Friday, November 20, 2009

Notes from Treat-NMD Conference

Phase I/IIa study on Antisense Compound PRO051 in patients with Duchenne (van Deutekom)

Eight years in the drug development of AON. PRO051 is a 2’o-Me-PS RNA antisense oligonucleotide introducing exon 51 skipping. It demonstrated proof of concept with up to 95% dystrophin fibers in treated muscle area in Duchenne patients. 6 month safety data on PRO051 was available in monkeys and longer term studies in progress. Extensive safety data available for this class of compounds. 12 patients/4 sequential groups from .5 to 6mg/kg – dose escalation trial, completed in May 2009. This was a safety trial with extensive safety parameters. Plasma and tissue PK profile analyzed. Muscle biopsies at two time-points. RNA and protein effects. CK levels were drawn. Muscle strength and performance measured.

12 patients admitted to the study and treated. Mean age 9.1 years with different clinical status in the disease process. All were on a stable dose of steroids. PRO051 was safe and well-tolerated. No SAE detected. Only difficulty was localized pain at the injection site. None of the patients discontinued the study. No safety concerns. Dystrophin antibodies were checked, none found. Because the study is not published, full data is not available.

PK – 6mg/kg. Measuring levels demonstrated : Rapidly cleared from plasma, rapidly distributed to muscle tissue. Half life is 19-56 days.

Dystrophin was detected in all biopsy samples. The protein was sequenced and was found to be expressed as the result of skipping.

Even in the low dose group, dystrophin was detected.

Clinical effects: after 5 weeks. (patient has not reached steady state) trends in functional improvement and drop in CK. In the highest dose groups, there is a trend toward decreased CK levels and early signs of functional improvement as determined by 6 minute walk test and functional testing.

There is some confidence that with longer studies, they will be able to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

This was the first study to show successful administration of antisense oligo in Duchenne. Extension study has started and is ongoing in all 12 patients at the highest dose (6mg/kg). Safety data up to 6 monts is being collected. Phase II/III pivotal 12 month study is in preparation. They expect to start the study within the next year.

MDEX- AVI exon skipping - F. Muntoni

Current trial: 7 patients, ages 10-17 years of age. This was a dose escalation study and the first systemic administration of AVI 4658 in Duchenne.

There were 6 cohorts in a dose escalation. Dose level 0.5 to 20.0mg/kg IV. The infusion was given over a period of 1 hr, weekly X 12 weeks. The initial subject in each cohort was treated for 3 weeks. If there were no serious concerns, they would move to the next patient. All patients were ambulant and were biopsied to confirm the absence of dystrophin. All mutations were confirmed. Patient and family had psychiatric adjustments, supportive psychosocial services and full understanding of the study aims, process, and likely outcomes.

Primary outcome was safety and tolerability.

Secondary outcomes were PK (urine and blood), molecular efficacy (dystrophin on biopsy), and functional testing.

Psychiatric adjustments: Process
• Parents and children seen separately as part of the trial preparation procedure
• Interviews and questionnaires
• Level of risk conveyed to the research team.

Patient recruitment took place in London and Newcastle. Patients were referred through advocacy groups and registries.

Status to date: Last cohort of patients in process. Genotype of patients is represented – those with mutations where skipping exon 51 will result in an in-frame protein. No drug related adverse events. One patient had a worsening cardiomyopathy and had to be excluded, but this was not related to the compound. CK levels demonstrate a decreasing trend. Dr. Muntoni would not comment on functional improvement. He said it was too early to discuss.

General comments: Antisense is well-tolerated, given IV. Some of the patients have now received a considerable amount of drug without appreciable side effects. Last patient will complete in March at which time full analysis of the data will begin.

More to come from Brussels...

News from Brussels

Currently in Brussels for the Treat NMD Advisory Committee for Therapeutics Conference.

How many times have we all received Google Alerts suggesting a certain drug "is potentially promising," “improves function in the mdx mouse,” or ‘halts degeneration in the mdx”? And then, silence.

And how many of us have discussed the need for a certain drug to go to trial or how many parents/families have tried to persuade or were successful at persuading their physician to write the script for a drug based on a single paper about a mouse?

Some time ago, we were asked to recommend a drug for trial in Duchenne. What drug? What evidence? What does the trial look like? How will we measure success? What should we expect? A band-aid? Better? Better than steroids? Will it end Duchenne?

Now there is a process in place in order to objectively review what is known about a certain compound, what level of evidence, what barriers/obstacles might exist in the process of clinical trial development. At the end of the day, this process will help us prioritize drugs for trial and to the degree humanly possible, improve our likelihood for success.

TACT – Treat NMD Advisory Committee for Therapeutics

Treat NMD has established a committee and process to review drugs for trial in Duchenne. This committee provides broad-based expertise to help identify the potential of therapeutics and guide promising ideas to a realistic development path.

Drug development has dramatically changed in the last 12-18 months. The era of the blockbuster is coming to a close and is replaced by drugs targeted to subgroups with the goal of better outcomes for patients. Tools exist to revisit molecules used for other diseases and/or previously considered not useful. It is important for proof of concept trials which are crucial in exposing failure (of the molecule) before raising patient’s expectations and spending vast sums of money.

It is good timing for the TACT process because orphan drugs in chronic diseases with previously underestimated markets, are generating deals. (PTC/Genzyme; Prosensa/GSK; Summit/Biomarin)

The process of TACT will be highly educational and transparent. It will provide a comprehensive approach for review and a perspective so that plans for clinical trials can move forward with some surety. At the moment, TACT has a list of 46 that could be considered potential candidates for trials. The TACT will ensure a level of objectivity so that the most promising compounds are moved into trials. We have a limited number of boys and want to work really hard to do the best job, testing the best drugs with a high likelihood for success.

TACT process will include:
• Consistent standards of drug development considerations for an informed review
• Scientific rational (objective - preclinical support)
• Study design
• Study conduct
• Did the right experts and groups have input?
• Will it inform next steps (go/no go) and the field in general?
• Plans for Funding, initial and beyond

The goal is to objectively review and provide clear answers for developers to bring drugs to patients (Faster to clinic vs best informed to clinic).

Who can use TACT?
Researchers, funders, clinicians, industry

You can check out an application at: http://www.treat-nmd.eu/TACT/TACTFormNov09.pdf

I'm extremely enthusiastic about TACT - It will help us make the RIGHT decisions about moving drugs into trial.

More to come...

MD Breakthrough - What to Make of It

Whenever I hear the words "MD Breakthrough', my heart skips a beat. Is it really? Often, it is in reference to a study in the mdx mouse. We can cure mice. But people are not mice... just ask Victor Dubowitz. And when the 'breakthrough' talks about a young man with Duchenne, it feels like we are all standing at Attention!

Over the last couple of days, many of you have seen a news story that recently aired about a young man named Ryan. I wanted to share with you my thoughts about this story. For those of you who have not seen this piece, check out the story by following this link: http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/69538137.html.

I have watched the video of Ryan (by Jemelle Holopirek) several times and admit to some skepticism. To be quite honest, I have a lot of skepticism. My own sons were in the myoblast transfer trials of long ago, receiving some extraordinary number of donor myoblasts in their major muscles. It did not work, not at all. There was a moment when I thought I saw something, when Chris and Patrick did something or said something that seemed to suggest improvement. But there was nothing. And I used the same words "feels better," "seems stronger," etc. All generalities that cannot be measured.

I admit to some bias and for that reason, I wanted to get some answers. I have called the 800 number for Dr. Neil H. Riordan, the specialist featured in the story who is working from Costa Rica, and I am waiting on a return call. The number is answered in the US, and the person answering promised he would relay the message and have them get back to me.

Conceptually, stem cells make sense. The goal would be to deliver sufficient numbers of stem cells, to all of the muscles in the body, or at least the major muscle groups and make sure they integrate with existing muscle cells. The would potentially replace what is lost and if all that works, one might expect, over time, to see improvement.

But - and there is always a "but" - I have any number of questions.

We know this is difficult. Myoblast transfer trials were done in the late 80s and 90s. Jacques Tremblay continues with his myoblast transfer trials in Canda, now moved to limb delivery. Cossu (Italy) is moving toward limb delivery with mesioangioblasts. Gillian Butler Browne is working on stem cells. Lee Sweeney has just requested a small amount of money from us to expand some of his stem cell work (adult-derived stem cells). Barriers to stem cell delivery have been discussed in a variety of forums over the years. For Duchenne, and many other conditions, stem cells are suggested to be the Holy Grail, but it just has not been as easy as hoped for. Some years ago, we sponsored Marie-Therese Little at the Fred Hutchinson Center in Seattle, working on stem cells in the dog model. The barriers included identifying the specific type of stem cell, engineering it to ensure it would make muscle, delivery and rejection. And what does the immune suppression protocol look like? Loads of questions and progress for sure, but not magic.

The video describes three treatments over a year and a half with 46 shots into every major muscle group that resulted in a muscle biopsy with "100% dystrophin levels."

As a community we have to ask the difficult questions. Some of them include:
* What muscle did they biopsy? How was the level assessed?
* What was Ryan's functional ability before the transplant? How has he improved? His wonderful friend Clint (thank heaven for friends like Clint!) described 'neck and trunk stronger' and 'balance better' and 'gained 30 lb.' On the video, Ryan moved only his hands/forearms. And increased weight may not signifiy increased muscle mass and circumference of a specific muscle does not mean increased strength.
* Muscle biopsy - who did the staining? Quantification of dystrophin?
* Transplanted cells - cells from Ryan's sister and donor umbilical cords. What is the immune suppression protocol? Any concerns regarding graft vs host rejection?
* Function: What tests pre- and post- were done to document benefit?

It seems to me Dr. Riordan would do well by convening a meeting with researchers and physicians, including leading experts in the field like Cossu, Gillian Butler-Browne, Terry Partridge, Lee Sweeney, Jerry Mendell, and others. He could then describe his research, procedure(s), data, and outcomes in detail answering a wide range of questions.

I hope I do not sound overly negative. But I have been through this with a wide range of treatments and promises made to our community. And my frustration is not with Dr. Riordan. I hope, just like all of you, that his work is the "breakthrough" this report claims it to be. I just wish the media would understand that words such as "breakthrough" should be used with caution because the reality is often different from the message, and it is their responsibility to ask questions and get substantiated answers before rushing on air.

I will try to contact Dr. Riordan again and look forward to talking to him and getting more answers for all of us. As always, I will share any information I get.

Warm regards,
Pat