Deals Of the Week, Once Again, Ponders Biosimilars

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s and Lonza Group’s announcement on July 25 that they were formally ending their four-year-old biosimilars joint venture was hardly a surprise, given that late last year both companies said they were reviewing their relationship. Their decision certainly reflects the complexities of developing biosimilars, but it also is the consequence of each company’s new leadership, which has different priorities than those who forged the original deal.

Signed at a time when biosimilars seemed like an incredibly promising, albeit vague, long-term opportunity for an assortment of generics and pharma companies, the original deal was ambitious in scope. Each company committed to spend $300 million over six years on the alliance, estimating the cost of developing one biosimilar would be roughly $100 million – considered a lot at the time. Teva saw biosimilars “as a major growth driver” and positioned itself as “a leader in this market,” then President and CEO Shlomo Yanai said at the time. Lonza would bring large-scale biologics manufacturing and development expertise to the table, while Teva offered experience in clinical development and marketing of generic and branded drugs.

Four years later, even as the EU and U.S. regulatory pathways for biosimilars gain some clarity, the overall landscape for the field is as complex as ever. Like their competitors, Teva and Lonza held much of their work close to their vests, but they had counted on developing a franchise around a biosimilar version of Roche’s $7 billion Rituxan (rituximab) franchise, only to halt clinical development last October due to “changes in the regulatory and competitive environment.” They weren’t the only ones to face setbacks on rituximab programs: Celltrion Inc. and its partner Hospira Inc., and the Samsung Biologics/Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. alliances also are also in the midst of re-evaluating their biosimilar rituximab programs.

More telling, perhaps, new CEOs at each company are set on revamping priorities across the board. Lonza’s new CEO, Richard Ridinger, who joined the company in April 2012, is in the midst of re-organizing the company into two core areas, pharma and biotech and specialty ingredients. On an earnings call also on July 25, he said the company, which accounts for about a third of all mammalian cell culture manufacturing worldwide, would reduce its manufacturing footprint, including closing two plants. Lonza indicated that it holds CHF100 million ($107.6 million) in assets on its balance sheet in relationship to the joint venture and has expensed CHF38 million since its formation. The company estimates it will save CHF150 million by ending the deal.

Teva releases its second-quarter numbers on August 1, so the company isn’t providing accounting details or elaborating on the announcement. But CEO Jeremy Levin, who assumed his position in May 2012, is emphasizing greater selectivity and focus across the board, rationalizing overlapping projects, and improving the efficiency of an organization that had become unwieldy and unfocused, even as it has grown rapidly in the past decade. A lot of that rationalization is taking place in Europe, where markets are relentlessly unforgiving and where Teva’s –and its competitors’ – first attempts at biosimilars launches are occurring.

Biosimilars work continues at Teva internally. In comments earlier this year, both Levin and Chief Scientific Officer Michael Hayden said they would pursue biosimilars as part of a broader biologics program. Teva currently has several generic versions of marketed biologics on the market, although it went through traditional regulatory routes to get approvals: TevaGrastim, a generic version of Amgen Inc.’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) has been available in Europe for several years, for example. “I would say that in the biosimilars space, we still remain enthusiastic, but we’re going to be smart about it,” said Hayden in an investor call late last year, noting. “We're going to be in biosimilars in a very focused way.”

And since Teva is mum on the subject, it’s worth noting an observation by Frederick Wilkinson, president of Teva competitor Actavis Inc.’s specialty brands unit, on the latter’s own earnings call the same day as the Lonza-Teva announcement. Actavis has a joint venture in biosimilars with Amgen and Wilkinson said it expects a news update from that endeavor in August.  “I wouldn't actually read too much into it,” Wilkinson said of the ‘no deal.’ “If you looked at the Teva biosimilar program, they at some point had bought enough different companies that they had multiple projects going on the same product. And so, I think what they've done is probably very efficiently pruned their product line down to the leading entities within their biosimilar portfolio. Lonza for the last year has been out selling or trying to solicit use of space, so it has been obvious that the Lonza Teva relationship was not going to be as deep as it originally was [planned to be].” 

If you're looking for deals that may be smaller scale, but have a fresh start, here are some of the newest developments in what was generally a quiet deal-making week:--Wendy Diller

Adimab/Biogen &Adimab/GSK: Adimab’s tech transfer deals with GlaxoSmithKline  and Biogen Idec represent the small biotech’s greatest business development and financial successes to date.

The deals, each announced July 26, see Adimab setting up its technology platform inside its partners’ R&D shops. By licensing non-exclusive rights and transferring this antibody discovery and protein engineering platform to GSK and Biogen, Adimab enables its partners to expand their use of a technology that the biotech has until now tightly controlled. Both Biogen and GSK had previously allied with Adimab (GSK through the acquisition of Adimab partner Human Genome Sciences Inc.), but like the biotech’s 19 other partners, they were limited to one- or two-target “trials.”

GSK’s agreement is for an indefinite number of years, with unlimited product licenses across all therapeutic areas. Biogen’s deal is more limited – a seven year (renewable) term, limited to certain disease areas where Biogen has a presence, and a limited number of commercial licenses. Both companies can use the technology to pursue any antibody format – including antibody-drug conjugates or bispecific antibodies – and have retained options to access any future improvements or additions to the Adimab platform.
The financial specifics of the two new Adimab deals were not disclosed. In each, Adimab will receive a “significant” upfront cash payment, annual license fees for the lengths of the deal, R&D milestone payments, and royalties and commercial milestones on a defined number of therapeutic products.

The upfront funding from the two deals make Adimab a decidedly profitable discovery engine for the foreseeable future, and the company will make its first dividend payment to its venture investors later this year. It expects to sign one more platform transfer deal this year, and three per year through 2015.--Chris Morrison.

Kolltan/Children’s Hospital Of Philadelphia: Cancer-focused biotech Kolltan Pharmaceuticals announced a license of intellectual property and research agreement with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia July 18 around discovery efforts for neuroblastoma therapeutics targeting anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK). Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Based in New Haven, Conn., Kolltan’s focus is on large-molecule approaches to receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibition – it has six programs ongoing at the discovery and preclinical stage and plans to file an IND for its first clinical candidate before year’s end. The firm will collaborate with researcher Yael Mosse, who studies the causes and potential therapeutic approaches for treatment of children diagnosed with neuroblastoma. In a statement, Mosse said ALK-targeted immunotherapy or antibody-drug conjugates may offer the best approach for patients whose tumors have an ALK mutation or amplification. “We believe immunotherapy and ADCs may provide a therapeutic option for the majority of patients with high-risk disease given the widespread expression of ALK on the cell surface of most neuroblastoma tumors,” she said.--Joseph Haas

Lilly/Transition: Transition Therapeutics  has obtained a worldwide exclusive license for Eli Lilly’s small molecule transcriptional regulator TT-601 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain, the biotech announced on July 23. The compound has completed preclinical development, and Transition plans to take it into the clinic during the first half of 2014. TT-601 modulates the activity of a novel nuclear receptor target. Tony Cruz, CEO of Transition, says that molecules in this class “have shown target engagement in the joint space and efficacy in multiple animal models of joint pain.” Twenty-seven million Americans have OA. Under the agreement, Transition gets the rights to develop and possibly commercialize TT-601. Lilly keeps an option to reacquire the agent on review of proof-of-concept data, in which case Transition would be eligible for milestone payments of approximately $130 million and a high single-digit royalty on the sale of potential products containing TT-601.

Should Lilly not take the option, and the product comes to market, Lilly would be eligible for a low single-digit royalty from Transition. There’s a good chance Lilly will pull the trigger on the option. This deal comes on the heels of Lilly’s June 17 decision to exercise its option to reacquire another compound licensed to Transition, TT-401 for diabetes. Transition took a $7 million option fee, and could get up to $240 million in milestones from that deal. That goes back to a March 2010 deal between the partners in which TT-401 was included among a few other preclinical candidates from Lilly. Their partnering history began in 2008 with a non-option deal in which Lilly licensed TT-223 and other gastrin-based therapeutics for both Type I and II diabetes from Transition.--Michael Goodman

PolyTherics And Antitope Merge: Britain’s privately owned PolyTherics  and Antitope have merged their biopharma services businesses to tap growing demand from Big Pharma for services and technologies used in the search for biologics such as antibody-drug conjugates.

The enlarged group has a strong client base in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, including the top ten biggest drug makers. It will offer conjugation technologies to generate more stable and homogeneous antibody drug conjugates, technologies to optimize the pharmacokinetics of biologics, technologies for immunogenicity screening, technologies to re-engineer antibodies, and proteins to reduce their immunogenicity, and cell line development technologies.

Antitope, founded in 2004, tests immune responses caused by antibody therapies and engineers modifications for the drugs. That expertise should complement the conjugation and polymer technologies from PolyTherics, which was created in 2002 as a University College London spin-off.

PolyTherics financed the merger with £13.5 million ($20.1 million) raised from a group of backers that includes Imperial Innovations, Invesco Perpetual, Mercia Fund Management, Advantage Enterprise & Innovation Fund, ProVen Health, Oxford Technology VCTs and high net worth individual's funds managed by Longbow Capital.--Sten Stovall

Deals Of The Week Wonders What Merck's Latest Biosimilars Move Really Means

Ever since Merck jumped into the biosimilar field in 2008 with a ferocious go get ’em attitude more fitting of an NFL tackle than a big pharma, we’ve been following their progress – and then lack of progress – closely. Back when most pharmaceutical manufacturers were still griping about defending their biologic brands, Merck’s early aggressive ambitions made an interesting case study in how a big pharma might strike offensively by positioning itself as a contender in the biosimilar space.

So the company’s announcement Feb. 20 that it has partnered with Korea’s Samsung Bioepsis to develop multiple undisclosed biosimilar candidates, while delivered quietly in a concise statement, struck us as a noteworthy change in strategy.

You didn’t have to read tea leaves to see that Merck’s original strategy wasn’t working out. In 2008, Merck established a business unit devoted to the field and pledged to invest $1.5 billion and launch six or more biosimilars between 2012 and 2017. But last year, as we reported here, the company closed Merck BioVentures, the unit it created devoted to biosimilars, and folded the research into biologics and vaccines at Merck Research Labs. And Mike Kamarck, the charismatic proponent of biosimilars who led Merck’s charge into the field, left the company.

Now, we can’t help but wonder what the latest announcement means for Merck’s biosimilar strategy.
Is it a reaffirmation of the company’s commitment to biosimilars, albeit through a more modest path, or is Merck effectively washing its hands of biosimilars while still holding out for some hope of an eventual commercial reward? Samsung will be responsible for preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing, clinical trials and registration of any candidates, while Merck will commercialize the products. It’s not clear how much Merck is putting behind the effort either, as the financials of the deal were not disclosed; Merck is paying Samsung an upfront and has agreed to milestones.

Merck declined to offer further insight on the move, but said the deal with Samsung will complement its internal effort. The only biosimilar Merck has in its internal pipeline that has been publicly disclosed, however, is a copy of Roche/Biogen Idec’s Rituxan, the one drug Samsung Bioepsis won’t be developing because the company – formed in 2011 out of joint venture between Samsung Biologics and Biogen – won’t make any biosimilar versions of Biogen products.

Given Merck’s inability to get new drugs to market of late, the decision to take a contract research approach to biosimilars may be the best way for Merck to hold onto the potential commercial upside of biosimilars without the investment internal development requires. Merck ran into the field at high speed, and we admired their optimism, but given the evolving regulatory and commercial dynamics, a cautious path may be the wiser one.

And let’s not forget why the decision to jump into biosimilars was easier for Merck to make than for some other big pharmas: Merck never had a history in biologics and hasn’t traditionally had treasured blockbuster biologic brands to protect. It gained some knowledge of the field and rights to Remicade in certain territories outside the U.S. through its mega-merger with Schering-Plough. But it’s hard to envision Merck’s inexperience as a competitive advantage in a notoriously difficult field like biologics. Development and manufacturing is just as hard for biosimilars, even when manufacturers have a reference molecule to use as a road map.

Three years after the U.S. government laid a regulatory framework for biosimilars, no applications have yet been filed through the new pathway with FDA. Today, while Merck has adopted a more subtle tone when it comes to biosimilars, Amgen – a biologics expert – is crowing about its grand ambitions for the field.

Roche/Chiasma: Roche and privately held Chiasma Inc inked a deal Feb. 18 to develop and commercialize the Israel-based biotech’s proprietary pill Octreolin, initially for acromegaly and, afterwards, for neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Their pact brings a new Phase III drug to Roche’s pipeline, targeting both an oncology (NET) and non-oncology indication (acromegaly). It gives Roche worldwide exclusive license to Octreolin, and Chiasma receives upfront payments of $65 million and future milestone payouts of up to $530 million, along with tiered, double-digit royalties on Octreolin net sales. Roche said it decided to partner with Chiasma and commercialize Octreolin in part because of the convenience and improved quality of life an oral therapy might offer patients. The pill may consequently command a higher price to injectables and there appears to be little oral competition on the horizon near-term. Delivering octreotide orally twice daily would be a major advantage for patients with acromegaly as they would avoid the painful monthly injections involved in current treatment options such as Novartis' Sandostatin LAR. - Sten Stovall

Chiesi/Cornerstone: Cornerstone Therapeutics’ majority shareholder is looking to buy out the company. North Carolina-based Cornerstone announced Feb. 20 that it received a letter from its majority shareholder – Italy’s Chiesi Farmaceutici – offering to buy the remaining outstanding shares of the company. Chiesi offered $6.40 to $6.70 per share for the 40% of the company it doesn’t already own – valuing the specialty pharma at $177 million. In a letter from Chiesi to the board of directors of Cornerstone, Chiesi’s CEO Ugo Di Francesco said the company “has adequate liquidity available and excellent relationships with our banks to effect an all cash bid.” Di Francesco added that Chiesi has “conducted an extensive review of Cornerstone based on publicly available information, our own deep experience in the pharmaceutical industry and consultations with our outside advisors.” The Italian drug maker plans “to move promptly” in regard to the bid “and is committed to working vigorously and expeditiously with [Cornerstone] to complete a transaction.” Cornerstone said in a statement that “no decisions have been made by the board of directors with respect to Chiesi’s proposal.” The two companies paired up in May 2009 when Chiesi granted Cornerstone an exclusive U.S. license to sell its porcine-derived lung surfactant Curosurf (poractant alfa) for a 10-year period. In return, Chiesi took an equity stake in the company that now accounts for a 60% share. - Lisa LaMotta

Janssen/Pharmacyclics/Abbott: Partners Janssen Biotech and Pharmacyclics will work with Abbott to develop a molecular diagnostic test to identify patients with a genetic sub-type of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Abbott will develop the test using its proprietary FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) technology; the test will identify hard-to-treat CLL patients who have a deletion within chromosome 17p (del17p). These patients are likely to respond to ibrutinib, a small molecule inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK). At the American Society of Hematology conference in December, the partners presented positive Phase Ib/II data in a subset of relapsed/refractory CLL patients with the 17p deletion. The partners have an ongoing Phase II trial for ibrutinib in CLL patients with the 17p deletion. The company expects enrollment in this trial will take about 12 months to complete. On Feb. 12, FDA granted breakthrough designation to ibrutinib to treat two B-cell malignancies: relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia (WM). This could mean an approval for ibrutinib as soon as early next year. Pharmacyclics’ share price has been on a white-hot streak since last May, climbing more than 200%. News of the breakthrough designation bumped shares up about 20%. Details of the Abbott partnership remain undisclosed. - Stacy Lawrence

Eisai/Valeant: Valeant Pharmaceuticals announced Feb. 21 that it has acquired U.S. rights from Eisai Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Japan's Eisai Co. Ltd., for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma treatment Targretin (bexarotene). Eisai received $65 million up front and is eligible for additional payments tied to undisclosed milestones. In March 2011, Eisai granted exclusive rights to Minophagen Pharmaceutical to develop and commercialize Targretin in Japan, expanding that agreement in April 2012 to cover Asia, Oceania, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and other regions. And in a deal similar to the Valeant agreement, in December 2012, Eisai sold U.S. commercial rights to Gliadel Wafer (carmustine) for glioblastoma to Arbor Pharmaceuticals. Gliadel and Targretin are aging products. However, the company’s cancer pipeline – oncology is 70% of Eisai’s revenues – has shown recent signs of stumbling. Farletuzumab, which entered Eisai’s pipeline with its 2007 acquisition of Morphotek, demonstrated disappointing results last January in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, not meeting the primary PFS endpoint in its first Phase III attempt. And Halaven (eribulin), approved in the U.S. in 2010 for metastatic breast cancer, missed its primary endpoints last year in a head-to-head Phase III superiority study against Xeloda (capecitabine). Much of the excitement around eribulin at the time of its approval was the likelihood of extending its label, which is now drawn into question. Eisai said the deal with Valeant would maximize the product’s value in the U.S. It went on to add that the agreement would enable Eisai to “strategically reallocate resources to other mid-to-long-term business growth areas” but it didn’t elaborate. As for Valeant, this deal continues its strategy of acquiring what it considers to be undermanaged commercial assets. - Mike Goodman

UCB/ConfometRx: Belgium’s mid-sized pharma company, UCB, is to link up with the Santa Clara, Calif.-based G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) structural biology firm, ConfometRx, to discover new drugs in UCB’s sweet spot, the neurosciences. As often stated, GPCRs are the target for 25%-30% of marketed products, but GPCR research is hampered by the difficulty in extracting active receptors from cell membranes for use in research and drug screens. ConfometRx is developing crystallization techniques for GPCRs to make the screening process easier for GPCR-targeted drugs and antibodies. The two-year, multi-target research collaboration between UCB and ConfometRx is intended to gain insights into modulating GPCR targets in order to design differentiated drugs, the companies said Feb. 21. ConfometRx will receive an upfront payment, research funding and milestones, but further details of the agreement were not disclosed. UCB is building “super-networks” of innovation, which include tie-ups with Harvard University and the University of Oxford’s medical sciences division over the past three years. ConfometRx already is collaborating on various GPCR-related research projects with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk and Lundbeck, while other companies active in providing research insights in the GPCR space include Heptares Therapeutics of the U.K., France’s Domain Therapeutics and San Diego-based Receptos. - John Davis

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons