Deals Of The Week: The ASCO Edition

ASCO is just moving into full swing, but already the press releases are flying fast and furious. Biotechs have long looked to this meeting as a means to showcase their smarts and increase their profile with public investors. But as big pharmas have set their sights on oncology as the therapeutic area of choice -- given its high unmet medical need and, historically, generous reimbursement, there's no doubt ASCO is now a critical meeting for even the biggest players in the industry.

Like last year, the particular tumor type driving a lot of investor interest at this year's Chicago confab is melanoma. Since presenting robust Phase III data at ASCO 2010 showing a survival benefit for Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb has gone on to win rapid approval for its CTLA-4 inhibitor. This year, investors and clinicians will be watching for new data measuring Yervoy efficacy in pretreated melanoma patients; they'll also be monitoring the data associated with Plexxikon/Roche's vemurafenib, which is pending FDA approval for use in patients with the BRAF V600 mutation, a specific genetic abnormality observed in about 50% of melanoma patients.

As "The Pink Sheet" Daily notes, it's not entirely clear how the melanoma market will shake out when both products are finally on the market. They may be competitors, but given their different modes of action -- Yervoy stimulates the immune system, while the Plexx/Roche drug targets only tumor cells that carry the V600 abnormality -- it's equally likely they could act synergistically. Certainly neither drug on its own works in all patients or offers a long-term cure, even if both extend median patient survival in clinical trials.

Thus, the news June 2 that Roche/Plexxikon would find a way to work with BMS to study the two drugs in combination seemed almost a fait accompli. The press releases issued (from three different companies no less) were long on breathless prose and short on detail: the parties will conduct a Phase I/II study evaluating safety and efficacy of the two drugs in combo, but did not provide more clarity on the trial's design, its timing, or its enrollment. "If appropriate, the companies may conduct further development of the combination," Bristol said in its press release.

You will notice there's also no information on the economic sharing that might come from such a clinical collaboration either. That's hardly surprising. We've yet to see much in the way of financial deets for earlier tie-ups in oncology: AstraZeneca's 2009 alliance with Merck to combine development of their respective clinical-stage MEK inhibitor and AKT inhibitor; or Sanofi's December 2010 deal with Merck Serono to marry their Phase I PI3 Kinase- and MEK-targeting molecules.

Despite the increasing complexity of the oncology market, one in which payers are taking a more active role in controlling costs, such cross-collaboration remains the exception rather than the rule. There are plenty of reasons why: issues around control, valuation, and overlap with other non-partnered products mean it can be tough for two large companies to come to agreement on how to share knowledge and find ways to work together.

That BMS and Roche have found a way to do so can only be a smart thing. The reality is organizations like US Oncology, Cardinal's P4 Healthcare, and Via Oncology are going beyond traditional treatment guidelines recommended by the likes of ASCO and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, working with payers to provide "clinical pathways" that aim to standardize treatment for a specific disease or tumor type. Aimed for now at treating the most costly cancers, these programs, which are still in pilot mode at major players like Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Highmark, reduce the wide latitude US doctors have historically enjoyed when prescribing oncologics.

The ultimate impact of these pathways on the biopharma industry isn't yet known, but as we write in this IN VIVO feature, their advent has real consequences for how companies should approach drug development. And while it's very early days to be talking about a melanoma pathway, doing clinical trials to show the merit of your drug in conjunction with a competitor, when it's highly likely to see real-world use in such a combination, just makes sense. (We also wonder how this impacts GSK's Phase III melanoma drugs, its MEK1/2 inhibitor and its BRAF protein kinase inhibitor. Can these earlier stages medicines get traction in the current competitive marketplace? GSK certainly hopes so, and has its own combo trials ongoing.)

Will we see more cross-company clinical stage oncology pair-ups in the future? We hope so. Could such alliances be broader and extend beyond on-offs to a ViiV type arrangement? We're doubtful given the deal making complexities and nearly every pharma's desire to be tops in oncology. But as crazy as that idea sounds, it'd be a clear choice for 2011's DOTY.

In the interim, we always have ASCO (if not Paris) and...

Clovis/Pfizer: Attention biopharma trend watchers! We bring you this news flash of another sighting of that rare bird in the wild: the out-licensing. On June 2, Clovis announced it was licensing Pfizer's Phase I/II Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, PF-01367338, for an undisclosed upfront sum. Under the terms of the agreement, Clovis Oncology will take over responsibility for global product development and commercialization, and in addition to paying the u/f, will owe Pfizer additional downstream fees milestones totaling up to $255 million (pending success in the clinic and commercially, of course). Interestingly, as part of the out-licensing, Pfizer Venture Investments is taking an equity stake in the biotech. (So it's a licensing AND a financing in one blow.) Not that Clovis is hurting in the cash department. Recall Clovis, a START-UP A-lister, pulled in one of the biggest Series As EVUH in 2009. PARP inhibition is, of course, a hot topic at ASCO, and a quick search of the pipeline database Inteleos, shows there are more than a dozen drugs in development against this target, including some that are much further along, including Sanofi's iniparib (Phase III, originally developed by BiPar), AstraZeneca's olaparib, and Cephalon's CEP-9722. The press release announcing the news emphasizes '338 is a "potent" PARP inhibitor, so it's a bit curious that Pfizer would give it up unless its trying to walk the talk of jettisoning anything not first-in-class or best-in-class. (But that raises other questions, including what does Clovis see in the compound?). Separately, Clovis also announced this week plans to develop in concert with Roche an in vitro PCR-based companion diagnostic linked to EGFR mutations.--EL

Johnson & Johnson/AVEO: Months after partnering its lead asset tivozanib in a lucrative deal with Astellas, Aveo has extended its network of partners with an early stage deal with Johnson & Johnson's Centocor Ortho Biotech division. The Cambridge, Mass.-based biotech announced the licensing deal for compounds targeting the RON (Recepteur d'Origine Nantais) receptor - believed to play a role in cancer development - for $15 million upfront May 31. Under the deal, Aveo will receive half of the $15 million in an upfront payment and the rest through a separate equity investment that gives J&J a 1.25% stake in the biotech. Given the early-stage nature of the deal, it's not surprising the arrangement is back-end loaded, with Aveo eligible to receive up to $540 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones. Aveo will also receive tiered, double-digit royalties on sales of any products stemming from the collaboration. Centocor will be responsible for clinical development, manufacturing, commercialization and costs. J&J will also fund some research to be conducted by Aveo to identify biomarkers for patients most likely to respond to treatment with RON-targeted antibodies. "It is about building out a portfolio," said Aveo Chief Business Officer Elan Ezickson of the collaboration in an interview with "The Pink Sheet" DAILY. For J&J, the deal provides access to what could be an important product in oncology, an area of critical importance to the big pharma's overall business success. -- Jessica Merrill

AstraZeneca/Heptares: (Spoiler alert. No oncology refs in this deal.) UK biotech Heptares Therapeutics signed its third Big Pharma agreement in two months this week, this time with AstraZeneca. The two companies have entered into a four-year research collaboration to discover and develop new medicines that target G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). AstraZeneca will have worldwide commercial rights to product candidates emerging from the collaboration, with Heptares receiving $6.25 million in unconditional upfront payments plus committed research funding and future milestones. Heptares will also receive royalties on product sales. Research teams drawn from both companies will focus on a number of GPCR targets known to be linked to CNS/pain, cardiovascular/metabolic and inflammatory disorders. The deal brings to more than $13 million the total upfront money that Heptares has received from its pharmaceutical partners this year, which together add an extra 18-20 months to the biotech's cash runway, according to CEO Malcolm Weir. It also represents further validation for the four-year-old company's technology, which helps stabilize GPCR molecules. That AstraZeneca is modality-agnostic in this deal - purporting to seek both small- and large-molecule candidates - reflects the growing importance of the Big Pharma's MedImmune biologics subsidiary within its overall R&D operations.--John Davis
Johnson & Johnson/Diamyd: J&J's Ortho-McNeil-Janssen (OMJP) signed one early stage deal this week -- and called it quits on another. It was barely a year ago when Elisabeth Lindner, then President and CEO of the Swedish diabetes outfit Diamyd, pronounced on a quarterly earnings call that "a new chapter has begun" as a result of the firm's $45 million upfront licensing agreement with OMJP. That chapter closed on June 1, when OMJP returned all rights to the Phase III GAD65, an antigen-based therapeutic vaccine designed to preserve beta cells in type 1 diabetics. A big disappointment to Diamyd and its shareholders, the news can hardly be called surprising. (We're even tempted to say the writing was on the wall.) On May 9, the two companies reported clinical trial data from a European pivotal study, showing GAD65 failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of preserving beta cell function in new diagnosed Type 1 diabetics after 15 months of therapy. Although the company noted "a small positive effect was seen", the data weren't good enough to keep OMJP engaged -- and, importantly, willing to shoulder any additional development costs. Recall the 2010 deal stipulated the two partners would share R&D costs until results of the first Phase III study were available, at which time OMJP had the option to assume full development of the drug candidate. It can't be an easy message to give shareholders, but Diamyd's acting president and CEO, Peter Zerhouni (who replaced Lindner after her abrupt departure in late April) did his best to spin the news positively. "With all the rights to returned to us we are free to decide on how to extract the most value from GAD65 going forward," he said. Whether Diamyd can sign a new partner near term is unclear -- a therapeutic vaccine for diabetes is scientifically risky and it's hard to see a lot of interest after the disappointing Phase III study results. (Even Diamyd doesn't seem that interested. In the wake of OMJP's decision it announced it would shelve a planned longer term follow-up of patients in the European trial.) Investors may have more clarity on GAD65's potential partnerability by end of June -- at the upcoming ADA meeting Diamyd will present data on the European trial, presumably providing greater detail about the small positive effect. There's also a Phase III ongoing in the US due to read out in 2012 and two other externally funded studies that may yet result in the vaccine's resurrection.--EL