iStock,
Mary Long
Changing how biopharmas package their products, how regulators review new drugs and how mutated genes are fixed could make ultrarare disease treatments possible.
In early May, a nine-month-old baby named KJ became the first patient to ever receive a
custom-made gene therapy
, a single-use CRISPR treatment for an ultrarare disease called CPS1 deficiency. That therapy, created a collaboration of a series of companies and administered at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, immediately begat a question: Can we do it again?
Almost by definition, treatments for ultrarare diseases cannot be developed in the same way as treatments for more common conditions. With so few patients, traditional clinical research is impossible and economies of scale do not exist.
The promise of gene therapies in the imagination is one of simplicity, where a gene editor can simply snip out a problematic sequence and replace it with a healthy one. But genetic conditions are often extraordinarily complex, even if they’re monogenic. Take hemophilia, for instance, which is often caused by a damaged copy of the gene for factor VII, a critical blood clotting component.
“But there’s a wide range of errors in factor VII [that cause hemophilia]. How do you serve a wide population with a single product?” Tom Madden, president and CEO of the biotechnology company Acuitas Therapeutics, told
BioSpace
. “Realistically, you cannot do that.”
Acuitas has experience here: it manufactured the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery system for baby KJ. Meanwhile, Aldevron made the base editor and Inegrated DNA Technologies (IDT) constructed the guide nucleic acid. All contributions were provided free of charge.
“It’s not surprising to me that we haven’t been able to do this before,” said John Evans, CEO of genetic medicines company Beam Therapeutics. “We need certain capabilities and we’re just now getting to the point where [treating ultrarare diseases] is plausible.”
Platform Technologies Streamline Development
Ultrarare genetic diseases are defined as those that affect one of every 50,000 or more people. But there are ways to facilitate treatment even if cheap, large-scale trials and manufacturing are out of the question.
Madden recalled hearing former Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) chief
Peter Marks
speak about platform technologies where the structural components of a therapy—like the delivery system—could be approved, while allowing for one part to be switched out. A genetic medicine approach could have a vector like an AAV or LNP, a guide molecule and a therapeutic payload approved as a platform. To treat a patient with a unique, so-called “n of 1” disease, a custom guide could be created and plugged into an-already approved platform technology.
Marks was “quite fulsome” about the possibilities of facilitating treatments for rare and genetic conditions, according to Madden. At the time
BioSpace
spoke with Madden, May 23, it was not clear whether Marks’ successor, Vinay Prasad, would deviate from this vision.
So far, he hasn’t: two weeks later, the FDA
granted
the first ever Platform Technology Designation to Sarepta Therapeutics for a viral vector called rAAVrh74 that the company uses with a variety of the treatments it is developing. The designation, developed under the Biden administration, is seemingly the first step toward fulfilling recent promises bynew CBER Director
Vinay Prasad,
FDA Commissioner
Marty Makary
and HHS Secretary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
to make treatments for genetic and rare diseases easier to develop.
Acuitas is one company trying to take advantage of this type of streamlining. Madden envisions something along the lines of an at-home (or at-hospital) kit. A manufacturer would make a batch of vectors (LNPs in Acuitas’ case), and a regional facility would create a guide and editor in small quantities, taking advantage of the ease of producing the nucleic acids needed.
This is similar to how KJ’s treatment came together. Acuitas prepared the LNPs in Vancouver while Aldevron worked on the base editor in North Dakota and IDT manufactured the guide in Iowa, with all three components finally being shipped to Philadelphia for assembly by KJ’s medical team.
Precision Editors Lead the Way
Perhaps the biggest breakthrough that made a treatment like KJ’s possible, Evans told
BioSpace
, was leaving behind the limitations of traditional CRISPR technologies.
“Older tools could go anywhere, but all they could do is make a cut, including in
CPS1
,” he said. “In
CPS1,
just cutting it isn’t going to help; the gene is broken.”
Traditional CRISPR-Cas9 cuts across both strands of a DNA molecule in an act that quite literally damages the DNA. The idea, or hope, was that the gene-editing machinery could remove the cut, mutated section and, using the cell’s difficult-to-control DNA damage repair pathways, write in the replacement part. In a medical setting this was a scattershot, almost luck-based approach that simply didn’t cut muster, Evans said. “The original Cas9 wasn’t versatile.”
The treatment that KJ received instead relied on
base editing,
which directly changes a base in a gene sequence without making cuts or replacing whole sections. A CRISPR enzyme known as a nickase only cuts one strand, and a guide RNA tethered to a second protein converts a C/G base pair to a T/A, or vice versa. This system, developed by a number of labs but particularly David Liu’s at Harvard, can make targeted and specific changes to the genome.
“It’s like a pencil and eraser,” Evans said. “It’s known as gene editing 2.0 for a reason.”
With that tech in hand, other diseases are in sight, including for more common conditions than CPS1 deficiency. Beam is
trialing
its base editors in sickle cell disease and has preclinical work ongoing in a number of other conditions, such as in mouse models with
ALS
while its competitor Verve recently
showed
strong results in a Phase Ib trial for its cholesterol-lowering base editor.
Some hurdles remain for treating ultrarare diseases, according to Isaac Hilton, a bioengineer at Rice University. The most prominent of these is that despite recent advances, there’s no good way to specifically target most of the body’s organs with a gene therapy.
The exception is the liver, since that organ is easily targeted with LNPs and other vehicles. CPS1 deficiency specifically affects the liver, meaning KJ was a good candidate for a gene therapy. “Liver-based conditions are advantageous in these kinds of rare diseases,” Hilton said. If a rare disease is not routed through the liver, delivery becomes more difficult.
Another issue is inherent to CRISPR based editors, even nickases. “Cas9 is a large protein,” Evans said. “It’s not trivial to get it to the right place.”
Viral vectors, for years the most common method for packaging and delivering therapies, can have tremendous variability from batch to batch, which is difficult to control since they are not-quite-living organisms. LNPs, like the ones Acuitas manufacture and used for KJ’s treatment, have an ease of production advantage and simply have a larger cargo capacity than AAVs, without also running the
risk
of inducing an immune response.
“I’m not surprised [KJ’s treatment] used LNPs, they’re much more straightforward and easier to manufacture,” Evans said.
Finally, there are regulations to consider. KJ’s treatment got
fast-tracked
through the FDA, with organizations like the Innovative Genomics Institute and Danaher (IDT’s parent company) intervening on his behalf. The FDA approved his treatment within a week—a process that likely cannot be replicated for every patient needing a custom therapy.
Still, Evans is hopeful for the future of treating ultrarare diseases, as regulators catch up and companies find solutions to manufacturing hurdles. While gene editing companies are scaled to produce enough materials to run clinical trials, testing therapies for ultrarare diseases involves learning how to produce therapies on smaller scales—something Evans said companies including Beam and even Moderna are actively working on.
“We are thinking about getting involved in these n of 1 cases,” Evans said of Beam. “It should absolutely be achievable to get people in a clinic, as long as it’s in an organ we can target. Start in the liver, maybe go to the blood. It’s not that hard to do anymore.”