PYC (ASX) Ann: AGM Company Presentation

Originally posted by hottod ↑

Thought perhaps that I should add what I see as another possible explanation.

As discussed in a post a couple of weeks ago (ASO, DMD and CPPs – 05/11/18))

Just months prior to eteplirsen’s approval by the FDA, Biomarin was unsuccessful in gaining approval for its ASO exon 51 skipping drug, drisapersen (Kyndrisa). Drisapersen was one of four exon-skipping ASOs (the others targeting 44, 45 and 53) that Biomarin purchased from the Dutch company, Prosensa for up to $840 m in 2014.

The FDA rejected drisapersen due partly to safety concerns, but primarily because clinical trials of the drug had not effectively demonstrated a clear increase in levels of dystrophin. In June 2016, Biomarin announced that it was discontinuing further clinical and regulatory development of drisapersen and its other pipeline ASO drugs.

A year later, following an ongoing patent dispute between Biomarin and Sarepta related to the use of exon-skipping ASOs in the treatment of DMD, Sarepta agreed to pay BioMarin a one-time $35 million payment, plus regulatory and commercial milestone payments and royalties for exons 51, 45, 53, and possibly on future exon-skipping products. Sarepta currently has therapies targeting exons 45 and 53 in Phase 3 development. Under the settlement terms, BioMarin retains rights to convert that license to a co-exclusive right should it decide to proceed with its own exon-skipping therapy for DMD (its ASO therapies targeted exons 51, 45, 53 and 44).

Although exon-skipping ASOs have disappeared from Biomarin’s pipeline on its company website, its scientists, together with researchers from Leiden University, authored a paper (submitted December 2016 and published in Molecular Therapy in January 2018), titled “Cyclic Peptides to Improve Delivery and Exon Skipping Antisense Oligonucleotides in a Mouse Model for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy”. The authors describe previous mouse model experiments aimed at improving ASO delivery, including use of the TAT-peptide. In seeking an alternative approach the researchers used phage display screening of a cyclic peptide library to identify candidate muscle-homing peptides suitable for conjugation. Peptides for the experiment were sourced from New England Biolabs. The researchers then conjugated the lead peptide to an ASO for their DMD mouse model experiment, achieving a 2-fold increase in delivery and exon skipping in all analyzed skeletal and cardiac muscle. While selected as a muscle-homing peptide, uptake was also increased in the liver and kidney. The compound was observed to be well tolerated. The authors concluded that the identified peptide had the potential to facilitate delivery of AONs (ASOs) and perhaps other compounds to skeletal and cardiac muscle.

Biomarin was revealed as one of a number of “target customers” for Phylogica at last year’s AGM. It will be interesting to see if the therapeutic read outs from Phylogica’s flagship program of CPP ASO conjugates in DMD will spark interest from Biomarin in resurrecting its ASO in DMD program.

If Biomarin (which has been identified as a “target customer” by Phylogica) wants to see a return on the $840 million it paid in 2014 for Prosensa’s four exon-skipping ASOs, it needs to find a way to deliver the ASOs into the required cell tissues with higher efficiency and reduced toxicity. And because Sarepta currently dominates this space, Biomarin's results would need to outperform those of Sarepta’s PPMOs.

In this scenario, PYC could source its PMOs from Biomarin and then measure its results against available data from Sarepta’s PPMO studies (because that is the standard which must be outclassed). Hence all the mentions of Sarepta's PPMO program.

Biomarin’s market cap, by the way, is double that of Sarepta.

Expand

Hi Hottod ... thank you for your quality posts. Could I ask, if the lead program for Phylogica ASO’s is not DMD or in muscle, what are the other leading possibilities in your opinion. At the AGM the CEO did note that DMD is a crowded space and would probably not be the lead programme (but won’t be ignored). Note I don’t know enough of the science to understand how crazy a question this might be, but i would be interested in your thoughts.
Timbo

No.	Vol.	Price($)
1	15857	$1.26

No.

Vol.

Price($)

15857

$1.26

Price($)	Vol.	No.
$1.30	700	1

Price($)

Vol.

No.

$1.30

700

No.	Vol.	Price($)
1	15857	1.260
1	418	1.245
1	25000	1.225
1	10000	1.220
1	850	1.200

No.

Vol.

Price($)

15857

1.260

418

1.245

25000

1.225

10000

1.220

850

1.200

Price($)	Vol.	No.
1.300	700	1
1.310	7427	1
1.320	10000	1
1.340	9300	1
1.400	18450	1

Price($)

Vol.

No.

1.300

700

1.310

7427

1.320

10000

1.340

9300

1.400

18450

(20min delay)
Last $1.28		Change 0.020(1.59%)		Mkt cap ! $743.6M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
$1.26	$1.28	$1.24	$46.67K	37.07K

Hi Hottod ... thank you for your quality posts. Could I ask, if...

Haranga jumps +7% on Lincoln acquisition

Ionic Rare Earths falls -7% as momentum slips on vague production update

HotCopper Trends: Wall of quarterlies dominate; then there's Micro-X & Ionic

Neurizon inks $1.5M loan against R&D Tax Rebate

ASX Market Close: Index rebounds as investors buoyant | July 30, 2025

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News

Hi Hottod ... thank you for your quality posts. Could I ask, if...

Top Stories

Haranga jumps +7% on Lincoln acquisition

Ionic Rare Earths falls -7% as momentum slips on vague production update

HotCopper Trends: Wall of quarterlies dominate; then there's Micro-X & Ionic

Neurizon inks $1.5M loan against R&D Tax Rebate

ASX Market Close: Index rebounds as investors buoyant | July 30, 2025

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News