Update on the Novel Prodrug Dual nTOR-PI3K Inhibitor SF1126″, Poster presented at: Next-Gen Kinase Inhibitors Oncology and Beyond, June 21-23, Cambridge, MA.  Poster available at: http://www.semaforepharma.com/publications.html.
9. Shingo Dan, Mutsumi Okamura, Mariko Seki, Kanami Yamazaki, Hironobu Sugita, Michiyo Okui, Yumiko Mukai, Hiroyuki Nishimura, Reimi Asaka, Kimie Nomura, Yuichi Ishikawa, and Takao Yamon, “Correlating Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase Inhibitor Efficacy with Signaling Pathway Status: In silico and Biological Evlauations”, Cancer Research, June 15, 2010; vol. 70, No. 12, 4982-4993.
10. Martin L. Sosa, Stefanie Fischera, Roland Ullrich, Martin Peifer, Johannes M. Heuckmann, Mirjam Koker, Stefanie Heynck, Isabel Stuckrath, Jonathan Weiss, Florian Fischer, Kathrin Michel, Aviva Goel, Lucia Regales, Katerina A. Politi, Samanthi Perera, Matthaus Getlik, Lukas C. Heukamp, Sascha Ansen, Thomas Zander, Rameen Beroukhim, Hamid Kashkar, Kevan M. Shokat, William R. Sellers, Daniel Rauh, Christine Orr, Klaus P. Hoeflich, Lori Friedman, Kwok-Kin Wong, William Pao, and Roman K. Thomasa, “Identifying genotype-dependent efficacy of single and combined PI3K- and MAPK-pathway inhibition in cancer” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 27,2009; Vol.106, No. 43, 18351-18356.
11. Nathan T. Ihle, Robert Lemos, Jr., Peter Wipf, Adly Yacoub, Clint Mitchell, Doris Siwak, Gordon B. Mills, Paul Dent, D. Lynn Kirkpatrick, and Garth Powis, “Mutations in the Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase Pathway Predict for Antitumor Activity of the Inhibitor PX-866 whereas Oncogenic Ras is a Dominant Predictor for Resistance, Cancer Research, January 1, 2009; Vol. 69, No. 1, 142-150.
12. Source:  www.clinicaltrials .gov website. Clinical Trials.gov identifier number NCT01155453, started April 2010.
13. Source:  www.clinicaltrials .gov website. Clinical Trials.gov identifier number NCT01021748, started November 2009.
14. Source:  www.clinicaltrials .gov website. Clinical Trials.gov identifier number NCT00996892, started November 2009.

With 2009 officially on the books, it appears an appropriate time to review the sector’s performance along with some of the themes highlighted in our previous articles.

Big Versus Small

The twenty-member NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index (BTK) was up 46% in 2009, while the broader NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) was only up 16%, underperforming the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU), S&P 500 (SPX), and NASDAQ Composite (COMP), which were up 19%, 24%, and 44%, respectively.  Why the huge discrepancy in returns between these two major biotechnology indices?  Unlike the equal-weighted NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, the NASDAQ Biotech Index is market value-weighted, taking into account the total market capitalization of the companies it tracks and not just their share prices.  Accordingly, companies with the largest market capitalizations, or the greatest values, will have the highest weighting in the index.

During 2009, large capitalization biotechnology companies [greater than $10 billion] dramatically underperformed their smaller peers.  For example, Celgene Corporation (CELG) was essentially flat, Amgen, Inc. (AMGN) was down 2%, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) declined by 15%, and Genzyme Corporation (GENZ) dropped 26% [earning Henri Termeer the coveted Nance Trophy for worst biotech CEO of 2009 by TheStreet.com’s Adam Feuerstein].  Some of the reasons for this poor performance include concerns over generic competition and pipeline progress – ironically some of the same issues that have plagued big pharma.

Accordingly, the relative underperformance of large capitalization biotechnology companies in 2009 masked the fact that many smaller, innovative companies performed well, with 20 of the 125 companies comprising the NASDAQ Biotech Index producing triple-digit returns during the period.  In fact, two biotechnology companies were among the largest percentage gainers in the NASDAQ Composite with their staggering quadruple-digit returns: Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VNDA) +2,150% and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI) +1,342%.  See Table 1 for a list of the top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009.

Table 1. Top ten gainers from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2009

Oncology: Prostate Cancer Spotlight

Driven by positive Phase 3 results from Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) regarding its prostate cancer vaccine study, investors gravitated towards biotechnology companies working in the field of prostate cancer treatment as noted in our May 2009 article.  This enthusiasm only increased when Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) announced in May 2009 that it would acquire Cougar Biotechnology, Inc., a development stage company with an oral prostate cancer treatment being studied in two Phase 3 clinical trials, for approximately $1 billion. 

While not a member of either major biotechnology index, shares of Oncogenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OGXI) started the year around $3.00 and ended above $22 for a 643% return.  Oncogenex is developing OGX-011, which is designed to inhibit the production of clusterin, a protein that is associated with cancer treatment resistance, and has completed Phase 2 clinical trials in prostate, lung and breast cancer.  OGX-011 received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of progressive metastatic prostate cancer in combination with docetaxel.  Shares of Oncogenex had traded higher than $42 in August 2009, but the stock price declined following a license agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA) for OGX-011 that apparently did not meet investor’s expectations.

Not all biotechnology companies working in the area of prostate cancer were as fortunate as Dendreon, Cougar, and Oncogenex.  Shares of GTx, Inc. (GTXI) were the second largest industry decliner for 2009 due to a complete response letter from the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] that cited clinical deficiencies regarding the company’s New Drug Application [NDA] for toremifene 80 mg to reduce fractures in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy.  See Table 2 for a list of the top ten decliners from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009.

Shareholder Activist Wins

In view of past major coups with MedImmune and ImClone, in August 2009 we reviewed Carl Icahn’s biotechnology holdings as reported in SEC filings and identified three companies that significantly underperformed the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index over the past five years, but with recent successful shareholder activist outcomes that could positively impact future performance.  In particular, we noted that Alexander Denner, who has served as Managing Director of entities affiliated with Carl Icahn and as a director of ImClone, had recently been elected as a director at each company.

During 2009, those three companies, Biogen Idec, Inc. (BIIB), Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMLN), and Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ENZN) produced positive returns of 12%, 31% and 81%, respectively.  While Biogen Idec underperformed the sector, it notched the highest return among large capitalization biotechnology companies.

In other shareholder activist news, holders of Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) are likely pleased that the company’s Board of Directors spurned a request by Tang Capital Partners, LP to liquidate the company in February 2009.  Shares of Vanda were up 2,150% for the year [see Table 1] following FDA approval in May 2009 to market the company’s Fanapt™ [iloperidone], a novel antipsychotic for the acute treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia, and a subsequent marketing agreement for the product with Novartis AG (NVS).

CNS: Developments for Parkinson’s Disease

Vanda Pharmaceuticals wasn’t the only company working in the area of central nervous system [CNS] disorders to make news.  Shares of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (IPXL), which were trading around $7.50 at the time we published our August 2009 article titled “Treating Parkinson’s Disease: Investment Opportunities and Challenges,” continued to reach new 52-week highs and ended up 172% for the year [see Table 1].  Impax recently initiated the second of two Phase 3 studies designed to support marketing approval of its IPX066 product candidate for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.  IPX066 is an investigational extended release carbidopa-levodopa product intended to rapidly achieve and then sustain effective blood concentrations of levodopa, potentially improving clinical symptom management.

Gastrointestinal Disease: 3 Hits, 3 Misses

First, the good:

Both Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (SLXP) and Santarus, Inc. (SNTS) appear in the list of top ten biotechnology gainers for 2009 with triple-digit returns due to favorable regulatory progress reported during the year [see Table 1].  In September, Salix announced the successful outcome of two Phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xifaxan® [rifaximin] for the treatment of non-constipation irritable bowel syndrome.  Salix is planning an NDA submission for the first half of 2010.  In December, Santarus announced that the FDA approved the company’s New Drug Application [NDA] for its prescription tablet product for all of the indications being sought, including for the treatment of heartburn and other symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. 

While not a member of either major biotechnology index, shares of Soligenix, Inc. (SNGX.OB) increased 317% during 2009.  In January, the company reached agreement with the FDA on the design of a confirmatory, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating its lead product orBec® for the treatment of acute gastrointestinal Graft-versus-Host Disease [GVHD].  The following month, Soligenix announced a potential $30 million North American partnership agreement with Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals for orBec and in October 2009 initiated patient enrollment in the confirmatory Phase 3 trial that is expected to complete with clinical data available in the first half of 2011.

Next, the bad:

As discussed in our December 2009 article “Graft Versus Host Disease: Failures and Future Opportunities,” Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (OSIR) recently reported preliminary results from two Phase 3 trials evaluating its Prochymal product candidate for the treatment of acute GVHD.  Unfortunately, neither trial reached its primary endpoint, sending shares from $14 to a 52-week low of $5.35 by November 2009, earning the company a spot in the top ten decliners for the year [see Table 2]. 

The other two casualties working in the area of gastrointestinal disease and appearing in the top ten decliners for 2009 are:

• Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PGNX), which announced in October 2009 that the company regained worldwide rights to Relistor® [methylnaltrexone bromide] for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.  Global net sales of Relistor for the third quarter of 2009 were a mere $3.3 million, as compared to $3.2 million in sales for the previous quarter.
• In the absence of any negative clinical or regulatory news, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) stated it remains on track to reach full patient enrollment before the end of the first quarter of 2010 for a confirmatory Phase 3 trial with Gattex™ (teduglutide), the company’s proprietary analog of naturally occurring human glucagon-like peptide 2 [GLP-2], for the treatment of short bowel syndrome [SBS].  NPS believes that positive results from the trial, expected to complete in October 2010 according to ClinicalTrials.gov, will enable the company to seek U.S. marketing approval for Gattex.

Table 2. Top ten decliners from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2009

2010 Outlook

The capital markets remain turbulent and there may be casualties along the way among undercapitalized companies, but many of the biotechnology industry’s fundamentals, such as the number of products in clinical trials, new product approvals, profitable biotech companies and industry mergers & acquisitions remain favorable for 2010. Similar to 2009, small capitalization companies with clinical or regulatory catalysts should continue to outperform their larger industry peers in the year ahead.

What is your outlook for the biotechnology industry in 2010?  Take a moment to complete our survey, which is only ten questions long and will take just minutes to complete.  The results of this important survey along with our industry outlook will be communicated in early 2010 through a future article.  Take the survey now by clicking here.