Intec Pharma recently released the results from two pharmacokinetic (PK) studies of AP-CDLD (n=18 and n=30). The data showed trends towards lower peak serum concentrations (Cmax) and a longer half-life (T1/2, although there was some inconsistency), which should reduce dyskinesia and off-time, respectively. Additionally, one study measured food effect, which was present but did not delay onset of effects, unlike the approved extended-release carbidopa/levodopa formulation, Rytary.
Written by
Intec Pharma |
Bolstering the case for AP-CDLD |
Clinical update |
Pharma & biotech |
21 May 2018 |
Share price performance
Business description
Next events
Analysts
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intec Pharma recently released the results from two pharmacokinetic (PK) studies of AP-CDLD (n=18 and n=30). The data showed trends towards lower peak serum concentrations (Cmax) and a longer half-life (T1/2, although there was some inconsistency), which should reduce dyskinesia and off-time, respectively. Additionally, one study measured food effect, which was present but did not delay onset of effects, unlike the approved extended-release carbidopa/levodopa formulation, Rytary.
Year end |
Revenue ($m) |
PBT* |
EPS* |
DPS |
P/E |
Yield |
12/16 |
0.0 |
(13.4) |
(1.17) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
12/17 |
0.0 |
(29.1) |
(1.65) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
12/18e |
0.0 |
(29.5) |
(0.93) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
12/19e |
0.0 |
(22.8) |
(0.68) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
Note: *PBT and EPS are normalised, excluding amortisation of acquired intangibles, exceptional items and share-based payments.
PK determines success
PK is of particular importance for the AP-CDLD clinical programme, as its main goal is to provide a formulation of carbidopa and levodopa that is less limited by the exceptionally difficult PK of the levodopa molecule. Many of the adverse effects associated with the treatment of Parkinson’s, such as off-time and troublesome dyskinesia, are directly associated with this PK profile; reduction in these effects are the primary and secondary end points for the ongoing Phase III clinical study.
PK profile supports the reduction of unwanted effects
The volunteers in these studies did not experience the dramatic spike in serum concentrations (Cmax 1288–2544 ng/mL) associated with an immediate release formulation (Cmax 4062 ng/mL). Additionally, there was a trend towards a longer half-life (although there was variability between arms, 1.70–5.15 hours), which should provide more stable serum levels and reduce off-time.
Food does not delay drug onset
One of the limitations of the currently available extended-release formulation of levodopa/carbidopa, Rytary, is that its onset time is significantly affected by food. Its label carries a warning that food can delay onset by two hours or more, and this delay was as much as 5.5 hours in one study. Although a food effect was observed in AP-CDLD (reduced T1/2, increased Cmax), food did not delay onset of the drug.
Valuation: Underlying up, per share held at NIS22.9
We have increased our valuation of Intec to NIS761m ($211m) from NIS597m ($174m), although it has remained roughly steady on a per-share basis (NIS22.91/$6.36 from NIS22.91/$6.68 per basic share). We have increased the probability of success for the AP-CDLD programme to 65% (from 60%) based on the recent PK data. This adds NIS43m to our valuation. We have additionally included cash from the recent offering ($34.9m gross, 6.75m shares at $5.25). We expect the company to have sufficient cash to reach profitability in 2020.
PK is everything
On 23 April 2018, Intec presented the results from two Phase I studies examining the PK of AP-CDLD. Despite the early stage of these studies and their limited scope, they are very important for understanding the potential utility of AP-CDLD, given that the limitations of current medications are centred on the poor PK profile of levodopa. The goal of the accordion pill (AP) technology is to improve this profile to provide a more steady release of the drug. This is of exceptional importance for Parkinson’s disease because poor control of serum drug levels directly results in off-time and on-time with uncomfortable dyskinesia.
The first study (IN 11 005) was a randomised, two-way crossover study comparing AP-CDLD and immediate release carbidopa/levodopa (IR-CDLD, at t=0h and 4h) in fasted individuals (n=18). The second study examined the food effect of AP-CDLD in a three-way crossover (n=30).
|
Exhibit 1: PK profile of AP-CDLD vs 2x IR-CDLD from IN 11 005 trial |
Exhibit 2: Food effect of AP-CDLD from IN 14 001 trial |
|
|
|
Source: Intec |
Source: Intec |
|
Exhibit 1: PK profile of AP-CDLD vs 2x IR-CDLD from IN 11 005 trial |
|
|
Source: Intec |
|
Exhibit 2: Food effect of AP-CDLD from IN 14 001 trial |
|
|
Source: Intec |
The PK profile AP-CDLD presented in these studies had a number of attractive features that speak for the viability of the drug in practice (Exhibit 3). The peak concentration of levodopa (Cmax) was significantly lower for AP-CDLD compared to IR-CDLD in both studies. In the case of this drug, this is a desirable feature because these high serum concentrations can result in troublesome dyskinesia. The AP formulation was similar in this respect to previous reports of the competing extended-release CDLD formulation, Rytary.1
Yao HM, et al (2016) Clinical Pharmacokinetics of IPX066: Evaluation of dose proportionality and effect of food in healthy volunteers. Clin Neuropharmacol 39, 10-17.
An important measure for understanding how long the AP can maintain an effective dose (and thereby avoid off-states) is the elimination half-life (T1/2). There was a degree of variability in this statistic for AP-CDLD between the two trials: it was 5.15 hours in the IN 11 005 trial, but significantly lower under similar fasted conditions (1.70h) in the IN 14 001 trial. The latter is similar to what has been seen with IR-CDLD as well as Rytary in the fasted state. In the fed state, the half-life was approximately three hours, which significantly outperforms Rytary under similar fed conditions. A major limitation to the use of Rytary is that the drug can take significantly longer to reach peak blood levels (Tmax) in the presence of food: a delay of 5.5 hours in the Yao study and two hours or more according to the label. This was not seen with AP-CDLD, which showed a Tmax of around four hours, regardless of food. We should note that a limitation of this Tmax is that patients may need to supplement with IR-CDLD in the morning while waiting for the AP-CDLD to take effect.
Exhibit 3: PK profile of AP-CDLD and other formulations
Study |
IN 11 005 |
IN 14 001 |
Yao et al1 |
||||
Drug |
AP-CDLD |
IR-CDLD |
AP-CDLD |
Rytary |
|||
LD dose |
500mg |
2x 250mg |
500mg |
2x 245mg |
|||
CD dose |
50mg |
2x 25mg |
50mg |
2x 61.25mg |
|||
Food |
Fasted |
1000 cal |
500 cal |
Fasted |
High-cal |
Fasted |
|
Cmax (ng/mL) |
1951 |
4062 |
1288 |
1362 |
2544 |
1341 |
1659 |
Tmax (h) |
4.67 |
4.83* |
3.50 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
7.0 |
1.5 |
T1/2 (h) |
5.15 |
1.76 |
3.05 |
2.99 |
1.70 |
2.0 |
1.7 |
Source: Intec, Yao et al. Note: *Following second dose at t=4h.
We believe that this profile is supportive of the current clinical development programme. Despite the inconsistency in half-life, the trend towards longer retention supports the results from Phase II that the drug significantly reduced off-time (from 4.3 hours to 2.4 hours per day compared to previous treatment). The ongoing Phase II clinical trial has reduction in off-time and troublesome dyskinesia as primary and secondary end points, respectively. It is also important that the drug has demonstrated a tolerable food effect, which may, among other factors, contribute to its competitive advantage.
Valuation
We have increased our valuation of Intec to NIS761m ($211m) from NIS597m ($174m), although it has remained steady on a per-share basis (NIS22.91/$6.36 from NIS22.91/$6.68 per basic share). This incorporates a NIS43m increase, driven by our probability of success for AP-CDLD from 60% to 65% based on the recently released PK data. We would have increased this value more had it not been for inconsistency in the T1/2 measurements between arms. We may further increase this value with the release of data from the ongoing thrice-daily dosing PK study (expected to read out in H218). Additionally, our valuation has increased as a result of higher net cash following the April 2018 offering, rolling forward our NPVs and exchange rate effects. These effects are offset by an increase in R&D costs. Despite the share dilution, the increases to our total valuation have offset this effect and our value per share remains largely unchanged. We expect to update our valuation with the release of data from the Phase III study of AP-CDLD in 2019.
Exhibit 4: Valuation of Intec
Development programme |
Clinical stage |
Prob. of success |
Launch year |
Launch pricing ($) |
Peak sales ($m) |
Patent/exclusivity protection |
Royalty/ |
rNPV (NISm) |
AP-CDLD, US |
Phase III |
65% |
2020 |
8,200 |
140 |
2029 |
47% |
352 |
AP-CDLD, Europe |
Phase III |
65% |
2020 |
4,900 |
107 |
2029 |
40% |
225 |
AP-CDLD development costs |
Phase III |
-20 |
||||||
Unallocated costs (administrative costs, etc.) |
-76 |
|||||||
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
481 |
Net cash and equivalents (Q118 + offering) (NISm) |
280 |
|||||||
Total firm value (NISm) |
761 |
|||||||
Total basic shares (m) |
33.2 |
|||||||
Value per basic share (NIS) |
22.91 |
|||||||
Options (m) |
3.0 |
|||||||
Total diluted shares (m) |
36.2 |
|||||||
Value per diluted share (NIS) |
22.45 |
|||||||
Source: Intec reports, Edison Investment Research
Financials
Intec reported an operating loss of $10.9m for Q118, driven by R&D spending of $8.9m. This spending is largely associated with the ongoing Phase III trial, although total costs are coming in a bit higher than our expectations. This is at least partially in response to scaling production capacity, as reflected by $2m in capex during the period. Additionally, a lower proportion of R&D spending is being offset by grants than during previous periods. We have increased our expected R&D spend for 2018 to $24.2m from $18.3m. In April 2018, Intec carried out an offering of $37.5m (7.15m shares at $5.25), with net proceeds of $34.9m. We expect that this and prior net cash should be sufficient to bring the company to profitability in 2020, following the approval of AP-CDLD.
Exhibit 5: Financial summary
$'000s |
2016 |
2017 |
2018e |
2019e |
||
Year end 31 December |
IFRS |
IFRS |
IFRS |
IFRS |
||
PROFIT & LOSS |
||||||
Revenue |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Cost of Sales |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Gross Profit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Research and development |
(10,749) |
(24,295) |
(24,233) |
(16,943) |
||
Selling, general & administrative |
(3,097) |
(5,144) |
(6,173) |
(6,790) |
||
EBITDA |
|
|
(14,513) |
(30,050) |
(31,214) |
(24,970) |
Operating Profit (before amort. and except.) |
(13,812) |
(29,221) |
(30,188) |
(23,515) |
||
Intangible Amortisation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Exceptionals/Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Operating Profit |
(13,812) |
(29,221) |
(30,188) |
(23,515) |
||
Net Interest |
450 |
157 |
663 |
725 |
||
Other (change in fair value of warrants) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Profit Before Tax (norm) |
|
|
(13,362) |
(29,064) |
(29,525) |
(22,790) |
Profit Before Tax (IFRS) |
|
|
(13,362) |
(29,064) |
(29,525) |
(22,790) |
Tax |
0 |
(29) |
(252) |
0 |
||
Deferred tax |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Profit After Tax (norm) |
(13,362) |
(29,093) |
(29,777) |
(22,790) |
||
Profit After Tax (IFRS) |
(13,362) |
(29,093) |
(29,777) |
(22,790) |
||
Average Number of Shares Outstanding (m) |
11.4 |
17.7 |
31.9 |
33.5 |
||
EPS - normalised (c) |
|
|
(116.72) |
(164.74) |
(93.22) |
(67.94) |
EPS - IFRS ($) |
|
|
(1.17) |
(1.65) |
(0.93) |
(0.68) |
Dividend per share (c) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
||
BALANCE SHEET |
||||||
Fixed Assets |
|
|
4,047 |
8,206 |
11,635 |
14,814 |
Intangible Assets |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Tangible Assets |
4,047 |
8,206 |
11,635 |
14,814 |
||
Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Current Assets |
|
|
20,674 |
56,343 |
58,428 |
35,138 |
Stocks |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Debtors |
2,384 |
1,125 |
1,223 |
1,223 |
||
Cash |
18,228 |
55,149 |
57,137 |
33,847 |
||
Other |
62 |
69 |
68 |
68 |
||
Current Liabilities |
|
|
(1,152) |
(1,854) |
(2,166) |
(1,966) |
Creditors |
(1,152) |
(1,854) |
(2,166) |
(1,966) |
||
Short term borrowings |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Long Term Liabilities |
|
|
(97) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Long term borrowings |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Other long term liabilities |
(97) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Net Assets |
|
|
23,472 |
62,695 |
67,897 |
47,986 |
CASH FLOW |
||||||
Operating Cash Flow |
|
|
(12,005) |
(22,132) |
(28,425) |
(18,658) |
Net Interest |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Tax |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Capex |
(482) |
(4,994) |
(4,455) |
(4,633) |
||
Acquisitions/disposals |
206 |
247 |
46 |
0 |
||
Financing |
0 |
63,707 |
34,900 |
0 |
||
Dividends |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Net Cash Flow |
(12,281) |
36,828 |
2,066 |
(23,291) |
||
Opening net debt/(cash) |
|
|
(30,673) |
(18,228) |
(55,149) |
(57,174) |
HP finance leases initiated |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
Exchange rate movements |
8 |
(120) |
(41) |
0 |
||
Other |
(172) |
213 |
0 |
0 |
||
Closing net debt/(cash) |
|
|
(18,228) |
(55,149) |
(57,174) |
(33,884) |
|
Source: Company accounts, Edison Investment Research |
||||||
|
|
On the Q118 conference call, Sunesis provided an update of its ongoing vecabrutinib Phase Ib/II trial. The study is continuing to enrol the 50mg cohort in the dose-ranging Phase I portion of the study. This cohort was previously expanded to six patients per the protocol due to an adverse event, but no further dose-limiting events have been reported. The company reiterated guidance that the dose ranging would be complete in autumn 2018 and that it will present preliminary efficacy data at a medical conference.