In results from the Spark/Pfizer trial of gene therapy for hemophilia B treatment with SPK-9001 resulted in a mean steadystate FIX coagulant activity of about 33 percent of normal two years after treatment.4 Before treatment, FIX activity level was ≤2 percent of normal in the 10 men treated. (Note: Pfizer and Spark Therapeutics entered into a License Agreement in December 2014 for the hemophilia B gene therapy program. In July 2018, Pfizer assumed sole responsibility for all pivotal studies, regulatory activities, and manufacturing and global commercialization of any products resulting from the program.)
“At the 33-percent level of expression, most people do not bleed, and, indeed, the trial showed that the annualized bleeding rate was reduced by close to 98 percent – even in people who were already on standard-of-care management,†said Dr. High, senior author on that paper.
In the early-phase trial of BioMarin’s gene therapy candidate for hemophilia A, patients have maintained FVIII levels of 50 percent two years after infusion.5
Dr. High suggested that it would likely take at least two years from the point a product entered phase III testing before a company could expect its candidate to be approved, “with an upper bound of ‘who knows.’†For example, Spark’s voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (indicated for the treatment of an inherited retinal disease) became the first gene therapy approved by the FDA in December 2017 – a full five years after it entered phase III testing.6
“It’s expected that the very first approval of a new class of therapeutics will take longer,†she said, adding that, in hemophilia, the endpoints for clinical trials are well known, while with voretigene neparvovec-rzyl, “we had to develop and validate [the endpoints]†during the clinical study process.
The Unknowns of Gene Therapy
“The big question for all gene therapy approaches for hemophilia will always be durability,†Dr. Pasi said. “The only way to answer that question is to observe all of our patient cohorts over time.â€
In human trials, the longest follow-up has been reported in patients with hemophilia B, and durability appears to be good at up to eight years. In dog studies, long-term gene expression has been noted for up to 10 years, “which is pretty much the lifespan of the dog, so it’s hard to have information beyond that,†Dr. George said.
Any hints of issues in durability or therapy-related adverse events can cause precipitous stock declines for companies developing late-phase products. For example, BioMarin’s stock price slumped in May 2018, when new data on its candidate product were released at the 2018 World Federation of Hemophilia World Congress.7
The data suggest a loss of effectiveness over time, which Dr. George notes has not been observed in any clinical trials of AAV in hemophilia B or large-animal preclinical studies of hemophilia A or B. However, Dr. Pasi, the primary investigator on this trial, explained that the “gene-expression levels are stabilizing and following a pattern of expression typically seen in many AAV systems.â€
Other questions that are still missing clear answers include the potential liver toxicity of these products, and the potential for vector shedding. Also, approximately half of individuals with hemophilia have pre-existing AAV neutralizing antibodies (NAb), making them ineligible for gene therapy. Patients may even develop AAV NAb after gene therapy.
“The development of AAV NAb after vector infusion is particularly important when considering extending this therapy to pediatric patients, who may require repeat infusion to accommodate hepatic growth and expanded plasma volume,†said Dr. George. But, at this point, there is no clear solution to this issue.
A Therapy for All?
“Obviously, I am biased, and I think very optimistically about gene therapy,†said Dr. George, “but if we can achieve predictable and durable expression, then, theoretically, this approach could help everyone.†However, there are some noteworthy barriers to achieving that goal – including that not all patients are eligible for trials.
An estimated 20,000 individuals in the U.S. have hemophilia, with hemophilia A being about four times more common than hemophilia B. The worldwide incidence of hemophilia is unknown but is estimated at more than 400,000 people.8
Because hemophilia is an X-linked disorder, it is rare in women and, typically, they are excluded from trials because “all of the pharmacology, toxicology, and vertical transmission TABLE. Ongoing or Announced Phase III rAAV-Mediated Gene Therapy Trials for Hemophilia A and B Sponsor Therapy Coagulation Factor BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Valoctocogene roxaparvovec (“val-roxâ€, formerly BMN-270) Factor VIII Spark Therapeutics SPK-8011 Factor VIII Pfizer Fidanacogene elaparvovec (formerly SPK-9001) Factor IX UniQure AMT-061 Factor IX FEATURE 18 Focus on Classical Hematology studies were performed in men,†Dr. George explained. “However, AAV vectors are being used to treat other conditions in women, so I think it’s feasible that it could be extended to female patients in the future.â€
Dr. High suggested the possibility of identifying which patients are most likely to “buy into†the promise of gene therapy by looking at those who have opted to enroll in the trials. These include older individuals who have developed other medical problems and don’t want to have to worry about their hemophilia anymore. “We have also seen many younger people volunteer for trials,†she added. “These are people who resent the so-called ‘brutal discipline of prophylaxis.’ They want to live their lives without being reminded several times a week that they’re different.â€
While some “early adopters†will likely jump on board for gene therapy, Dr. Pasi said, others will take the “wait-and-see†approach as researchers learn more about the products’ longterm safety and durability. “The history of hemophilia makes for a very conservative population,†he noted.
He also said that gene therapy is being explored in developing countries. “We currently are looking at gene therapy through the prism of use in the developed world, but those with arguably the most to gain from a one-off treatment are those who cannot access standard treatments or who live in places where factor replacement regimens are impractical for various reasons,†he explained. —By Debra L. Beck