This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk11: Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to Allergen Therapeutics' fourth quarter and year-end 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 1-1 on your telephone keypad. At this time, please be aware that today's conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Christine Cassiano, Chief Communications Officer.
spk15: Ms. Cassiano, please go ahead.
spk18: Thank you, Operator, and welcome to our call. Today, after market closed, Allogene issued a press release that provides a business update and financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2022. This press release and today's webcast are both available on our website. Following our prepared remarks, we will host a Q&A session. We ask you to limit your questions to one per person as we will keep this call to an hour and do our best to get to as many as possible. Joining me today are Dr. David Chang, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Zachary Roberts, Executive Vice President of Research and Development, and Dr. Eric Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer. During today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These may include statements regarding the success and timing of our ongoing and planned clinical trials, data presentations, regulatory filings, future research and development efforts, manufacturing capabilities, and 2023 financial guidance, among other things. These forward-looking statements are based on current information, assumptions, and expectations that are subject to change. A description of potential risks can be found in our earnings press release and latest SEC disclosure documents. Your caution not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements and Allogene disclaims any obligation to update these statements. I'll now turn the call over to David.
spk14: Thank you, Christine, and thank you to all who have joined our call. 2023 will mark the fifth year since Allogene's infection. Each year, as our organization has matured, our work takes on a greater and greater importance for the patients we aim to serve. Algin was conceived shortly after the first autologous CAR T therapies were approved by the FDA. These therapies sparked a new industry and have since advanced to become some of the most potent anti-cancer agents for several types of hematologic malignancies. But the clinical success achieved by the autologous cell therapies has also heightened its demand as well as its inherent limitations. As an individualized therapy, The technology is limited by a lack of scalability and timely delivery. Today, it is estimated that 1 out of 10 patients in the U.S. who are indicated for CAR-T therapies are receiving this treatment. We are now facing a crisis as patient demand far outweighs the ability for thylacine therapies to meet the growing need, thereby constraining the growth of this modality and limiting access for patients. Unfortunately for patients, time is not a luxury they can afford. Every day matters when your disease is progressing. Yet we continue to hear from physicians that the complexities and delays in manufacturing are limiting which patients can access CAR-T therapy. At Allogene, we have always envisioned a different future for CAR-T, one in which cell products can be produced at scale shipped on demand, and delivered to all patients in need within days. I believe the data we presented at our R&D showcase late last year demonstrates it is no longer a question of if, but when this vision will become a reality. And as we begin our fifth year, I believe the timeliness of when we will be able to execute on this vision are becoming increasingly clear as evidenced by our ongoing and potentially phase two study in large B cell lymphoma. For those of us immersed in the development of cell therapy, it is easy to get caught up in the minutiae of clinical data comparisons while losing sight of the fact that what we are developing is fundamentally different from other modalities. In our two most advanced trials, 92% of all enrolled patients received products with 100% of infused product manufactured and released for product specification. In contrast to autologous cell therapy, patients were able to start treatment within two days of enrollment with no bridging treatment. And unlike by specifics, treatment consists of one-time dose, free of the hassle, inconvenience, and cumulative toxicity of chronic treatment that can continue for months on end. Allocarti is unique in its ability to provide an off-the-shelf product with one-time administration. True innovation is often met with initial skepticism. Those of us involved in the initial development of Ocala's CAR-T therapy remember the naysayers who said it could not be done. But today, despite its inherent limitations, the therapy, some of us played a role in developing a type pharma is considered a groundbreaking therapy for non-obstinacy lymphoma and has achieved blockbuster status. The skepticism toward allogeneic RT is no different today than what we faced at KITE. We have our share of critics, even in the face of compelling data that is comparable to the current groundbreaking therapy in non-obstinacy lymphoma. We also have data that shows an allogeneic RT is on the path of competing favorably in multiple myeloma, and early but exciting proof-of-concept data in phylocumor. While we are fortunate to be leaders in this innovative field, we know the only thing that will quiet the skeptics is execution, execution on clinical development, execution on manufacturing, execution for its BLA filing, and commercialization. Fortunately, we have outstanding talent and other resources to execute on the industry's first phase two potential pivotal trial. And it is for that reason I'm especially excited to have next to me Dr. Zachary Roberts. As our new Executive Vice President of Research and Development, there's no one I trust more to be on the front lines with investigators as we progress our pipeline and bring in the next era of CAR T products. And someone who understands that the urgency and challenge we often embrace is to give back to patients and their loved ones something they so desperately desire, time. I would like to invite Zach to provide his perspective on our R&D priorities for the upcoming year.
spk12: Thank you, David. Before I talk about specific R&D activity, I'd like to share a few thoughts about why I joined Allergy. I think that when you join an organization, it's an opportunity to bring a fresh perspective and regain sight of forest through the trees. So despite knowing many of my new AllerGene colleagues for quite some time and having followed the company since inception, I initially carried an outsider's perspective. And when I had the opportunity to join the R&D showcase last November, I was freshly exposed to everything about AllerGene, the professionalism of the leadership team, the engagement of its stakeholders, the passion of its investigators. But what really stayed with me on the Uber ride back to the airport was the transformational clinical data that had been shared. I saw three product candidates across three different malignancies generating meaningful clinical results in patients who had few other options. And all of this with an Allogeneic Cell Therapy product. For Allogene to have achieved all this in four years was no small feat and got me very excited about what might be possible for this organization's future. As an oncologist who used to care for these patients and someone who has been working every single day in cell therapy development for most of the last decade, I knew that results like those that were shared at the showcase don't come around very often. Shortly after the showcase, when I was offered the opportunity to join Allogene as the head of R&D, I didn't walk. I ran towards the forest. So now, as an insider, let's talk about the trees. I've now been in Allogene for about two months, and as David has rightly noted, the next critical steps are all about execution. Let's first talk about our CD19 program. I've had the pleasure of spending the last few weeks with many of our trial investigators, and I can share that they are equally excited about our phase one data, our ongoing phase two study, and what the availability of allocard T may mean for their patients. We are very proud of the fact that we are the first and only allogeneic card T company to generate highly competitive efficacy and durability data in large B cell lymphoma. Data from the Phase I trials of ALLO501 and ALLO501A support the ability of a single administration of an allogeneic CAR-T product to generate deep and durable responses that are comparable to those with approved autologous CAR-T therapies. This puts us in a league of our own, and we welcome the responsibility that comes with it. As of our R&D showcase data cut, the overall response rate and complete response rate was 67% and 58%, respectively, among the 12 patients treated with the single-dose FCA90 regimen using alloy process material. Of patients available at six months who received single-dose FCA90, the ongoing CR rate was 50%, and all CRs at six months were durable at 12 months. The longest CR ongoing at 26 months. With four patients still awaiting six months follow-up time at the data cut, the lowest possible durable CR rate is 33%. And that would remain solidly in the range established by the approved autologous CAR T-cells for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. What is a standout among our data is that all of the patients treated in our trials received an inspec product. And one could argue that on an intent-to-treat basis, we have the potential to exceed the efficacy bar established by autologous products. In our CD19 phase 1 trials, we demonstrated a manageable safety profile with no observed dose-limiting toxicities, severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, or any graft-versus-host disease. So we now have clinical trial data that shows that we may be able to offer an off-the-shelf CAR-2 product that has a favorable safety profile in addition to competitive efficacy that is immediately available to all appropriate patients. Enrollment has begun in the potentially pivotal Phase II allogeneic CAR-T clinical trial, Alpha-2, with Allo501A in the EXPAND trial, which is intended to demonstrate the contribution of Allo647 to the lymphodepletion regimen, which will be open to enrollment early in the second quarter. We are preparing for a Phase III study in earlier line large B-cell lymphoma targeting trial initiation in the first half of 2024. Now, moving to BCMA. Just last month, data from the Phase I universal trial of Allo715 in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma was published in Nature Medicine. The corresponding editorial by renowned NCI researchers, Drs. Jennifer Brudno and Jim Kokenderfer, reinforced what we've known to be true. The universal study has demonstrated that an off-the-shelf CAR-T treatment is feasible in myeloma. Let me quote from their editorial specifically as it relates to Allo715. Quote, its development drives the field forward on the road to more effective off-the-shelf cellular therapies, end quote. We are proud that OWL715 is the first allogeneic anti-BCMA CAR T to demonstrate proof of concept in multiple myeloma with response rates that are similar to an approved autologous CAR T therapy. The most recent data we presented on OWL715 at ASH in December demonstrated substantial and durable responses. Through a median follow-up of 14.8 months, as of the October 11, 2022 data cutoff. The overall response rate was 67% in the SCA 60 cohort, and the very good partial response or better rate was 42%. All VGPR or better responses were minimal residual disease negative. The median duration of response was 9.2 months, with the longest ongoing response at 24 months. Important to this patient population, none of the patients received bridging therapy and patients initiated lymphodepletion as early as zero days from enrollment and with a median of five days from enrollment. The safety profile of LL715 was manageable with low grade and reversible neurotoxicity and no GVHD. Eight patients or 29% experienced grade three or higher infections and eight patients experienced prolonged grade three or higher cytopenias. We remain very excited about what Allo715 has shown in the clinic. We also do recognize that the bar for efficacy in multiple myeloma is high in patients who are able to receive autologous CAR T-cells. As we assess all of our options for our BCMA program, we are evaluating manufacturing process improvements across our BCMA candidates, Allo715 and Allo605, to achieve optimal performance. Through our work in hematologic malignancies, we've established proof of concept for our platform, including a proprietary approach to lymphodepletion using allo647 to create a window for cell expansion and persistence. But this is just the beginning. Our strategy in solid tumors is to start with a target in CD70 that bridges both heme and solid tumors in order to establish proof of concept. Allo 316 is being evaluated in Traverse, a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed refractory renal cell carcinoma. In RCC, standard of care includes two main classes of therapies, TKIs, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Once patients have been exposed to drugs in each of these classes, there are few remaining options. One recent benchmark is data from the pivotal Tavazanib trial in third-line RCC. The objective response rate was less than 20% in this study, and the median progression-free survival was less than six months. These data highlight the profound unmet medical need in advanced stage renal cell cancer. Initial data from our Traverse study demonstrated promising anti-cancer activity in the subset of nine patients with confirmed CD70-positive RCC. As of the data extract date, the disease control rate was 100%, including three patients who achieved a partial response with the longest response lasting until month eight. While early, it is exciting to see this type of activity in a dose escalation phase one trial. Across 17 patients treated, the safety profile was generally manageable with no GVHD. One dose limiting toxicity of grade three autoimmune hepatitis occurred in the second dose level, and enrollment has been expanded in that cohort. Grade three or higher prolonged cytopenia was observed in three patients. CRS was low-grade with the exception of one case of grade 3 CRS. Neurotoxicity was also low-grade, reversible, and seen in only three patients. The data that we've shared suggests that patients who have measurable CD70 expression tend to do better in terms of response than those who have absent or unknown levels of CD70. So we are now deploying a new investigational in vitro companion diagnostic assay designed to prospectively assess CD70 expression levels to enhance patient selection. In the TraVERSE trial, we plan to complete dose exploration and initiate expansion cohort enrollment in 2023. We may also investigate allo316 for other CD70 expressing solid tumors and hematologic indications, or in combination with other anti-cancer therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our CD70 phase 1 dataset was also notable for the high levels of CAR T cell expansion and persistence that were observed in the study. We believe that this may relate to the use of a novel anti-rejection technology that we call Dagger. This technology is designed to enable Allocard T cells to resist rejection by the host immune cells, enabling a prolonged window of persistence during which Allocard T cells can expand and actively target and destroy cancer cells. The Dagger platform arms allocard T cells with a CD70 targeting receptor designed to recognize and deplete alloreactive CD70 positive host T cells while also masking the CD70 molecule expressed on the allocard T cells themselves, thus preventing the allocard T cells from killing one another in a phenomenon known as fratricide. As presented at the forefront of cancer immunotherapy T stone symposia, Preclinical data indicate that CD70 Dagger CAR T cells can be combined with other anti-tumor CARs in a single cell, providing both protection from allorejection and dual specificity killing capability, thus offering a differentiated next-generation product candidate profile. As we progress our pivotal trials, every one of us in Allogene are keenly aware that this is what we came to do, get products approved for patients who desperately need them. This is our opportunity. We have everything that we need to make this happen and nothing is more exciting than executing on what others might consider to be the daunting challenge of creating an innovative new therapeutic modality. I will now turn the call over to Eric.
spk09: Thank you, Zach. Let me start by saying something that may be obvious to those of you who have already had the pleasure of meeting Zach, and it's certainly evident to those of us who have been working with Zach on a daily basis for the past two months. Jack's ability to see the forest is represented by the full breadth of our advancing pipeline that has brought an infectious enthusiasm to Allogene. And at the same time, his ability to help navigate paths forward through the trees has been inspirational to our research and development team. I'm confident that those of you who have yet to meet Zach will be as excited about what he brings to Allogene as we are. Turning to our finances, as we all weather what continues to be a challenging market, especially for small and mid-cap biotechnology companies, We are very proud of how our team is adjusting and responding to this challenge. We appreciate that having a strong balance sheet is critical to our ability to deliver shareholder value. As you may have been able to discern from the comments by David and Zach, one of the critical elements of our corporate and financial strategy is to efficiently deploy our capital resources to support key programs toward value creating milestones. To that end, we continue to evaluate all opportunities to best move our pipeline forward with a focus on our highest potential candidates. We remain very fortunate to be in a strong financial position, ending the year with $576 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments, and no debt. In 2023, we will continue to take important measures designed to prolong our cash runway. In order to achieve this, we are focusing on our most critical activities, including number one, executing on our phase two CD19 pivotal trials, Number two, evaluating the best path forward for multiple myeloma. And number three, continuing to progress our Allo 316 trial in solid tumors. We strongly believe we have the operational capabilities, scientific insight, and capital resources needed to succeed in these endeavors. The company expects a decrease in cash, cash equivalents, and investments of approximately $250 million in 2023. Based on current expectation, the company expects the cash runway will be sufficient to fund operations into 2025. We expect our full year 2023 GAAP operating expenses to be approximately $350 million, which includes estimated non-cash stock-based compensation expense of approximately $90 million. This guidance excludes any impact from potential business development activities. Turning to 2022 financials, research and development expenses were $75.4 million for the fourth quarter, which includes $7.4 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense, with full year expenses of $256.4 million, which includes $42.5 million in expenses associated with non-cash stock-based compensation. General and administrative expenses were $21 million for the fourth quarter of 2022, which includes $9.8 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense, and $79.3 million for the full year, which includes $41.1 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense. For the full year of 2022, our net loss was $332.6 million, or $2.32 per share, including non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $83.6 million. With that, we will now open the call for your questions.
spk11: Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question or comment at this time, please press star 1-1 on your telephone keypad. In order to answer as many people's questions as possible, we ask that you please limit yourself to one question. If you have additional questions, feel free to reenter the queue if you have enough time. Again, if you have a question or comment, please press star 1-1 on your telephone keypad. Our first question or comment comes from the line of Michael Yee from Jefferies. Stand by. Mr. Yee, your line is open.
spk17: Hi, good afternoon. This is Jana on for Mike. Thanks for taking our question. We wanted to catch up on CD19. What are you seeing in terms of the enrollment for the pivotal child, and do you have any feedback to share from investigators? And just real quick on multiple myeloma, do you have any latest thinking on the franchise, and when might we see some data from the TurboCar program? Thank you.
spk14: Hi, Jenna. This is David Chang. I'm going to pass the question to Zach, and going with the spirit of one question, you know, we will just answer the first question.
spk12: Thanks, David. So the enrollment in the Alpha 2 study is continuing according to plan. We are continuing to expand the number of sites that are open to enrollment, and we'll be expanding outside of the U.S. into additional geographies over the course of the year. As far as investigator feedback goes, I recently had an opportunity to catch up with several investigators at the tandem meeting in Orlando, and enthusiasm is extremely high for the trial in general and for enrollment.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Tyler Van Buren from Goldman Sachs. I mean, from Cowan. Mr. Van Buren, your line is open.
spk21: Hey there, guys. Thanks very much for taking the question. Given the prioritization of the earlier line large B-cell lymphoma trial for Allo501A, can you elaborate on the rationale behind that decision and discuss the potential design and timeline of the trial? In particular, I'm curious to know if it's expected to be identical to the YesCard, a second-line SUMA7 trial, or if there might be some differences.
spk14: Hi, Tyler. For a second, I thought that you had moved your position to Goldman. In terms of how we are thinking about the earlier line, I mean, obviously, we see this as an opportunity. We have a very compelling data in the two-plus lines where we are already doing a pivotal study. And, you know, in terms of, you know, what is the sweet spot, you know, to which we can sort of advance the program to the earlier line, that's very much in discussion. What you're referring to as a transplant-eligible, you know, large B cell lymphoma, obviously that is one of the opportunities, but we are also exploring a different path towards maybe a different population or maybe even to an earlier line.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Salveen Richter from Goldman Sachs. Mr. Richter, your line is open.
spk16: Hello. This is for Salveen. On the potentially pivotal trial in multiple myeloma, where do you stand on regulatory discussions, and I guess whether that trial would be pivotal? And then could you also comment on transitioning to CELS-Forge-1? Thank you for taking our question.
spk14: All right. Let me take that question, and I'm just going to answer the multiple myeloma question. In terms of multiple myeloma, you know, before going into that, you know, 2023 for us is really the year of focus. And, you know, where we are putting all our attention is, you know, allofiber 1A alpha-2 study, you know, based on the compelling data we have. and also the study that we are conducting is potentially a pivotal study. So for all the obvious reasons, our priority is the Alpha 2 study. And along with that, as we have just talked about, you know, moving the program to the earlier lines, that becomes another important option, you know, that we want to exercise as early as possible. You know, we'll be talking about the study design with the investigators and hopefully If all goes well, you know, potentially start the earlier line study by, you know, 2024. Now, that brings your question about the multiple myeloma. Where we stand right now is that given the need for us to prioritize, we are thinking that the potential pivotal study for the multiple myeloma will not be 2023. It will be pushed out to more likely 2024, during which time we will continue to engage the regulatory bodies for potential feedback, as well as looking at the manufacturing process in order to make sure that we can optimize the process as best we can across different assets that we have, whether it's 715 or ALA 605.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Brian Chang from J.P. Morgan. Mr. Chang, your line is now open.
spk19: Hey, David and team. Thanks for taking my question. It's good to see that you're on track to complete enrollment for ALPA II in the first half of 24. Do you need some patience to be dosed of the alloy manufacturing process before filing for approval? And any updates on getting the alloy process in? Thank you.
spk14: Hi, Brian. I'm going to ask Zach to respond to your question. Hey, Brian. So the alloy X process is currently in. I think his question was alloy process.
spk12: Yeah, the alloy process. Yeah, sorry about that. I got confused. So, yes, the alloy process is the process that we're taking forward in both of the pivotal trials for Allo 501A. This is the manufacturing process that we discussed at length at the RDS. And, you know, the one that we believe is the most appropriate to take forward into the pivotal study. So all of the patients dosed in both Xpand and Alpha-2 will be dosed with the alloy process. Sorry about that.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Mark Breidenbach from Oppenheimer. Mr. Breidenbach, your line is open.
spk22: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I have a question on the Dagger platform, actually. I guess I'm wondering if this is something that's going to be mostly reserved for solid tumor programs or if this could be eventually deployed across, you know, the entire pipeline. And kind of what are its limits in your view? Is this something that is going to supersede the turbo car approach or maybe even supersede lymphodepletion as we think about it today, given what we've seen so far from the Traverse study? Any comments you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you.
spk12: Thanks very much for that question. It's an excellent one, and I think it really defines how we're thinking about Dagger. As you rightly point out, the expansion data that we saw in the early data from the traverse study do support that there is a mechanism by which the dagger technology is promoting the expansion and persistence of these cells. Additionally, we recently shared preclinical data showing that when we combine a CD70 card that possesses the dagger capability with other anti-tumor cars such as CD19, we actually do see the benefit of both the killing of the alloreactive host T cells, but also enhancement of the killing activity of the car in general by including dual targeting capability. So I think that we consider these as hints as the potential expansion of this stagger technology into additional CAR T products going forward. Now, whether this will replace the turbo approach or not, I think that these two technologies are complementary, and we are doing lots of work both in the clinic as well as preclinically to try to explore where these two technologies may be deployed, and both in heme and solid tumors.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Michael Schmidt from Guggenheim Partners. Mr. Schmidt, your line is open.
spk10: Hey, this is Paul on for Michael. Thanks for taking our question. Just one on 501A. How are you currently thinking about the XUS opportunity for the program and then what do you need to see to opt into the XUS rights for 501A? Thank you.
spk09: Yeah, I'll take that. This is Eric. Thanks for the question. As you know, historically, SurveyAid held the XUS rights and we were co-developing the product LO501A with Serbia on a global basis. As of September of last year, Serbia opted out of that co-development plan and provided us the option to opt into the ex-US rights. We have yet to pick up that option, and we believe that we have the potential to pick up that option in the future. Our decision in whether we exercise the option or not will obviously be based on a number of factors, some financial, some developmental. So, you know, stay tuned. We hope to provide you with an update on that in the future.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of John Newman from Canaccord Genuity. Mr. Newman, your line is open.
spk07: Hi there, guys. Thanks for taking my question. So I just had a question about the patient enrollment for the pivotal studies for 501. Just wondered if you could talk about some of the ways that you are ensuring that you're getting sort of patients that are optimally suited for CAR-T treatment. I think there's some concern, not a whole lot, that some physicians may sort of, for whatever reason, not want to put patients that they would normally put on ontologist therapy on your treatment. Also, I noticed in the press release, patients may receive treatment in the outpatient setting at the investigator's discretion. Just curious if you can talk about exactly how that's going to be different if it's going to be sort of full outpatient or sort of a combination between what we think of as outpatient and inpatient. Thanks.
spk12: Hey John, this is Zach again. So I'll take the second question first about outpatient. So one of the things that we've benefited from is quite a lot of experience out there in the investigator community in dosing patients with autologous CAR T cells in an outpatient setting. And so a lot of the infrastructure that is required to safely handle this, and for bone marrow transplant for that matter, has already been established. Our investigators, you know, on a patient-by-patient basis are enthusiastic about potentially leveraging the existing infrastructure that they have built for autologous therapies for our trial as well. And then as far as the first question goes, I think investigators know very well which patients are best suited for CAR T cells in general. And, you know, our products have quite a number of benefits compared to autologous products that we've gone into great detail about previously. But that said, the investigators do know that not, you know, that they're not selecting patients that would not be eligible for autologous CAR T cells for our trial. That is universally not the case. They know very well which patients are likely to derive benefit from this modality, and they choose those patients appropriately.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Rene Benjamin from JMP Securities. Benjamin, your line is open.
spk08: Hey, great. Thanks, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. I'd love to just get some more color on the manufacturing tweaks that are taking place, especially for 605 and 715. Is it just about switching that process to the alloy process, or is Is it a completely different process, sort of like soup to nuts? And when do you think, you know, you might actually start resuming enrollment with the new process?
spk14: Let me take that question. What we have learned over the years is, as we've been saying all along, manufacturing process makes a big difference. And as we gather, not just the information from the manufactured products, we do have benefits of having taken those products into the clinics. And this is really the opportunity to interrogate not just the clinical data, but the translational data to really understand how the manufacturing plays out when the product goes into the clinics. So that is sort of fund of the knowledge that we have, and our process development team is using that knowledge to improve the manufacturing process and trying to optimize the product beyond, you know, what we have already done with the alloy process. So with the, you know, the focus on, you know, right now is really, you know, as Zach had mentioned in his prepared statement, you know, on the 605 and 715. And for the timeline of reintroducing those products back into the clinics, we are probably looking at sometime in 2024. Thank you.
spk11: Our next question or comment comes from the line of Luca Issi from RBC Capital Management. Issi, your line is open.
spk02: Oh, great. Thanks so much for taking the question. Congrats on the progress. Just a quick one, maybe on CD19. How should we think about timing of actually data readout for the pivotal for CD19? Obviously, the single-arm trial is larger but has ORR as primary endpoint, while the randomized trial is smaller but has PFS as primary endpoint, which will take longer time to readout. How will these factors offset each other? Would it be fair for us to assume that both trials will readout in early 2025? Thanks so much.
spk12: So what we've got to do is completion of enrollment in the first half of 2024. And as far as data availability goes, we are targeting to have data available for both Alpha 2 and Expand at roughly the same time.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Asfika Gunawadini from Truist. Ms. Gunawadini, your line is open.
spk20: Hi, guys. from Truist here. Thanks for taking my question. I just want to go back on the BCMA program quick and just want to confirm that the manufacturing optimization of 605 is still ongoing. And then related to that, to make the decision to choose which of these products you may want to actually take into a pivotal study, we've seen some data with 705. We haven't seen a whole lot with 605. David and Kim, just want to know about how many patients' worth of data would you want to see with this now optimized 605 before you make that decision? Thank you.
spk14: So, you know, many layers of questions there. You know, let me first start with the 605. We have three very small number of patients. And as we have previously stated back in November of last year, We already started looking at the manufacturing process of our 605. And now, as Jack has said, you know, we are also reviewing. Since we're not moving forward with the 705 programming to the pivotal for, you know, prioritization reasons, we have an opportunity to sort of further review the manufacturing process of 715. So in a way, we are looking at the manufacturing process of both 715 and 605 concurrently to come up with what we believe is more of an optimal manufacturing process. So, you know, the process optimization is exactly what we are talking about, and as I said, we are probably looking sometime in 2024 to reintroduce products back into the clinic. In terms of whether we will go with both or choose one, I think that's a little bit too early, and stay tuned.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Jack Allen from RW Baird. Mr. Allen, your line is open.
spk13: Great. Thank you so much for taking the questions, and congratulations to the team on the progress. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the longer-term catalyst surrounding Allogene, but I was hoping you could dive a little bit more into what we should expect throughout the course of 2023. Do you expect to provide updated data from the CD19 program and any additional comments on the alloy manufacturing process? And any thoughts there would be great. Thanks so much.
spk09: Jack, it's Eric. Thanks for your question. Yes, we do intend to present updated data sets on both our CD19 programs as well as our CD70 program and renal cell carcinoma. So those would be the anticipated updates that we've already signed up for. There could be additional updates from other programs if and when we choose. But those are the two milestones I want you to have at the top of your list. And certainly, as we go through the course of the year, there could be other updates as well, including on the alloy manufacturing process and the improvements we're making to the BCMA programs.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Kalpit Patel from B. Riley Financials. Mr. Patel, your line is now open.
spk01: Yeah, hi. Thanks for taking the question. Just one follow-up on the BCMA manufacturing process improvements. I guess, does the process improvements imply that you're not enrolling any more patients into the 605 trial, or is that still ongoing?
spk09: We actually said back at the showcase event in November that we had paused enrollment in the 605 study as we worked toward an approved manufacturing process for that construct. So that is correct. We are not currently enrolling in the 605 phase one study.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of David Dye from SMBC. Mr. Dye, your line is now open.
spk06: Thank you for my questions. I have a question on allo steel 316 . Could you perhaps give some additional color on the CD70 expression profile of these CD70 positive patients? What's the CD70 energy density and residual expression of these CD70 positive patients? And were you able to see any questions on these profiles with the depth of response?
spk14: So, David, this is Dave Chang. You know, you were breaking up a little bit, but I think the question was centered around CD7D expression in ALLO316 program. In the R&D showcase, we, you know, highlighted approximately 15 patients that we have treated to date with the ALLO316 program. And what we have seen was CD7D expression does make a big difference. and the responses that we have seen, and there were three out of nine patients who have achieved a objective tumor response. And all those cases occurred in the CD70 positive population. And we are also looking at the level of CD70 expression to further optimize the patient selection, but that is an ongoing process.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Jason Gerberry from Bank of America. Mr. Gerberry, your line is now open.
spk05: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to maybe, David, just get your thoughts on the Galapagos point-of-care manufacturing model, just as a competitive, I guess, approach, you know, given your key to the value proposition, you know, for 501A is the shortening of the vein-to-vein time. They claim to kind of have a seven-day period. Ultimately, there's like two to five days that may transpire between getting 501A ultimately from time of treatment decision. So overall, just maybe less curious to get your perspective on that as a competitive approach. And then for my follow-up, just on the BCMA update, just given the likely shift earlier lines here with the CARMA-3 and CARTITUDE-4 updates, You know, that's going to make for just an elevated bar and changing landscape. So, you know, as you guys think about longer term, you know, reentering the competitive mix, you know, is it an elevated bar ultimately? I'm just kind of curious how you guys think about sort of the evolution into earlier lines and how that will play into your future development.
spk14: All right. So, you know, two questions there. You know, let me take the Galapagos as well as the, you know, the point of care manufacturing. You know, when, you know, I was at Kite, as we're looking at the future of cell therapy, I mean, certainly the ease of autologous manufacturing, which there were many opportunities, could play a role. But, you know, when we sort of think about from the allogeneic angle, the benefit that allogeneic product provides is more than just vein-to-vein time. You're talking about patients not having to undergo leukophoresis, not having to be, you know, very, you know, carefully subjected to the, you know, the manufacturing slot availability and leukophoresis slot availability. And also, you know, manufactured product and meeting the specification, you know, which as we have learned, you know, as more and more palace party products are coming online, you know, all these things, you know, does play a role. And also, I think nowadays everybody's aware the lentiviral availability that also plays a role in the manufacturing of CAR T. In our case, manufacturing of one lot allows treatment of many patients. Yes, you know, it's great to see the progress being made in, you know, sort of different ways of manufacturing with alloscar-T, but I think the allogeneic benefits still far outweighs what the autologous manufacturing can do, even with a point-of-care manufacturing. And, you know, the BCMA with earlier lines, I'm going to ask that question as well. You know, right now, I think the BCMA or Carlos Carti, the main problem is that of access. I mean, the access problem will not go away near term. And we believe that The profile that we have with 715, if we can even, you know, slightly improve the response rate, you know, beyond what we already have, and we already have the durability that's matching up with one of the approved otitis carci products, I think we will remain quite competitive in the BCNA space.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Raju Prasad from William Blair. Mr. Prasad, your line is now open. Thanks for taking the question.
spk03: On the 316 program, you know, you mentioned CD70 levels and the potential for going into liquid tumors. Just wondered if you could provide a little more color on that. I think there was a paper recently on kind of EGFR relapse patients showing CD70 positive results. CD70 as a marker. Just kind of curious your thoughts on that as well and if that's kind of crossed your plate as far as potential indications to look at. Thanks.
spk12: Thanks, Raju, for the question. So CD70 we think is a great target for a number of reasons, including its wide distribution on a number of different malignancies. So, you know, we think of this really in terms of solid tumors versus heme malignancy. We picked RCC because its prevalence of CD70 expression is very high. As you pointed out, I think the field is learning more and more about additional solid tumors and subsets thereof where CD70 may also be expressed. And, you know, of course, we saw that same report that you did and are looking into that carefully. On the heme malignancy side, you know, obviously T cell malignancies, lymphomas, and leukemias are well described as having high expression of CD70. But it's also found on myeloid malignancies like AML, And also in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a substantial fraction of those patients expressed CD70. So I think there's a lot of options for us as we continue to execute in the renal cell carcinoma space for us to consider expanding in additional avenues.
spk11: Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Tony Butler from EF Hutton Group.
spk15: Mr. Butler, your line is now open. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Please go ahead, Mr. Butler. Thank you.
spk04: Sorry, the confusion. This is about 3070. I want to, you know, what you can share with us about the current status of the athlete development, you know, whether it's, you know, internal validation versus getting validation from CLIA, the potential timing of when you hope to be able to deploy this for patient selection, and whether the next CD70 program update will contain the possible number of patients who have been prospectively selected for expressions.
spk14: Yeah, so this is Dave Chang. Let me just answer the question about the status of the diagnostic assay. So, you know, we have developed and validated diagnostic assay to be used in the renal cell cancer patients. And, in fact, the assay has already been deployed to select the patients in the 316 study. As is the case with any kind of in vitro diagnostic assay that's being used for patients in different indications, additional validation has to be done, and all those work are ongoing. As I said, as Zach has said, the CD70 program, we have many different opportunities, and it remains as one of the most exciting programs that we're dealing with right now.
spk11: Thank you. I'm sure no additional questions in the queue at this time. I would like to turn the conference back over to management for any additional comments.
spk14: Thank you again for joining the call today. We can tell, you know, from all of this call, you know, we are most enthused ever about the opportunity before us. We are excited about the role we are playing to change the future of CAR T for patients and open up the floodgates to access. We look forward to sharing our continued progress with you throughout the year. Operator, you may now disconnect.
spk11: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may now log off and disconnect.
Disclaimer