Grant Playter

Gregor Kawaletz, head of OSD Business Unit at Recipharm, sat down with Grant Playter, associate editor, to discuss the immediate future of oral biologics. A full transcript of the interview can be found below.

Gregor, traditionally oral dosage has been deemed infeasible for biologics. Can you just talk a bit about why we're chasing approvals on this technology? What's so alluring about it over traditional injections?

: Indeed, this area is relatively new to the pharmaceutical industry, and we all know biologics and we all know that biologics are injected. Having said that, there are several challenges.

First of all, people in reality don't like to be injected. Second, the administration is rather complicated and expensive. This has nothing to do with the good products. They are. Just the administration itself usually you cannot do it yourself, or if you can do it yourself, it is quite expensive because it is not just a syringe — it is usually a prefilled syringe. This is usually put like an autoinjector or a cartridge, so you can just shot it in your body. This is actually not a big fan to anyone.

Over years, the science figured out that there are some molecules which can be orally delivered. The market for now is already $7 billion, which is not that few, but compared to this huge, huge pharmaceutical market, it plays a kind of niche role. The good side of the story is that the oral biologics have a CAGR of more than 20% every year.

Because what the companies figured out and what the science figured out is if we have a sterile product, which is successful on the market, but we see the costs are so expensive, how we can make it happen that it will be cheaper, and by that available for a larger population. Because we know, especially in the US, that there are limits in terms of accessibility to different product branches. By using oral biologics and the orally delivered route, it is much easier to get reasonable cost, and by that reasonable prices, and accessibility to these kinds of products will be in future much higher.

This is actually the secret behind. I'm talking to different companies which have biologics in the portfolio. I see not at this point a huge run to that, but a tendency that people start to consider what we can do from lifecycle perspective, from a kind of life extension perspective. Because those products are going earlier or later to be generic or biosimilars in this particular case which is maybe the correct expression. But if they can use the same drug substance in a different delivery form, then the extension of the patent protection will be longer, and the price will be still less, but the competition can be, let's say, excluded for a while for good products.

This is where we are at this point in time. I see this clear way forward and I see a certain dynamic in it. What I see from supplier perspective, there are not too many players at this point in time where the market could say, if I am going to develop this kind of product, I need to go to A, B, or C. The market is completely decertified and therefore different players are doing something. We would like to play in future a much more important role in this game. Maybe if we are, if we are successful to become a kind of front runner where people cannot avoid coming around us.

The development has been steady on oral delivered biologics, but we haven't really seen any FDA approvals. I know science takes time. We all know that. But can you just talk about what is so difficult specifically about this technology and what makes this hard to deliver in an oral format relative to say a small molecule drug?

: It's an excellent question. The answer is not that simple because large molecules have different chemical terminal and physical behavior than small molecules. A large molecule, by nature, has a certain size. A certain size of the molecule you need to multiply and being able to get it in a kind of form orally delivered, which is not too big to swallow to get it through the mouth, if you will.

Then the second challenge is how to get it through stomach, which with the acid is destroying almost everything. They are first companies, which found very good solutions delivering the product through the stomach to the enteric system and released. What you potentially need to know in the enteric system, we have different pH levels. Scientists are able meanwhile to get a released product in a certain pH level. This is like push the button and in a certain area of your enteric system, the product is released and is activated what it has to do.

Other products have a different profile. This is the beauty in oral delivered products, you can manipulate the release profile and get just released a little bit of something in a certain area and a few hours later in a different area, another release and so on and so forth. There are a kind of variety possibility how to use that. But the challenges are still there. But I clearly see the first companies have kind of proprietary technologies enabling at least a portion of the product wrenches to get orally delivered. For now, status quo, not all biologics, especially the large ones can go can be orally delivered. But the number and the size of the products in future should grow by using different technologies which are now in a very early stage and even not commercially viable at this point in time.

Can you just talk a little bit about what Recipharmis doing with oral biologics?

: So far Recipharm in the business unit of oral solid so far is dealing mainly with oral small molecules. However, we figured out already sometimes ago, and this is clear a part of our strategy to address this topic to our potential clients and raising our hands. Guys, if you have something, you can come to us because we have the right scientists on one hand. We have the right background and we have technologies being able to entertain these kind of products.

What you need to consider there are two aspects to that. The small molecule, let's say analytical methods are very different to biological analytical methods. Since we made some acquisitions in the biological area with Arranta Bio, Vibalogics, and GenIbet, we, let's say inherit the know-how, how to analyze these biological products to get the right results. By using this know-how with our oral capabilities, it is a kind of wonderful synergy effect allowing us to use the best from those areas.

Bear with me for a second here because this can take a little context. From what I'm gathering, what you're saying, a big part of the appeal of oral biologics is like say you're on insulin and you have to get frequent injections. That's a burden. It's just a pain to get to. You have to get injected. It's weekly. One of my coworkers actually she has to deal with that. She's out of the office two days a week because she has to.

With that being said, science takes time. Would you see at the beginning that we're going to lean more towards say like smaller batch manufacturing of like say a relatively expensive single dose medicine? Say these personalized vaccines that we're talking about to supplement development, manufacturing costs. If so, where do you think the future is for when we get to the large scale widely produce medicines that are currently injectables but could be solid doses?

:  Both excellent questions. Let me start with oral biologic insulin because indeed we have a collaboration with a British company, which is a frontrunner and successfully delivered phase IIB results as a global number one in getting insulin orally delivered to the body.

As we all know, the injected insulin makes damages in the body. The side effects long time are unfortunately not very pleasant to the patients. This particular technology allows to reduce massively the side effects and getting a much better life quality. The capsule is literally very little. It is capsule number three. It is like that. Easy to swallow and have excellent, excellent results out of the phase IIB. Now they are looking for investors as many startups are doing to entertain phase III.

The good thing is they have a platform technology where they can put also GLP1, which is another biologic product against obesity where they are started already phase one clinical studies and they were also, again, very successful. With this thing, we will be able to entertain at a certain point in time these large volumes in biologics, which will be indeed a very large because this may become a game changer for the entire industry in this particular area.

Then your other question was exactly the right one because globally what we see is a kind of tailor shaped, or patient shaped, products. We do not have one fits all. Like the entire population can get, let's say aspirin because it's more than 100 years of the market so we can talk about it. Everybody use it and it used and it works anyhow. Now, in future we are going to have much smaller product ranges, which will be very much dedicated to the patient group which need those kind of products. From this perspective, and this is not just related to oral things, but also to sterile products that the quantities in future will be rather smaller. The product will be very much related to the clients and maybe just a site root to the sterile thing. Because during the pandemic, we've seen that all companies without any exceptions have invested in huge drug substance capabilities and capacities. Huge high speed lines for getting all those vaccines through the facilities.

What none of them have considered at all is what happened after the pandemic. After the pandemic, the world changes. It happens with all pandemics. They are starting, they are heavy, they are big, and they are dropping at a certain point in time. Now the industry is suffering massively with underutilized huge filling clients and huge drug substance capacities. In reality, almost nobody was considering what will happen after the pandemic. This is investing in flexible, smaller lines and equipment to entertain exactly what you say, products which will be very dedicated to a smaller group of patients. This leads us to the next generation of products which will come on the market, which are gene cell therapies and immunotherapies which per se have just maybe a kind of 10,000 patients, maybe 15. But for sure not 100,000 or 1 million. This is where the industry for sure will go to.

That's a super fascinating point because this is not even pharmaceutical necessarily, but you look at these tech companies they're having these layoffs. I know CEO of Facebook was talking about how they hired so much during the pandemic because like vaccines, they were seeing an increase demand for social media. But now they're having a crunch because they have to lay off these employees. It's fascinating how we can see where others are zagging and try to invest in those leftovers from what the pandemic brought.

:  At the end of the day, I think with this last pandemic it has been opened like a box of Pandora unfortunately. We will see in future more pandemic circumstances and there will be on one hand this will happen 2020/2022. But there will be also other infection diseases which may become a big threat. Diseases which most likely you never heard about. Chikungunya, yellow fever, dengue fever, Zika virus and many others. We even do not have any idea what they are. But with the mosquitoes which are going north and norther, they are infected by these viruses and they may have much more impact on the human kind as they had in the past. We as a human kind are going more and more in untouched areas in this world, which may bring us in touch with virus seeds and virus arts which we never met before, which can become a tricky stuff for us.

From this perspective, at a certain point in time, these huge volumes and high-speed lines will be needed. But the question would be is it economically reasonable to have them in the site unused or should also governments consider this critical area and support companies in keeping those lines running or at least active in case something is coming up. They can push the button and have immediately activities and can support the human in fighting these kind of diseases.

If you had to predict, and obviously this is a non-binding agreement, when do you think the first oral biologic is going to hit the American market?

: That's an excellent question. That's an excellent question. If we are talking about the insulin which passed through already phase IIB, then we could have the first, and an insulin biologic product, have it already ‘27 on the market. Not that far from now. If we talk about other biologics early-stage development, it will take already much more year, so rather 2030 and beyond. But if we go in this area, GLP1 and in insulin, I'm more than convinced that 27 we can have the first oral biologic on the market. Recipharm is expecting the first oral biologic out of our GenIBet facility in 2024.

Just building off that a little bit, because you talked about this insulin product in detail. If you're predicting it hit the market in four years, are you confident that you hit on the science that will make this a reality?

: The science is the science. But I'm personally so much convinced in this product because this will bring a huge advantage to the patients. I think it's not a fun to be injected every single day or having somewhere a pump which is putting the insulin in your body. Unfortunately, even children are already impacted. To explain it to a child, you need to have a pump or you need to be shot every day. I don't think it's fun. Just from this quality-of-life perspective, it is something all of us should be concentrated on.

Since the phase IIB results were so incredibly good, the risk to fail is rather minimal because you are always in clinical studies comparing stuff to other products on the market. In this particular case, you are comparing to injected area. From side effects perspective, from a functioning perspective, from biopotency and bioavailability, they are far away ahead with the proprietary technology they have invented themselves. From this perspective, I'm very much convinced it will happen. But, indeed, we are in unpredicted time in a macro economical and global situation which we don't know where we are going to. The only threat they could be not on time on the market would be they are not able to collect money on time. This is the only thing, but from a scientifical area, I'm more convinced it will fly.

This is normally when I would ask you as I ask everyone if you have any bold takes. I think we can skip that question. I think we've gotten those. Do you have any final thoughts to share?

: I think yes, indeed. I think the pharmaceutical world especially these days with inflations, with all those things which are coming on us, is in a very much transformation area. The areas are from one perspective, the financial ones where there is big pressure on companies. 

What we need to consider in the past pre-pandemic, not the big companies were fitting these thousands of CDMOs. But rather startups, small companies, which were entertaining in parallel 6, 7, or even 10 projects because the money were cheap to be reinvested. Since those startups did not have GxP capabilities, they were outsourcing a lot of those things. Now by this situation, they are shrinking the product portfolio and are much more cautious and are developing rather conceptual instead of in parallel, which means that the market in the next time will be more challenging to get everything on track.

Gregor, I have a million more questions I could ask you, but I'm going to be cognizant of your time. Thank you so much for taking the time speaking to us.

: Thank you. It was big pleasure talking to you.

For more of our coverage on DCAT in 2023, viewers can visit 

Articles

Gregor Kawaletz, head of Oral Solid Dose Business Unit at Recipharm, discusses the immediate future of oral biologics

Diving Deep into Oral Biologics with Gregor Kawaletz (DCAT 2023)

Merck and Prometheus Biosciences, a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in immune-mediated diseases, announced an acquisition agreement on April 16, 2023. Merck will acquire all outstanding shares of the company for $200 per share, a total approximate equity valuation of approximately $10.8 billion. This equity valuation makes this pharma acquisition the second largest of the year, following Pfizer’s 

 of Seagen in March. The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2023.

According to a company press release, Prometheus Biosciences’ lead candidate is PRA023, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) directed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-like ligand 1A (TL1A), which is associated with both intestinal inflammation and fibrosis. It is currently being developed for treatment of immune-mediated diseases including ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease (CD), and other autoimmune conditions. Positive results from an open-label Phase IIA study (APOLLO-CD) evaluating its safety and efficacy in patients with CD were published in December 2022.

“The agreement with Prometheus will accelerate our growing presence in immunology where there remains substantial unmet patient need. This transaction adds diversity to our overall portfolio and is an important building block as we strengthen the sustainable innovation engine that will drive our growth well into the next decade,” said Robert M. Davis, chairman and CEO, Merck, in the release.

“Prometheus was established to revolutionize the treatment of immune-mediated diseases through the application of a powerful precision medicine approach,” said Mark McKenna, chairman and CEO, Prometheus Biosciences, in the release. “This agreement with Merck … allows Prometheus to maximize the potential for PRA023, while continuing to apply our technology and expertise to fuel further discoveries to address the needs of patients with immune disorders.”

Merck will acquire Prometheus Biosciences, a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in immune-mediated diseases, at a total equity valuation of $10.8 billion.

Merck to Purchase Prometheus Biosciences for $10.8 Billion

Moderna and Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, released detailed results from a Phase II trial (KEYNOTE-942/mRNA-4157-P201) on April 16, 2023. The trial evaluated mRNA-4157, an investigational messenger RNA (mRNA)-based individualized neoantigen therapy, in combination with Keytruda (pembrolizumab), Merck’s anti programmed cell death protein-1 therapy, in patients with resected high-risk melanoma. According to a company press release, the combination adjuvant treatment reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 44% compared to patients who received traditional pembrolizumab single-therapy treatments.

“Today’s results provide further encouragement for the potential of mRNA as an individualized neoantigen therapy to positively impact patients with high-risk resected melanoma,” said Kyle Holen, senior vice-president and head of Development, Therapeutics and Oncology, Mordena, in the release. “The profound observed reduction in the risk of recurrence-free survival suggests this combination may be a novel means of potentially extending the lives of patients with high-risk melanoma. We look forward to starting the Phase [III] melanoma trial soon and expanding testing to lung cancer and beyond.”

“Data from KEYNOTE-942 provide evidence for the potential of mRNA-4157 (V940) in combination with [Keytruda] to improve recurrence-free survival when given to patients with resected high-risk melanoma,” said Eliav Barr, senior vice-president, head of Global Clinical Development, and chief medical officer, Merck Research Laboratories, in the release. “These data support the potential of mRNA-4157 (V940) in combination with [pembrolizumab] to help fight melanoma earlier and warrant investigation of the combination in a larger Phase [III] trial. We also look forward to studying mRNA-4157 (V940) and [pembrolizumab] in a variety of other early-stage cancers.”

According to the release, based on this data, FDA and the European Medicines Agency have granted the treatment breakthrough therapy designation and priority medicines scheme status, respectively. The companies plans to release further data at an undisclosed medical meeting, and publish it in a peer-reviewed publication.

Moderna and Merck reported that a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and an mRNA demonstrated a 44% reduction in recurrence or death in cancer patients compared to non-combination treatments.

Moderna and Merck Announce Positive Findings from Personalized Vaccine Study

Monil Malhotra, vice-president of Industrial Software at Emerson, discusses the growing demand for software solutions in the pharma industry. Topics of discussion, among others, include:

The pressures increasing demand for software solutions

Using automation to bridge economic gaps between countries

Innovative technologies worthy of additional attention

For more from the Emerson Automation exchange interview series, check 

Monil Malhotra, vice-president of Industrial Software at Emerson, discusses the  growing demand for software solutions in the pharma industry.

Examining Software as a Solution with Monil Malhotra (Emerson Automation Exchange)

Michalle Adkins, director of Life Sciences Consulting at Emerson, discusses the structure of manufacturing organizations and how novel technologies may play a role in operations. Topics of discussion, among others, include:

Tech transfer, real-time release, in-line monitoring, and other technologies impact on manufacturing.

The BioPhorum Digital Plant Maturity Model (DPMM) and fully adaptive plants.

Operational integrity and incorporating data into operational maintenance.

Michalle Adkins, director of Life Sciences Consulting at Emerson, discusses the structure of manufacturing organizations and how novel technologies may play a role in operations.

Discussing Manufacturing Operations with Michalle Adkins (Emerson Automation Exchange)

On April 10, 2023, members of more than 250 pharmaceutical companies and investment firms, including Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, released a statement decrying a court decision regarding FDA’s long-standing approval of mifepristone, a medication used to terminate pregnancies through ten weeks of gestation. Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas district judge, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a coalition of anti-abortion groups, who argued that the drug’s approval should be revoked because it does not convey a “therapeutic benefit” to women who use it.

The letter offered a harsh rebuke of the decision and called for a reversal of the decision. According to the letter, the decision ignored “decades of scientific evidence and legal precedent” and “creates uncertainty for the entire biopharma industry.” Should the decision withstand further judicial scrutiny, the signatures worry that it could “fundamentally undermine the bipartisan authority granted by Congress to the Food and Drug Administration to approve and regulate safe, effective medicines for every American.”

“Judicial activism will not stop here. If courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence, or for the complexity required to fully vet the safety and efficacy of new drugs, any medicine is at risk for the same outcome as mifepristone,” reads the statement. "While the drug development, approval, and monitoring process is not perfect, the [a]gency’s framework has resulted in decades of unsurpassed medical innovation and in statutory mechanisms to remove drugs from the market if, among other reasons, they fail to maintain the anticipated safety and efficacy profile.”

A document signed by members of more than 400 companies and investment firms decries the decision made by a federal judge concerning mifepristone, a medication used in abortions.