Neovacs
Written by
Neovacs |
Lupus signature |
IFN-Kinoid review |
Pharma & biotech |
1 August 2016 |
Share price performance
Business description
Next events
Analysts
Neovacs is a research client of Edison Investment Research Limited |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neovacs’s lead project, IFN-Kinoid (IFN-K) for lupus, started a 178-patient EU, US and RoW Phase II in Q315. It expects data by mid-2017. This is based on clinical response and measurement of the interferon signature (IS), a diagnostic marker of lupus. CKD, a leading Korean pharmaceutical company, partnered the product for Korea in 2015; marketing may start in 2018. Neovacs plans to partner IFN-K, implying possible launches in 2021. VEGF-Kinoid for cancer and AMD could start Phase I in H117 and a type 1 diabetes kinoid is in preclinical testing. Cash in December 2015 was €6.1m; a French rights issue in June 2016 raised €8m gross at €0.85/share.
Year end |
Revenue (€m) |
PBT* |
EPS* |
DPS |
P/E |
Yield |
12/14 |
0.2 |
(9.8) |
(34.4) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
12/15 |
1.2 |
(11.2) |
(31.5) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
12/16e |
0.0 |
(14.0) |
(29.9) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
12/17e |
1.8 |
(12.6) |
(22.8) |
0.0 |
N/A |
N/A |
Note: *PBT and EPS are normalised, excluding amortisation of acquired intangibles, exceptional items and share-based payments. 2017 revenues only if Phase II successful.
Phase IIb data due June 2017 then partnering
Neovacs is aiming to complete recruitment into the 178-patient Phase IIb by late summer 2016, with an expected June 2017 release of preliminary data on the two combined, 36-week endpoints. Neovacs has FDA approval to include US centres. The trial is based on the neutralisation of the interferon gene expression signature, now seen as a key lupus marker. It will also score clinical responses assessed using the BILAG system. Two IFN-based candidates from AstraZeneca have shown that patients with high interferon signatures respond better to IFN control. Neovacs intends to find a partner to run and fund Phase III studies from 2018. This could enable a US and EU regulatory filing by 2020 and possible marketing from 2021.
Korean deal validates concept and brings cash
Neovacs’s licensing deal with CKD ,with €1m upfront and €4m more due over the next three years, allows the possibility for a 2018 conditional early approval in that market if the current Phase IIb is successful. Neovacs believes there may be a lupus prevalence of up to 20,000 in South Korea. Treatment would be from specialist centres, so a market could develop quickly. We assume a 15% royalty. Neovacs will manufacture IFN-K for CKD.
Valuation: Well-placed for deals and value creation
IFN-K is assumed to be Phase III funded and marketed by a partner. The IFN-K probability used is 30%, an upper Phase II level reflecting the IS strong positioning. A 15% royalty is assumed with a €25m deal fee in 2018 and regulatory milestones of €100m. US 12-year biological exclusivity ends in 2032; European protection ends in 2030. The model has been fully reassessed and rebased and now gives an indicative value of €54.9m, from €39.9m in April 2015. This equates to €1.29/share, or €1.15 fully diluted; shares in issue have increased from 23.4m to 42.6m. Further funding needs are expected to be at least €8m in 2017, implying further dilution. Neovacs is expected to progress products and deals over the next few years.
Investment summary; Lupus signature
Company description: Revitalised business
Neovacs is based on kinoid technology, a type of vaccine that aims to create a long-lasting immune response against the natural immune response signalling molecules driving particular medical conditions. Neovacs has rebuilt its pipeline, Exhibit 1, after the late 2014 failure of Tumour Necrosis Factor Kinoid (TNF-K) in rheumatoid arthritis. Interferon alpha kinoid (IFN-K) started an international, 178-patient, Phase IIb study, NCT02665364 in September 2015. Data are expected in mid-2017. This study now includes a 12-patient US arm. In 2015, Neovacs developed its relationship with a key supplier, Stellar Biotechnologies, and a manufacturing joint venture has been agreed with grant funding. In late December 2015, Neovacs partnered IFN-K with CKD, a Korean pharmaceutical company. If the current Phase II is successful, CKD will be able to market IFN-K in Korea on a registry basis from 2018. Neovacs is based in southern Paris. It has 24 employees
Valuation: Well placed for deals and value
As IFN-K will be Phase III funded and sold by a partner, a 15% royalty is assumed with a €25m deal fee in 2018 and regulatory milestones of €100m. The IFN-K Phase IIb probability used is 30%, an upper Phase II level reflecting the IS strong positioning. US 12-year biological exclusivity ends in 2032; European protection ends in 2030. The French tax rate is set at 24% on the assumption that Neovacs will offset profits. This gives an indicative value of €1.29/share or €1.15 fully diluted. This is assessed before further funding needs, which are expected to be at least €8m in 2017. Over the next few years, Neovacs is well placed to develop products and do deals.
Financials: June funding gives cash into 2017
In FY15, Neovacs had an accounting gain of €4.3m as governmental loans for the failed TNF-Kinoid project became non-repayable. Operational costs in FY16 are expected to be €14m vs €12.5m in 2015, due to Phase IIb costs. FY15 cash use was €7.8m before funding. Year-end 2015 cash was €6.1m, with the €1m upfront fee from CKD due in Q116 and a tax credit of €1.8m also due. A June 2016 rights issue raised €8m gross at €0.85/share. This gives Neovacs sufficient cash for at least 2016. Additional funding of at least €8m may be needed in 2017 plus the next Korean milestone, due in H217 (management expects about €1.75m) if the Phase IIb is successful. We estimate a tax credit of €3.1m (30% of R&D) for 2016, paid in 2017. Further funding depends on partnering deals in 2018.
Sensitivities: IS case strong for lupus response
The hypothesis that the disease is exacerbated in about 80% of lupus patients due to overproduction of interferon alpha leading to an interferon signature (IS) has received support from two large Phase II AstraZeneca studies. Neovacs is using a combined IS and clinical co-primary endpoint in the current IFN-K Phase IIb. The use of a high IS score to select patients should reduce risk, as a high IS is seen in about 80% of patients and other trial data indicate better outcomes in this group (see Exhibit 5 below). However, the IS case is not yet fully established through a pivotal study. Neovacs intends to partner the project at Phase III using the Phase IIb data. The €5m Korean deal shows that the project can attract partners at a good value. Substantive Phase III trials will be required for the crucial US FDA approval and IFN-K is several years behind AstraZeneca’s anifrolumab, in Phase III with good Phase II data. IFN-K needs a different commercial strategy as it is a one-off course of injections, rather than a chronic monoclonal therapy with reoccurring monthly injections and a long-term income stream.
Company description: Signature lupus signal
IFN-K had been in early clinical development (a 28-patient Phase I/II in 2010-11), but the former management gave the larger RA market targeted by TNF-K priority. TNK-K failed, apparently as the antibodies generated bound, but did not neutralise, TNF. Neovacs has data showing that IFNα-K generates a range of neutralising antibodies against IFN. Once immunised, patients may not need a booster course for a number of years. However, this makes the treatment, in effect, a one-time course with no repeat revenues. IFN-K- is likely to be much cheaper to manufacture than a monoclonal. This could mean higher margins.
The next clinical product is likely to be vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Kinoid (VEGF-Kinoid) for cancer and eye disease (acute macular degeneration (AMD).
Exhibit 1: Neovacs pipeline June 2016
Product |
Indication |
Stage |
Development notes |
IFNα-Kinoid |
Lupus |
Phase I/II completed |
The Phase I/II in 28 patients was announced in 2011 and published in 2013 (Lauwerys et al 2013). The primary safety outcome was met. Other data are discussed below. |
Phase IIb |
This trial is underway and plans to enrol 178 patients. Of these, 160-patients will be recruited in the EU, Asia and Latin America. A 12-patient arm has been added in the US after the FDA approved an IND. Data are due in mid-2017, probably in Q3 as the primary data collection date is stated to be June. |
||
IFNα-Kinoid |
Dermatomyositis |
Phase I/IIa |
Multi-centre trial with 15 adults expected to begin by late 2016. |
IFNα-Kinoid |
Type I diabetes |
Research |
Type I is an autoimmune disease. No other data. Trial planned for 2017. |
VEGF-Kinoid |
AMD |
Preclinical |
Immunisation with VEGF-Kinoid prevented the disease in a preclinical model. Trials from 2017 possible. |
VEGF-Kinoid |
Solid tumours |
Preclinical |
Anti-VEGF products are widely used in the treatment of solid tumours. Trials from 2017 possible. |
IL-4-Kinoid |
Allergies |
Preclinical |
Seminal studies suggest that anti-IL-4 immunotherapies may control allergic reactions. |
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Neovacs announcements
Kinoid platform
Malfunction of the immune system causes over secretion of the cytokines (proteins that act on cells to stimulate or inhibit their function), which play a key role in autoimmune diseases. Neovacs’s “kinoid” technology vaccinates patients to neutralise these cytokines and control the disease. Kinoids consist of a target protein, such as interferon alpha (IFNα) conjugated with a carrier immunogenic protein: keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), Exhibit 2.
|
Exhibit 2: Production and use of kinoids to control cytokine levels |
|
|
Source: Neovacs |
The patient is immunised by intramuscular injection of the kinoid with an emulsion adjuvant. The KLH stimulates the body’s immune system to produce polyclonal antibodies to neutralise and eliminate the target self-protein. A key observation is that the antibodies need to be neutralising against the cytokine. If not, the cytokine can still function and the disease may not be affected. Neovacs has stated that this was the reason TNF-K failed in clinical development as the antibodies were not neutralising. In IFN-K Phase II data, management observed that the antibodies were “strongly” neutralising. The immune response in some patients can last for at least four years. Polyclonal antibodies are a natural, diverse and more powerful response than monoclonal antibodies. By comparison, monoclonal antibodies need to be injected every four to eight weeks. IFN is produced in various subtypes. A monoclonal will only bind certain subtypes, but IFN-K generates a range of antibodies. Neovacs found that antibodies against all subtypes of INFα were generated.
IFN-K for lupus might be protected by a patent application (WO 2012136739 A1) filed on 4 April 2012. A patent WO 2004024189 A1 (granted in the US but not Europe) filed on 16 September 2003, covers IFNα liked to KLH and WO2002011759 (8 August 2001) claims IFN or VEGF linked to KLH.
Lupus: A debilitating chronic disease with few options
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the most common form of Lupus: an autoimmune disease of the connective tissues of various organs, Exhibit 3. There is no cure at present.
Exhibit 3: Lupus – the disease
Aspect |
Comment and background |
What is lupus? |
Lupus (from the Latin for wolf) is a chronic autoimmune disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations and complex courses. The condition is difficult to diagnose reliably and can either be missed entirely or often misdiagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis; this makes assessing the epidemiology and number of treatable cases, difficult. Symptoms may include swollen painful joints, fatigue, kidney damage, skin rashes and sensitivity to sunlight. There is a classic “butterfly” rash that appears across the cheeks and nose. Four main types of lupus erythematosus exist: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, the predominant, serious form of lupus), discoid, drug-induced and neonatal. SLE is characterised by dysregulated immune pathways, particularly related to B-cells and T-cells. An uncommon complication is lupus nephritis causing kidney failure. |
Genetic factors (aetiology) |
Lupus seems to be caused by interaction between genetics (especially complement deficiencies) and environmental triggers such as viruses and drugs. Different genetic groups have different susceptibility; the highest rates are seen in US African-American women in middle age. |
Symptoms |
The immune system attacks the body's cells and tissue, resulting in inflammation and tissue damage. SLE most often affects the heart, joints, skin, lungs, blood vessels, liver, kidneys and nervous system with the production of autoantibodies like antibodies against double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), a clear disease biomarker found in 45-60% of cases (Lam 2005). The disease course is unpredictable, with periods of illness (called flares) alternating with remissions. Biomarkers like anti-dsDNA do not correlate well with disease progression or flare. |
Diagnosis |
Because lupus is so complex, accurate diagnosis and assessment is difficult. A scoring system uses the 1982 American College of Rheumatology criteria: SLE is diagnosed if four or more criteria (out of 11) are met. It is usually stated that the “Gold Standard” is diagnosis by a rheumatologist as non-specialists often misdiagnose. Low-grade SLE might never be diagnosed. |
Tough lab tests |
There are two lab assays that are objective criteria. Measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) including anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) is taken as a key lupus measure. The assay rarely returns to normal in a short time and its correlation to clinical outcomes is less clear. Lupus patients often show lower levels of dsDNA antibodies in response to therapies. |
Tracking the disease |
Various scoring systems (SLEDAI, PGA, BILAG, discussed later under clinical trials) have been developed to track the course of the disease. These systems include both clinical assessments (for example rashes, oral ulcers,) and tests for autoantibodies and urinary protein and blood. |
Treatment |
There is currently no cure; treatments are largely symptomatic: • Lifestyle changes including rest, sun protection, diet, exercise, no smoking to prevent flares; and • Drug treatment, which depends on signs and symptoms, includes: non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for pain; antimalarials for skin and joint disease, to prevent flares; corticosteroids for acute flares and severe disease; immunosuppressants for more serious disease; and biological agents: only Benlysta (belimumab, GSK) has shown efficacy, other agents might be used off label if individuals respond. As a last resort, Plasmapheresis - removal of white immune cells using an external medical device - may be used to control a bad flare. |
Aspect |
What is lupus? |
Genetic factors (aetiology) |
Symptoms |
Diagnosis |
Tough lab tests |
Tracking the disease |
Treatment |
Comment and background |
Lupus (from the Latin for wolf) is a chronic autoimmune disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations and complex courses. The condition is difficult to diagnose reliably and can either be missed entirely or often misdiagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis; this makes assessing the epidemiology and number of treatable cases, difficult. Symptoms may include swollen painful joints, fatigue, kidney damage, skin rashes and sensitivity to sunlight. There is a classic “butterfly” rash that appears across the cheeks and nose. Four main types of lupus erythematosus exist: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, the predominant, serious form of lupus), discoid, drug-induced and neonatal. SLE is characterised by dysregulated immune pathways, particularly related to B-cells and T-cells. An uncommon complication is lupus nephritis causing kidney failure. |
Lupus seems to be caused by interaction between genetics (especially complement deficiencies) and environmental triggers such as viruses and drugs. Different genetic groups have different susceptibility; the highest rates are seen in US African-American women in middle age. |
The immune system attacks the body's cells and tissue, resulting in inflammation and tissue damage. SLE most often affects the heart, joints, skin, lungs, blood vessels, liver, kidneys and nervous system with the production of autoantibodies like antibodies against double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), a clear disease biomarker found in 45-60% of cases (Lam 2005). The disease course is unpredictable, with periods of illness (called flares) alternating with remissions. Biomarkers like anti-dsDNA do not correlate well with disease progression or flare. |
Because lupus is so complex, accurate diagnosis and assessment is difficult. A scoring system uses the 1982 American College of Rheumatology criteria: SLE is diagnosed if four or more criteria (out of 11) are met. It is usually stated that the “Gold Standard” is diagnosis by a rheumatologist as non-specialists often misdiagnose. Low-grade SLE might never be diagnosed. |
There are two lab assays that are objective criteria. Measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) including anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) is taken as a key lupus measure. The assay rarely returns to normal in a short time and its correlation to clinical outcomes is less clear. Lupus patients often show lower levels of dsDNA antibodies in response to therapies. |
Various scoring systems (SLEDAI, PGA, BILAG, discussed later under clinical trials) have been developed to track the course of the disease. These systems include both clinical assessments (for example rashes, oral ulcers,) and tests for autoantibodies and urinary protein and blood. |
There is currently no cure; treatments are largely symptomatic: • Lifestyle changes including rest, sun protection, diet, exercise, no smoking to prevent flares; and • Drug treatment, which depends on signs and symptoms, includes: non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for pain; antimalarials for skin and joint disease, to prevent flares; corticosteroids for acute flares and severe disease; immunosuppressants for more serious disease; and biological agents: only Benlysta (belimumab, GSK) has shown efficacy, other agents might be used off label if individuals respond. As a last resort, Plasmapheresis - removal of white immune cells using an external medical device - may be used to control a bad flare. |
Source: Edison Investment Research
IFN-Kinoid (IFN-K) in lupus: Clinical development
IFN-K is the lead product now in a 178-patient Phase IIb. This trial follows on from a Phase I/II in 28 patients (Lauwerys et al 2013) summarised in Exhibit 4. In the Phase I/II, most patients were tested for IS at baseline. Patients who produced higher levels of anti-IFN in response to IFN-K reduced their IS scores. The authors viewed the results as “promising” but not powered to show efficacy.
The Phase IIb (NCT02665364) started in September 2015. This trial has a 166-patient target for Europe, Russia and Latin America. It was extended in April 2016 to include 12 US patients under an FDA IND. The total will be 178 patients. Five doses of IFN-Kinoid are given: 240µg on days 0, 7 and 28 then a booster shot of 120µg in week 12 and week 24. The endpoint is determined at week 36. Data are due in June 2016, so recruitment needs to compete around the end of Q316.
Exhibit 4: IFN-K Phase II design and results
Aspect |
Result and commentary |
Design |
The study was randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled with four dose groups of 30, 60, 120 and 240µg. All patients received three doses given at days 0, 7 and 28. Half the patients received a fourth injection at day 84. Patients were assessed at day 112 and day 168. |
Patient disease severity |
All the patients enrolled had mild to moderate disease activity, defined as a SLEDAI-2K score of between 4 and 10. The median score was 8; the median in the higher dose groups was 6. |
Primary outcome |
The primary safety outcome was met with no significant issues. |
Secondary outcome |
The measure was seroconversion: production of antibodies. The linked KLH antigen caused all treated patients to make anti-INFα antibodies. In the highest dose cohort (240µg), four out of five patients produced neutralising antibodies (note: one patient only received one dose due to a disease flare). At 120µg and 60µg doses, three out of six made anti-IFN. No patients made anti-IFN at the lowest 30µg dose, so there appears to be a rough dose relationship in response rates, which is reassuring. However, individual patients showed considerable variability in antibody levels so it is not possible to see to see a clear relationship between dose and the level of antibody made in doses over 30µg. However, it was noted that patients with high IS scores made up to 10 times more antibody than patients with low IS scores. |
Interferon signature key to patient selection |
This is composed of 21 genes. On enrolment, 19 patients in the treatment group were tested for IS (two were not tested). Of these seven had a negative IS and 12 had a positive IS. Comparing baseline to day 112, IS scores in treated patients decreased significantly p=0.046. There was no decrease in IS in placebo-treated patients, p=0.84. This indicates that high IS patients may respond well to IFN blocking by IFN-K stimulated antibodies. |
Subtypes bound |
Importantly, the induced antibodies also bound most of the 13 IFNα subtypes. This is a very important potential therapeutic advantage compared to monoclonal antibodies, which only target a few IFN subtypes. |
Serological effects |
When patients (treated and placebo combined) with low anti-IFN levels were compared with eight patients with high antibody levels on day 112, a significant increase in C3 levels was seen p=0.027, relative to baseline. C3 is a component of the innate immune system activated and depleted by inflammatory responses. It is reduced in active lupus so increased C3 levels indicate less innate immune activation The relevance of this is not clear as the low antibody group contained untreated patients and showed a wide spread of values, so this could be a spurious result. The related C4 level showed a non-significant change. The level of anti-dsDNA, a key clinical marker of lupus, was not changed. |
Clinical outcome |
All patients showed a decrease in SLEDAI-2K and BILAG scores and there was no difference between the treated and placebo groups. |
Long-term follow up |
Six patients that developed long-term anti-IFN antibodies have been followed for over four years as a safety measure and have shown no side effects. Five of the six patients presented a positive IFN signature at baseline. The IFN signature was observed in two out of five patients who developed neutralizing antibodies. Correlation in the increase of C3 serum level and neutralizing anti-IFNα antibodies also persisted in the same two patients, confirming previously reported results. This is important as it indicates, in a small sample, that suppression of IFN by auto-antibodies does not impair general health. Note that AstraZeneca found higher levels of herpes zoster and other latent viral infections in up to 10% of patients. |
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Lauwerys et al 2013
Signing on: The Interferon signature co-primary endpoint
The co-primary endpoint in the Phase IIb IFN-K study is a reduction in interferon signature (IS). Obermoser (2010) commented that: “the type I interferon cytokine family has been postulated to play a central role in SLE pathogenesis, by promoting feedback loops progressively disrupting peripheral immune tolerance and driving disease activity.” The development of the interferon signature theory and clinical data from AstraZeneca in the last few years offer a robust paradigm for patient selection. Exhibit 5 has details of IS and references.
Kennedy (2015) published a Genentech IFN biomarker study that found three signature genes marking out high and low populations. The high IFN group showed a clear serological response to various anti-IFNα therapies but the low IFN group did not. However, there was no correlation with mean disease activity assessed by BILAG or SLEDAI-SELENA scores. It would be natural for IFN responsive genes to show lower expression if IFN levels are lowered, but the disease only responds if IFN is the primary driver. Kennedy concluded that: “The ISM does not distinguish between high and low disease activity, but may have utility in identifying patients more likely to respond to treatment(s) targeting IFN-α”.
Exhibit 5: Interferon signature – states of understanding
Aspect |
Comment |
Hypothesis |
The hypothesis is that lupus is caused by environmental and generic susceptibility factors resulting in the production of antibodies against components of the cell nucleus like nucleic acids (RNA and DNA). These molecules are constantly being released from damaged and apoptotic cells and are normally quickly degraded and recycled. However, nuclear auto antibodies are often seen some years in advance of any lupus symptoms. Once lupus starts, excess IFNα exacerbates the disease. |
IFNα production |
IFNα is made by multiple immune cell types, but the one implicated in lupus is a specialist cell type: plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). Seems to be triggered by antibody nucleic acid complexes in the patient’s blood, see Lövgren 2004. Signalling via Toll-like receptors of the innate immune system may also be involved; a potential other therapeutic approach. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells are rare, making up 0.2–0.8% of the peripheral blood immune cells, but they have the capability of producing 100–200 times more IFNα than other cells. |
IFNα genes and types |
IFNα is a 13 gene family, so multiple subtypes exist. IFNβ is closely related to IFNα, both are classed as type I IFN. At least 100 genes are stated to be activated by IFNα. Given this number, the exact nature of the IS will not be clearly defined. |
IFN role |
IFN is important in mounting anti-viral immune system responses so viral infection and reoccurrence of latent viral diseases like herpes zoster (shingles) is a side effect of IFN suppression. |
Measuring IS |
In the Neovacs Phase II study, the IS seen was analysed by transcriptome analysis and use of a whole genome array chip. Analyses showed that baseline gene expression profiles were not homogenous among SLE patients and there was no consistent IS. Statistical clustering analysis identified two groups. In one group, 21 IFN genes were up-regulated compared to healthy volunteers (IS+ve patients; n=18). In the second group, the pattern of gene expression was similar to that in healthy volunteers (IS-ve patients; n=9). AstraZeneca used a four-gene IS profile in the Sifalimumab Phase IIb and a 21-gene IS profile in the Anifrolumab study, Yao 2010. Kennedy (2015) identified three gene markers of IS, called the IS metric (ISM) and used these to identify two groups: ISM-High and ISM-Low in 574 patients (from various trials) with 85 controls. The genes were HERC5, EPSTI and CMPK2. It is not known if these represented in the Neovacs IS profile |
Significance of IS in the Neovacs Phase II |
Patients who were IS+ve had significantly higher anti-dsDNA concentrations (plus other immune changes). However, there was no clinical difference (on SLEDAI-2K) between IS+ve and IS-ve. IS+ve patients responded better to IFN-K in making anti-IFNα antibodies - IFNα is a known stimulant to antibody production so this may be an incidental benefit. IS+ve at baseline showed a reduced IS after 112 days – as expected if IFNα levels were reduced. However, anti-dsDNA levels did not alter; some innate immune markers did change. The trial was too small for any clear effect to be noted in any event. |
Sifalimumab data (a monoclonal against IFN) |
A Phase II trial by AstraZeneca (Khamashta 2016) of sifalimumab recruited predominately high IS patients. High IS patients did better in the primary SRI endpoint than the patients with low IS and showed statistical significance in a predefined BICLA response, the metric selected by Neovacs. This trial noted a greater placebo response (80%) in low IS patients but only about 30% in high IS patients; why is not known. BICLA response rates were similar between high and low IS groups: about 45%. |
Anifrolumab data (a monoclonal against IFN receptor) |
Anifrolumab is a type I IFN receptor antagonist that prevents IFN triggering cell signalling. It would therefore be expected to have a broader anti-IFN activity, given the various subtypes, than sifalimumab. Phase II data on two doses vs placebo in 305 patients are only published in abstract to date: Furie 2015. High IS patients comprised 75% of cases. The primary endpoint at day 169 was met: the efficacy observed was “similar or more pronounced” in high IS patients. Median suppression of 21 IFN-regulated genes was about 90% for both doses of anifrolumab. Clinically, at day 169, placebo in high IS patients showed a 13.2% response vs 36% at 300mg, p=0.004, and 28.2% at 1000mg, p=0.029. |
IS interim conclusion |
The severity of lupus may be caused by the response of the pDC cells to auto-antibodies rather than by the auto-antibodies themselves. The AstraZeneca evidence form two large trials is that while IS does not link to disease status on trial enrolment, it does correlate with therapeutic responses to treatment designed to block IFN. The hypothesis still needs Phase III validation. |
Aspect |
Hypothesis |
IFNα production |
IFNα genes and types |
IFN role |
Measuring IS |
Significance of IS in the Neovacs Phase II |
Sifalimumab data (a monoclonal against IFN) |
Anifrolumab data (a monoclonal against IFN receptor) |
IS interim conclusion |
Comment |
The hypothesis is that lupus is caused by environmental and generic susceptibility factors resulting in the production of antibodies against components of the cell nucleus like nucleic acids (RNA and DNA). These molecules are constantly being released from damaged and apoptotic cells and are normally quickly degraded and recycled. However, nuclear auto antibodies are often seen some years in advance of any lupus symptoms. Once lupus starts, excess IFNα exacerbates the disease. |
IFNα is made by multiple immune cell types, but the one implicated in lupus is a specialist cell type: plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). Seems to be triggered by antibody nucleic acid complexes in the patient’s blood, see Lövgren 2004. Signalling via Toll-like receptors of the innate immune system may also be involved; a potential other therapeutic approach. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells are rare, making up 0.2–0.8% of the peripheral blood immune cells, but they have the capability of producing 100–200 times more IFNα than other cells. |
IFNα is a 13 gene family, so multiple subtypes exist. IFNβ is closely related to IFNα, both are classed as type I IFN. At least 100 genes are stated to be activated by IFNα. Given this number, the exact nature of the IS will not be clearly defined. |
IFN is important in mounting anti-viral immune system responses so viral infection and reoccurrence of latent viral diseases like herpes zoster (shingles) is a side effect of IFN suppression. |
In the Neovacs Phase II study, the IS seen was analysed by transcriptome analysis and use of a whole genome array chip. Analyses showed that baseline gene expression profiles were not homogenous among SLE patients and there was no consistent IS. Statistical clustering analysis identified two groups. In one group, 21 IFN genes were up-regulated compared to healthy volunteers (IS+ve patients; n=18). In the second group, the pattern of gene expression was similar to that in healthy volunteers (IS-ve patients; n=9). AstraZeneca used a four-gene IS profile in the Sifalimumab Phase IIb and a 21-gene IS profile in the Anifrolumab study, Yao 2010. Kennedy (2015) identified three gene markers of IS, called the IS metric (ISM) and used these to identify two groups: ISM-High and ISM-Low in 574 patients (from various trials) with 85 controls. The genes were HERC5, EPSTI and CMPK2. It is not known if these represented in the Neovacs IS profile |
Patients who were IS+ve had significantly higher anti-dsDNA concentrations (plus other immune changes). However, there was no clinical difference (on SLEDAI-2K) between IS+ve and IS-ve. IS+ve patients responded better to IFN-K in making anti-IFNα antibodies - IFNα is a known stimulant to antibody production so this may be an incidental benefit. IS+ve at baseline showed a reduced IS after 112 days – as expected if IFNα levels were reduced. However, anti-dsDNA levels did not alter; some innate immune markers did change. The trial was too small for any clear effect to be noted in any event. |
A Phase II trial by AstraZeneca (Khamashta 2016) of sifalimumab recruited predominately high IS patients. High IS patients did better in the primary SRI endpoint than the patients with low IS and showed statistical significance in a predefined BICLA response, the metric selected by Neovacs. This trial noted a greater placebo response (80%) in low IS patients but only about 30% in high IS patients; why is not known. BICLA response rates were similar between high and low IS groups: about 45%. |
Anifrolumab is a type I IFN receptor antagonist that prevents IFN triggering cell signalling. It would therefore be expected to have a broader anti-IFN activity, given the various subtypes, than sifalimumab. Phase II data on two doses vs placebo in 305 patients are only published in abstract to date: Furie 2015. High IS patients comprised 75% of cases. The primary endpoint at day 169 was met: the efficacy observed was “similar or more pronounced” in high IS patients. Median suppression of 21 IFN-regulated genes was about 90% for both doses of anifrolumab. Clinically, at day 169, placebo in high IS patients showed a 13.2% response vs 36% at 300mg, p=0.004, and 28.2% at 1000mg, p=0.029. |
The severity of lupus may be caused by the response of the pDC cells to auto-antibodies rather than by the auto-antibodies themselves. The AstraZeneca evidence form two large trials is that while IS does not link to disease status on trial enrolment, it does correlate with therapeutic responses to treatment designed to block IFN. The hypothesis still needs Phase III validation. |
Source: Edison Investment Research based on cited sources
Keeping score: The clinical co-primary endpoint
The other co-primary endpoint is the clinical response measured by the BICLA scoring system (see below). Various lupus systems have been developed over the years. These have continued to evolve. Mikdashi (2015) provides a summary of the latest iterations; Petri (2007) provides an overview and Lam and Petri (2005) give scoring sheets if much more detail is required. The BICLA composite score in the IFN-K Phase IIb trial combines BILAG and SLEDAI-2k.
Exhibit 6: Scoring and assessment systems in SLE
System |
Detailed commentary |
SLEDAI |
The major evaluation system was SLEDAI (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), updated in 2002 to SLEDAI-2000 (Gladman 2002). SLEDAI has 16 clinical items and eight laboratory tests. It relies on physician accuracy (for example scoring swollen joints) and uses weighted scores so is relatively insensitive. This evolved into SELENA-SELDAI due to the belimumab clinical trial. Most physicians would view many of these indicators, like rash, as indicative of ongoing lupus and this version is now a core component of the SRI (SLE responder Index). ■ The total score possible is 105 but few patients score over 20. As a numerical output that was quick to score, it was used for statistical interpretation of clinical data. A SLEDAI ≥6 or more indicates active disease. |
BILAG |
British Isles Lupus Activity Group system was an attempt to look at disease progression in individual organs so is more clinically focused and assesses if a patient has got worse, been stable, improved or developed a new symptom. This is then scored by computer software. The most recent version is BILG-2004 (Isenberg 2005). It is more complicated for a physician to assess than SLEDAI as it has 86 components covering eight organ systems. Weighted, numerically assigned BILAG organ scores have not been validated, which creates problems for statistical analysis. ■ Each organ gets a score on a scale of A to E. A is very active disease, B is moderate activity, C is mild stable disease, D is resolved activity, and E indicates the organ was never involved. ■ The organ system are: General, Mouth and Skin, Neurological, Joints and Muscles, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary, Blood Vessel Inflammation (Vasculitis), Kidney, and Blood |
PGA |
Physician Global Assessment – an overview derived from rheumatoid arthritis. ■ This rates 0 for no disease, 1 for mild disease, 2 for moderate disease, and 3 for severe disease. |
SRI |
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) responder index was devised for the belimumab trial. It is a secondary endpoint in the current IFN-K trial. ■ SRI response is defined as: “1) a >/=4-point reduction in SELENA-SLEDAI score, 2) no new BILAG A or no more than 1 new BILAG B domain score, and 3) no deterioration from baseline in the physician's global assessment by >/=0.3 points”. Furie 2009 |
BICLA |
The BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment was devised for the epratuzumab trial; see Wallace 2014. It is a co-primary endpoint on the current Phase IIb IFN-K trial. This uses both BILAG-2004 and SLEDAI-2K criteria and defines a patient as either a responder or non-responder based on a complicated set of BILAG and SLEDAI criteria linked also to changes in other medication for lupus. The trial statistical analysis then becomes a simple responder vs non-responder analysis, rather than using SELDAI scores, which might not be clinically relevant. ■ A BICLA response is defined as: “(1) BILAG-2004 improvement (all A scores at baseline improved to B/C/D, and all B scores improved to C or D); (2) no worsening in disease activity (no new BILAG-2004 A scores and ≤1 new B score); (3) no worsening of total SLEDAI-2K score from baseline; (4) no significant deterioration (<10% worsening) in 100 mm visual analogue PGA and (5) no treatment failure (defined as non-protocol treatment, ie, new or increased immunosuppressives or antimalarials; or increased or parenteral corticosteroids; or premature discontinuation from study treatment)” (source: Wallace et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jan; 73(1): 183–190). |
Source: Edison Investment Research, detailed sources as hyperlinks
The lupus market
Because lupus is so difficult to diagnose, estimates of its incidence (new cases per year diagnosed) and prevalence (patients with ongoing disease) vary widely. Exhibit 7 summarises data.
Exhibit 7: US lupus market estimates
Lead author |
Findings |
An often cited number for the US is 1.5m prevalence (cited by The Lupus Foundation of America), but this comes from a marketing survey. The author concluded that “self-reporting studies are notoriously inaccurate… indicating that the numbers... may not be true”. |
|
This study estimated 161,000 confirmed cases in the US (with up to 311,000 possible cases). |
|
This study estimated 280,000 (range 230,000-318,000) US prevalence cases using data from the 2001-2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and 2001-2005 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey based on one million medical visits. |
|
A Medicare based study found 34,339 treated patients listed in records (over 2000-04). This is too biased a sample for population estimates, but reliable in itself as these patients had a specific clinical code assigned. |
|
This 2000 survey used medical records of hospitalised patients in California and Pennsylvania. Estimates were of about 100/100,000 adults in California and about 150/100,000 adults in Pennsylvania. This is about 250,000-360,000 prevalence. |
|
To get more robust data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are running a set of large surveys. Two have been published. In Michigan, Somers (2014) surveyed 2.4 million people. In Atlanta, Georgia, Lim (2014) surveyed 1.5 million people. These surveys give age-adjusted figures per 100,000, age adjusted by sex and genetic group – although Hispanic figures are poorly represented. Translated into actual patients in the overall 2015 US population of 320 million (US Census), there may be about 160,000 prevalence cases in the US. Exhibit 8 uses the ACR score ≥4 criteria (see above). |
|
European data |
In Europe, only leading countries plus accessible European markets like Switzerland and Norway are included. There is relatively sparse data for individual countries in Europe. The UK has reasonable estimates and these align with the US Caucasian population, noting that there is a West Indian group with rates that seem similar to African Americans in the US. |
Lead author |
European data |
Findings |
An often cited number for the US is 1.5m prevalence (cited by The Lupus Foundation of America), but this comes from a marketing survey. The author concluded that “self-reporting studies are notoriously inaccurate… indicating that the numbers... may not be true”. |
This study estimated 161,000 confirmed cases in the US (with up to 311,000 possible cases). |
This study estimated 280,000 (range 230,000-318,000) US prevalence cases using data from the 2001-2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and 2001-2005 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey based on one million medical visits. |
A Medicare based study found 34,339 treated patients listed in records (over 2000-04). This is too biased a sample for population estimates, but reliable in itself as these patients had a specific clinical code assigned. |
This 2000 survey used medical records of hospitalised patients in California and Pennsylvania. Estimates were of about 100/100,000 adults in California and about 150/100,000 adults in Pennsylvania. This is about 250,000-360,000 prevalence. |
To get more robust data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are running a set of large surveys. Two have been published. In Michigan, Somers (2014) surveyed 2.4 million people. In Atlanta, Georgia, Lim (2014) surveyed 1.5 million people. These surveys give age-adjusted figures per 100,000, age adjusted by sex and genetic group – although Hispanic figures are poorly represented. Translated into actual patients in the overall 2015 US population of 320 million (US Census), there may be about 160,000 prevalence cases in the US. Exhibit 8 uses the ACR score ≥4 criteria (see above). |
In Europe, only leading countries plus accessible European markets like Switzerland and Norway are included. There is relatively sparse data for individual countries in Europe. The UK has reasonable estimates and these align with the US Caucasian population, noting that there is a West Indian group with rates that seem similar to African Americans in the US. |
Source: Edison Investment Research based on cited references
The incidence number is very low, so hard to measure. As lupus is an episodic chronic disease, many people live with the condition, so prevalence figures are more robust, though still variable. The most recent US estimates indicate about 160,000 US cases, Exhibit 8. Extrapolating from this, there may be about 170,000 cases in accessible European markets, but this is not a definitive figure and many might be undiagnosed. If an approved IFN-K is only indicated for high-IS patients, and probably only reimbursed for them, sophisticated genetic testing (21 genes) or a simpler, three gene test like that of Kennedy will need to be easily available to find the patients.
Exhibit 8: US and accessible European lupus market
Population |
Incidence |
Prevalence |
||||||
US |
Michigan |
Georgia |
Average |
Michigan |
Georgia |
Average |
||
Caucasian |
||||||||
Male |
114,486,930 |
1,374 |
801 |
1,088 |
9,960 |
8,587 |
9,273 |
|
Female |
117,362,783 |
7,394 |
5,516 |
6,455 |
101,754 |
69,244 |
85,499 |
|
African-American |
||||||||
Male |
18,890,321 |
397 |
604 |
501 |
3,646 |
4,477 |
4,061 |
|
Female |
20,674,464 |
2,646 |
2,770 |
2,708 |
38,517 |
40,563 |
39,540 |
|
Hispanic and other |
||||||||
Male |
25,013,761 |
450 |
3,727 |
3,727 |
||||
Female |
25,013,761 |
1,200 |
16909 |
16,909 |
||||
Total US |
321,442,019 |
12,402 |
159,010 |
|||||
Leading accessible European |
||||||||
Male |
210,00,0000 |
1,995 |
17,010 |
|||||
Female |
210,000,000 |
11,550 |
152,985 |
|||||
Total accessible European |
13,545 |
169,995 |
||||||
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Somers (2014), Lim (2014), US Census and Eurostat
Korean deal: 2018 sales possible
In December 2015, Chong Kun Dang (CKD) Pharmaceutical Corp, a leading Korean pharmaceutical business, licensed IFN-K for the South Korean market. It paid €1m upfront, with a further €4m due until 2018. A Koran IND has been granted and five centres in Korea are participating in the current Phase IIb study. The Korean system allows a conditional approval from 2018 if the current Phase IIb is successful. This means that IFN-K could be sold from 2018. If approved at Phase II, it is assumed that follow-up of patients (a registry) will be needed. Management expects that over 1,000 patients will be treated between 2018 and 2020.
The South Korean market has a population of about 50 million. Recent surveys suggest a lupus prevalence of 26.5 per 100,000 (Shim et al, 2014), so about 13,250. Ju et al (2014) found 9,000-11,000 treated patients in 2006 based on health insurance records. Neovacs management estimate 20,000 cases overall in the population. Treatment is in specialist centres. CKD was founded in 1941. It had 2014 sales of KRW544bn (€422m) and profits of KRW35bn (€29m).
Competition and other development-stage projects
Benlysta, a monoclonal antibody, is the only biological agent to be approved so far for SLE, in 2011. It reduces the production of autoantibodies. There are other therapies in development (Exhibit 9).
Exhibit 9: Ongoing efficacy studies for SLE* (Phase II and III)
Company |
Product |
Duration |
n |
Primary endpoint |
Data |
NCT ID |
Phase III |
||||||
AstraZeneca |
Anifrolumab |
52 wk |
450 |
SRI≥4, high and low dose) |
Sep-18 |
NCT02446912 |
52 wk |
360 |
SRI≥4 (single dose level) |
Oct-18 |
NCT02446899 |
||
Anthera |
Blisibimod |
52 wk |
442 |
SELENA-SLEDAI ≥10. |
July 2016 |
NCT01395745 |
52 wk |
350 |
SRI-6 |
Dec 2018 |
NCT02514967 |
||
ImmuPharma |
rigerimod/IPP-201101 |
52 wk |
200 |
SRI≥4, |
Dec-17+ (first patient June 16) |
NCT02504645 |
Phase II |
||||||
Celgene |
CC-220 |
<84 days |
140 |
CLASI score + AE |
Aug-16 |
NCT02185040 |
BMS |
lulizumab pegol (BMS-931699) |
169 days |
350 |
BICLA response rate |
Jan-17 |
NCT02265744 |
Seattle Genetics |
Adcetris |
127 days |
40 |
AE, dose ranging |
April-17 |
NCT02533570 |
Neovacs |
IFNα-Kinoid |
36 wk |
178 |
BICLA + IFN signature |
June-17 |
NCT02665364 |
Biotest |
BT-063 |
14 wk |
36 |
AEs, Proof of Concept |
Aug-17 |
NCT02554019 |
Resolve Therap. |
RSLV-132 |
24 wk |
50 |
CLASI |
Sep-17 |
NCT02660944 |
Eli Lilly |
Baricitinib |
24 wk |
300 |
SLEDAI-2K |
Oct 17 |
NCT02708095 |
J&J |
Stelara (Ustekinumab) |
24 wk |
100 |
SRI-4, Wk 24 |
Dec-17 |
NCT02349061 |
Ablynx |
ALX-0061 |
24 wk |
300 |
m BICLA response |
Mar 18 |
NCT02437890 |
Source: Edison Investment Research. Note: *Excludes studies for lupus nephritis, investigator-sponsored, Japanese bridging and open-label extensions. SRI = Systemic Lupus Responder Index. BILCA= British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Composite Lupus Assessment. CLASI = Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (skin disease only). AE = adverse events. NB Ustekinumab is already approved for various indications so this is a line extension.
Benlysta sales have been hampered by a high price of around $35,000 per year, modest efficacy and a restrictive label. Worldwide sales for Benlysta in 2015 were £230m; growth was 25%. Of these sales, 90% were in the US. Of the development-stage products, most threatening might be AstraZeneca’s anifrolumab, which blocks the IFN receptor to reduce interferon effects; IFN-K neutralises IFN. Anifrolumab will have Phase III data by late 2018, so could be marketed from 2020.
Dermatomyositis: An additional IFN-K indication
Potential further indications for kinoid technology are autoimmune diseases like dermatomyositis. This a rare autoimmune condition related to lupus. There is no cure. It manifests as a skin complaint, but underlying muscle and connective tissues are attacked causing weakness. Neovacs plans to initiate a 15-patient Phase I trial starting in Q316, with data in late 2017, using the proceeds from the June rights issue.
Data on the market is very limited. Reeder (2010) estimated an incidence of up to 3,200 new cases a year, and a prevalence of 22/100,000: 70,000 cases based on a small sample. Neovacs has cited a similar incidence but prevalence at perhaps up to 32,000.
VEGF-K: A potential blockbuster product in preclinical
Neovacs has decided to enter the immunotherapy market with Vascular Epithelial Growth Factor Kinoid (VEGF-K; in preclinical development). Trials could start in Q316 with data in H217. VEGF is proven to be involved in the formation of new blood vessels in cancer growth, particularly of colorectal cancer. Stopping vascularisation slows tumour growth. VEGF is also involved in wet acute macular degeneration (AMD). This has developed into a major market for anti-VEGF antibodies, but these are expensive and need to be injected into the eye every month. A cheaper product that avoids the need for eye injection would have a considerable advantage, but it would need to be as effective to preserve sight. Markets are detailed in Exhibit 10.
Exhibit 10: VEGF-K potential indications
Indication |
Current product |
Cancer |
The market is dominated by Roche’s Avastin (bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody). Avastin had 2015 sales of CHF6.68bn (US$6.9bn), split 44% US, 26% Europe. VEGF-K could target the same market. Avastin patents expire over 2019-20 and several biosimilar products are likely to launch which will lower prices but possibly expand the market. |
AMD |
Lucentis (ranibizumab) is sold in the EU by Novartis, with sales of US$2.06bn in 2015, and by Roche in the US, with 2015 sales of CHF1.5bn ($1.6bn). |
AMD |
Eylea (aflibercept, Regeneron) had sales of US$2.68bn in 2015 in the US and, through Bayer, €1.23bn (US$1.4bn), up 62%. This product has taken share and growth from Lucentis, so provides the key benchmark. |
Indication |
Cancer |
AMD |
AMD |
Current product |
The market is dominated by Roche’s Avastin (bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody). Avastin had 2015 sales of CHF6.68bn (US$6.9bn), split 44% US, 26% Europe. VEGF-K could target the same market. Avastin patents expire over 2019-20 and several biosimilar products are likely to launch which will lower prices but possibly expand the market. |
Lucentis (ranibizumab) is sold in the EU by Novartis, with sales of US$2.06bn in 2015, and by Roche in the US, with 2015 sales of CHF1.5bn ($1.6bn). |
Eylea (aflibercept, Regeneron) had sales of US$2.68bn in 2015 in the US and, through Bayer, €1.23bn (US$1.4bn), up 62%. This product has taken share and growth from Lucentis, so provides the key benchmark. |
Source: Edison Investment Research
Stellar Biotechnologies joint venture
The joint venture, based near Paris, will be owned 30% by Stellar and 70% by Neovacs and will operate as Neostell SAS. A CEO and board have been appointed and the company was legally established on 19 July 2016. Founding capital in Neostell, set at €400,000 will be made if the IFN-K Phase IIb study in Lupus is positive. Bpifrance, a French government agency, will provide non-dilutive funding for €5m until 2019 to finalise clinical development and to scale up manufacturing of IFN-K. Neostell will produce all Neovacs’s kinoid products (particularly IFN-K) and other conjugated therapeutic vaccines on behalf of third parties. Edison assumes that partners are supplied at a transfer price including a margin divided between the parties. Stellar Biotechnologies, a US company, manufactures keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), the immunogenic carrier protein conjugated to the antigen to make kinoids like IFN-K. Stellar has supplied KLH to Neovacs for many years and will supply Neostell.
Sensitivities
The hypothesis that the disease is exacerbated in about 80% of lupus patients due to over production of interferon alpha leading to an “interferon signature” (IS) has received support from two large Phase II AstraZeneca studies. Neovacs is using a combined IS and clinical co-primary endpoint in the current IFN-K Phase IIb. The use of IS should reduce risk as a high IS profile is seen in about 87% of patients and other trial data indicate better outcomes in this type of group. However, the IS case is not yet fully established through a pivotal study. To progress to Phase III, Neovacs intends to partner the project using the Phase IIb data. The €5m Korean deal shows that the project can attract partners at a good value. Substantive Phase III trials will be required for the crucial US FDA approval and IFN-K is several years behind AstraZeneca’s anifrolumab, in Phase III with good Phase II data. IFN-K needs a different commercial strategy as it is a one-off course of injections rather than a chronic therapy with reoccurring monthly injections and so income.
Valuation
Most value rests on IFN-K in lupus. The other projects are small (like dermatomyositis) or lingering in preclinical like VEGF-K. Edison’s market forecast for lupus starts with the 80% of patients with IS; the IS figure is not definitive. This is derived from Exhibit 8, so 137,000 in the US and 146,000 in Europe. Exhibit 11 shows our US forecast and Exhibit 12 the European forecast. RoW is based on 20% of the European figure: US epidemiology is not typical. The fall in 2033 in the US and 2031 in Europe is due to the loss of biological exclusivity and assumed generic competition.
|
Exhibit 11: IFN-K courses US (not probability adjusted) |
Exhibit 12: IFN-K courses Europe (not probability adjusted) |
|
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data |
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data |
|
Exhibit 11: IFN-K courses US (not probability adjusted) |
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data |
|
Exhibit 12: IFN-K courses Europe (not probability adjusted) |
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data |
US pricing assumed by Edison is similar to Benlysta at €38,500 or €35,000. INF-K offers the advantage, in theory, of lasting immunity, so one 24-week course could last three to four years at least. The European price is assumed to be €20,000 as European state-backed healthcare is very price sensitive. Good pharmacoeconomic data will be required to justify the pricing in Europe. The sales decline as patients are only treated once and the incidence rate is very low. Market penetration rates of 15-25% three to five years after launch therefore erode the market. This gives the sales curve in Exhibit 13.
|
Exhibit 13: IFN-K non-risk adjusted sales forecast |
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research |
As IFN-K will be Phase III funded and sold by a partner, a 15% royalty is assumed. There is a further assumption of a €25m deal fee in 2018 and regulatory milestones of €100m, both probability adjusted, at 50% (Phase II deal) and 30% (regulatory milestone), respectively. The Korean fees potentially due (€4m) are 50% probability adjusted for Phase II outcome alone. The IFN-K probability of reaching the market is 30%, an upper Phase II level reflecting the IS strong positioning. This was formerly 20% and has been increased as the Phase II has started, there is validation from the Korean deal and we have evaluated data published by AstraZeneca on IS.
Neovacs intends to develop more Kinoid products so will incur ongoing costs. These are assumed by Edison to be no more than 50% of revenues. The model runs from 2021 launch to 2032 when US 12-year biological exclusivity ends; European protection ends in 2030. The French tax rate is set at 24% on the assumption that Neovacs will offset profits against new projects. This gives an indicative value of €1.29/share before dilution by warrants and options or €1.15/share fully diluted, Exhibit 14. This is assessed before further funding needs, which are expected to be at least €8m in 2017, with further funding needed thereafter depending on deal values and timings. The funding is additional to the current cash, which is being invested in products.
The previous value of Neovacs was €39.9m with 23.4m shares in issue at that time: €1.70 per share. The model and lupus market forecasts have been fully reassessed and restructured onto a partnering basis with the latest US epidemiology. The new, higher value of €54.9m has a lower per share value as there are now 42.59m shares in issue as of end June 2016.
Neovacs benefits also from the Neostell JV. This is assumed to supply the partner(s) with IFN-K with a profit margin. This is shared 70:30 between Neovacs and Stellar. A nominal value set at 10% of the IFN-K NPV has been included. Initial costs of these developments are included in expenses.
Exhibit 14: Neovacs indicative value as of 2016 based on the period 2016-3032
Probability |
Royalty |
NPV (€m) |
Value |
|
IFN-K |
30% |
15% |
183.87 |
|
Cost of goods (70% of Neostell JV) |
(7.89) |
|||
Expenses (admin and R&D are not separated in accounts) |
(145.07) |
|||
Tax, interest and working capital |
3.17 |
|||
Interest and working capital adjustments |
2.43 |
|||
Other projects |
Nominal value |
18.39 |
||
Total current indicative value |
54.90 |
|||
Shares in issue (27 June 2016) |
42.59m |
|||
Value per share before dilution |
€1.29 |
|||
Warrants and options |
5.01m |
|||
Diluted value per share |
€1.15 |
|||
Source: Edison Investment Research. Note: NPV figures are discounted at 12.5% after probability adjustment.
There are 2.18m remaining share options with various expiry dates up to 2025; this includes founder options that could convert to 20,500 shares. In addition, in 2015 Neovacs issued 7.5m warrants linked to the 2015 US investment, which can convert to 2.83m shares by 1 July 2020. This gives 5.01m potential new shares if all are exercised.
Financials
In FY15, Neovacs had a gain of €4.3m as governmental loans in relation to the previous TNF-kinoid project were deemed non-repayable as the project failed. Operational costs in FY16 are expected to be €14m, as against €12.5m in 2015, due to Phase IIb costs. The FY15 cash use was €7.8m before funding. Year-end cash was €6.1m but the €1m upfront deal fee from CKD was due in Q116 with a tax credit of €1.8m also due. A June 2016 rights issue raised €8m gross at €0.85/share issuing 9.5m new shares. The net cash from this issue is assumed by Edison to be €7.6m. This gives Neovacs sufficient cash for at least 2016. Additional funding of €8m in 2017 is assumed by Edison to be needed. The next Korean milestone could be paid in H217 if the Phase IIb is successful; management expects about €1.75m. We estimate a tax credit of €3.1m (30% of R&D) for 2016, paid in 2017. Further funding needs will vary depending on the completion and value of partnering deals in 2018.
Exhibit 15: Financial summary
€000s |
2014 |
2015 |
2016e |
2017e |
Year end 31 December |
GAAP |
GAAP |
GAAP |
GAAP |
PROFIT & LOSS |
|
|
||
Revenue |
161 |
1,181 |
0 |
1,750 |
Cost of Sales |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Gross Profit |
161 |
1,181 |
0 |
1,750 |
EBITDA |
(9,604) |
(11,227) |
(13,982) |
(12,570) |
Operating Profit (before GW and except.) |
(9,604) |
(11,227) |
(13,982) |
(12,570) |
Intangible Amortisation |
(50) |
(52) |
(50) |
(50) |
Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Operating Profit |
(9,653) |
(11,279) |
(14,032) |
(12,620) |
Net Interest |
(158) |
0 |
(50) |
(50) |
Exceptional items |
(7) |
4,188 |
0 |
0 |
Profit Before Tax (norm) |
(9,762) |
(11,227) |
(14,032) |
(12,620) |
Profit Before Tax (FRS 3) |
(9,818) |
(7,091) |
(14,082) |
(12,670) |
Tax |
2,306 |
2,565 |
2,860 |
2,928 |
Profit After Tax (norm) |
(7,457) |
(8,662) |
(11,172) |
(9,691) |
Profit After Tax (FRS 3) |
(7,513) |
(4,526) |
(11,222) |
(9,741) |
Average Number of Shares Outstanding (m) |
21.7 |
27.5 |
37.3 |
42.6 |
EPS - normalised (c) |
(34.4) |
(31.5) |
(29.9) |
(22.8) |
EPS - normalised and (fully diluted c) |
(31.6) |
(26.8) |
(26.5) |
(20.5) |
EPS - FRS 3 (c) |
(34.7) |
(16.4) |
(30.1) |
(22.9) |
Dividend per share (c) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
BALANCE SHEET |
||||
Fixed Assets |
371 |
433 |
433 |
433 |
Intangible Assets |
9 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
Tangible Assets |
73 |
51 |
51 |
51 |
Investments |
289 |
375 |
375 |
375 |
Current Assets |
8,985 |
11,120 |
7,541 |
5,799 |
Stocks |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Debtors |
2,819 |
4,446 |
4,428 |
4,496 |
Cash |
5,625 |
6,087 |
2,527 |
717 |
Other current assets |
542 |
586 |
586 |
586 |
Current Liabilities |
(2,012) |
(4,924) |
(4,924) |
(4,924) |
Creditors |
(1,978) |
(4,170) |
(4,170) |
(4,170) |
Short term borrowings |
(34) |
(754) |
(754) |
(754) |
Long Term Liabilities |
(4,568) |
(260) |
(260) |
(8,260) |
Long term borrowings |
(1,289) |
0 |
0 |
(8,000) |
Other long term liabilities |
(3,280) |
(260) |
(260) |
(260) |
Net Assets |
2,776 |
6,369 |
2,790 |
(6,952) |
CASH FLOW |
||||
Operating Cash Flow |
(10,175) |
(10,255) |
(13,994) |
(12,668) |
Net Interest |
(158) |
0 |
(50) |
(50) |
Tax |
2,306 |
2,565 |
2,860 |
2,928 |
Capex |
(25) |
(19) |
(20) |
(20) |
Acquisitions/disposals |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Financing |
9,666 |
8,170 |
7,643 |
8,000 |
Dividends |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Net Cash Flow |
1,613 |
461 |
(3,561) |
(1,810) |
Opening net debt/(cash) |
(2,897) |
(4,303) |
(5,333) |
(1,772) |
HP finance leases initiated |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Other |
(209) |
569 |
0 |
(8,000) |
Closing net debt/(cash) |
(4,303) |
(5,333) |
(1,772) |
8,037 |
Source: Neovacs accounts, Edison Investment Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|