Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.
Good morning. Some news from Washington from late yesterday: Lawmakers advanced legislation that would extend a program to aid the development of drugs for rare diseases in children.
Now to the rest of the news.
George Church launches yet another startup
Serial biotech founder George Church has a new startup, and this time, he has skin in the game, quite literally.
Church, the enigmatic founder behind companies like eGenesis, Editas Medicine, and Colossal Biosciences, donated some of his own skin cells to the sample bank at his new startup GC Therapeutics. (And, yes, it stands for George Church Therapeutics.)
The company, which launched today, envisions turning induced pluripotent stem cells into neuronal, immune, gastrointestinal, and other types of cells for new off-the-shelf therapies. Cell therapies have been harder to fund of late: The amount of venture capital dollars going into cell and gene therapies peaked in 2021 at $8.2 billion, while just $3.5 billion was invested last year.
Read more from STAT’s Allison DeAngelis.
Corbus rides Novo’s coattails with CB1 approach
Pharma giant Novo Nordisk and a small biotech called Corbus are both pursuing a controversial obesity approach: inhibiting CB1 receptors.
Nearly two decades ago, a drug that was called rimonabant and based on this mechanism was pulled from the European market and rejected by FDA advisers due to concerns about the risk of suicidal thinking. While rimonabant’s ability to penetrate the brain was seen as a possible cause of side effects, the newer pills penetrate the brain to a much lesser extent, making them safer, Novo argues.
Phase 2 results of Novo’s CB1 inverse agonist are set to be released this quarter, and they have has huge implications for Corbus. If the data show clean safety, Corbus sees itself as having an advantage.
Race to make gene therapy for blindness heats up
4D Molecular Therapeutics released more data yesterday on its gene therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of age-related blindness. In a Phase 2 study, 22 out of 30 treated patients didn’t need standard-of-care injections for at least 32 weeks, and a couple patients had gone over two years without another injection.
The biotech now plans to launch two Phase 3 studies on the treatment. It’s in hot competition with two other companies — Adverum and Regenxbio — to reach what would be the largest market for a gene therapy yet. There are differences with each approach. 4D’s executives believe it has the best, safest treatment, but at least one researcher behind Adverum disagrees.
Read more from STAT’s Jason Mast.
The Fed cut rates and biotech stocks… didn’t do much
The Federal Reserve yesterday cut interest rates by 50 basis points, in its first time cutting rates in four years. And how did biotech stocks respond? While the XBI initially rose after the decision, it ultimately ended the day slightly down.
The standard thinking is that lower rates are good for biotech, as they make it easier to raise and borrow money to fund research and projects. But Mizuho analyst Jared Holz saw the tepid reaction coming.
In a note ahead of the decision, he wrote that when looking at the relationship between the XBI and interest rates over the past several years, there hasn’t really been a correlation.
After the decision, he said, “I think maybe this portends to be mildly bullish if you are of the view that fundraising and capital creation will be easier. But I think net net, this magnitude of a rate cut to me, I’m coming out much more neutral.”
Biotech feud over spills onto social media
The biotech sector is no stranger to competition, but rivalries usually aren’t as contentious as what played out on social media this week when Guardant Health co-CEO AmirAli Talasaz put out a LinkedIn post betting Exact Science’s CEO $1 million that his company’s cancer detection results wouldn’t hold up in an ongoing pivotal study.
Soon after, Talasaz published an open letter clarifying that his post was fueled by a commitment to scientific rigor, but not everyone is convinced. “He put out a stupid bet,” said Kathryn Lang, former vice president of outcomes and evidence at Guardant.
The incident speaks to a larger truth in the race to develop and deploy cancer screening tests: The stakes are high for the multibillion-dollar companies vying to dominate this market.
Read more from STAT’s Jonathan Wosen.
More reads
- Novo Nordisk bets $600M biobucks on NanoVation’s ability to take genetic medicines beyond the liver, Fierce Biotech
- Q&A: Former NIH director Francis Collins on a Trump administration, science, and God, STAT
- Opinion: Medicaid must prepare to cover twice-yearly HIV prevention injection, STAT