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.
spk04: Good afternoon and welcome to the CARA Therapeutics Second Quarter 2021 Financial Results Conference Call. All participants are now in a listen-only mode. There will be a question and answer session at the end. Please be advised that this call is being recorded at CARA's request. I would now like to turn the call over to the CARA team. Please proceed.
spk03: Good afternoon. This is Cole Herlitz-Ferguson with Stern Investor Relations, and welcome to Kara Therapeutics' second quarter 2021 financial results and update conference call. The news release became available just after 4 p.m. today and can be found on our website at www.karatherapeutics.com. You may also listen to a live webcast and replay of today's call on the investor section of the website. Before we begin, let me remind you that statements made on today's call regarding matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Examples of these forward-looking statements include statements concerning the expected timing of the data readouts from the company's planned and ongoing clinical trials, the potential results of ongoing clinical trials, timing of future regulatory and development milestones for the company's product candidates, including the company's projected timeline for FDA review and potential approval and commercial launch of Corsiva injection for dialysis-dependent CKD-AP, the expected timeline for conducting meetings with the FDA concerning the company's product candidates, including oral Corsuva for NDD CKD-AP and AD-AP, the potential for the company's product candidates to be alternatives in the therapeutic areas investigated, the potential impact of COVID-19 on the company's clinical development and regulatory timelines and plans, and the company's expected cash reach. Because such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Risks are described more fully in caratherapeutics filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the risk factor sections of the company's most recent annual report on Form 10-K and its other documents subsequently filed or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements made in today's call speak only as of the date in which they were made. Kera Therapeutics undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they are made. Participating on today's call are Dr. Derek Chalmers, Kera's President and CEO, and Mr. Thomas Riley, Kera's Chief Financial Officer. I'll now turn the call over to Dr. Chalmers.
spk07: Okay, thank you, Cole, and good afternoon, everybody, and thanks for joining us today on the call. We have continued to make significant progress across our Cursiva development pipeline in the second quarter of this year with our MDA for our lead product candidate Cursiva injection for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus in hemodialysis patients. Under priority review, our interactions with the FDA have progressed efficiently and on schedule. And through the completion of our late cycle review, we remain on track for an expected PDUFA target action date of August 23rd of this year. In addition, we continue to make important progress across our oral Cursuva pipeline programs. To that end, in Q2 of this year, we reported top-line results from our Phase II care dose-ranging clinical trial of oral Cursuva for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus in atopic dermatitis patients. Based on pre-specified analysis of that data set, we've identified the appropriate patient population and dose strength to move forward, and pending the outcome of discussions with the FDA later this quarter, aim to initiate a phase three registration program in mild to moderate atopic dermatitis patients by year end. We also plan to meet with the agency in the coming months to discuss the appropriate predialysis CKD patient population to move forward to phase three in that program. And we continue to enroll patients in our ongoing trials in both PBC and Natalja Parasetica with the aim of establishing Cursiva's efficacy across a range of patient pathologies where treatment of chronic pruritus remains a significant unmet need. So the remainder of 2021 is shaping up to be truly transformative for the company with the potential approval and commercial launch of the first therapy for the treatment of pruritus in hemodialysis patients and potential advancement of oral Kursuva into registration trials. So with that, now let me provide you with some additional details across our main pipeline programs. beginning with our most advanced program, Kursuva injection. Following the FDA's acceptance of our NDA filing with priority review in the first quarter of this year, our dialogue with the agency has progressed well and without any review delays. Based on the outcome of our late cycle review last quarter, we currently do not anticipate any manufacturing inspection delays. and we expect the agency to meet their Pertuva target action date of August 23rd of this year. With that in mind, we remain focused, along with our U.S. commercialization partner, V4 Pharma, for the commercial launch of Krasuva injection in the second half of this year. As a reminder, based on V4's established U.S. nephrology sales force and their deep-rooted relationships with both large and small companies, U.S. dialysis organizations. CARA executed a strategic license agreement with V4 Pharma in the fourth quarter of last year for the commercialization of Kursuva injection in U.S. dialysis clinics under a CARA 60% V4 40% profit share arrangement. And we firmly believe this will support increased launch momentum and adoption of Kursuva in the U.S. market if approved. The financial considerations of the V4 agreement contribute significantly to the current strength of our balance sheet. Based on the terms of the license, the company will be eligible to receive an additional $50 million common stock investment upon U.S. regulatory approval of Kursuva injection, and post-launch, be eligible to receive payments of up to $240 million in U.S. sales-based commercial milestones. On Cursiva injection reimbursement activity, our ongoing interactions with CMS have been productive, and we plan to file both our Tdapa and HCPCS applications later in Q3, again assuming Cursiva injection approval. Turning to ex-U.S. commercialization planning, we were also very pleased to announce earlier this year that the European Medicines Agency accepted the MEA for diphalecephaline injection for the treatment of pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in hemodialysis patients. The EMA will review the application under the centralized marketing authorization procedure. And under our 2018 license agreement, V4 for Xenius will be responsible for the commercialization of Cursiva injection across European territories. with CARA eligible to receive tiered double-digit royalty payments based on annual net sales and up to $440 million in tiered commercial milestones, all of which are sales-related. The EMA is expected to render their decision in the second quarter of 2022. Turning now to progress on our ORO Cursiva pipeline, We recently announced top-line results from the CARE Phase II dose-ranging trial of oral Krasuva for the treatment of moderate to severe paralysis in atopic dermatitis patients. This trial, you'll recall, was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral Krasuva in 401 adult subjects with atopic dermatitis. Patients were stratified across treatment groups by disease severity. with 64% approximately of patients characterized by mild to moderate atopic dermatitis, and approximately 36% of patients characterized by moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Patients were randomized to three tablet strengths of oral Cursiva, 0.25, 0.5, and one milligram, taking BID versus placebo for 12 weeks, followed by four weeks of active extension. In this pre-specified analysis, A statistically significant change in the primary efficacy endpoint was observed in the mild to moderate, that is BSA less than 10%, patient population, which was evident at week one and sustained through the treatment period. In addition, a statistically significant improvement was also observed in the registration endpoint of four-point responder analysis in the mild to moderate patient population, with 32% of Cursiva-treated patients achieving a greater than four point reduction in NRS at week 12 versus 19% in the placebo group. So these care results have provided key information related to the defined patient group, that is mild to moderate, an active dose range, and an effect size on the registration four point responder endpoint from which to design appropriately powered phase three trials. So with this data in hand, And pending the outcome of our scheduled end of Phase II meeting with the FDA, we aim to initiate our first oral Cursiva Phase III program in mild to moderate atopic dermatitis patients by year-end 2021. We also plan to present additional data and additional analysis from the CARE trial at upcoming medical meetings later this year. So to step back and think a little in terms of ultimate potential positioning of oral Krasuva in the atopic dermatitis treatment landscape, it's clear that while pruritus is recognized as the definitive and indeed the most burdensome symptom of atopic dermatitis, therapeutic development to date in this area has focused on pro-inflammatory pathways rather than pruritogenic pathways. And there is a particular treatment gap amongst mild to moderate atopic dermatitis patients, which is approximately 80% of the AD population, where topical therapies do not adequately address chronic pruritus and systemic immunomodulatory agents are not available. So based on its observed profile from our care data set, we believe that oral Kursuva may provide clinical benefit for these patients and provide a systemic antipyretic therapeutic option where none presently exists. So moving on to our program in predialysis CKD patients with moderate severe pruritus. We recently conducted an end-of-phase two meeting with the FDA with the goal of defining a phase three program in predialysis CKD patients, which would allow us to leverage the substantial clinical efficacy and safety data set we've compiled with Cursiva injection in hemodialysis patients. The FDA has indicated the viability of stage five predialysis CKD patients as a population for a phase three program, and also indicated the potential to use the data from our previous trials of Cursiva injection in dialysis patients to support an approval based on a single phase three clinical trial. We are currently gathering more data related to pruritus incidence and severity in predialysis CKD patients and aim to meet with the agency in the fourth quarter of this year to further define a viable patient population for inclusion in a phase three program. Finally, to our ongoing phase two trials in primary biliary cholangitis and Natalgia parasitica. Before I get to that, I'd like to remind everyone that due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in accordance with the FDA's updated guidance for conducting clinical trials, we've implemented numerous clinical and operational measures to prioritize the health and most importantly, the safety of patients our employees, and study investigators, and minimize potential disruptions to our ongoing clinical studies. Paritis is a common symptom of cholestatic liver diseases. Twenty to 30 percent of these patients overall experience paritis, with that number rising to approximately 70 percent of patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Our 16-week phase 2 trial is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a 1-milligram tablet strength of oral Krasuva taken twice daily versus placebo and PPC patients with moderate to severe pruritus. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline in the weekly mean of the daily 24-hour worst HNRS score at week 16. We now expect to report top-line data from this study in the first half of 2022 due to delays in site initiations and patient enrollment resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, with the goal of further establishing the broad antipyretic applicability of Kursuva across patient populations with underlying pathologies, earlier this year, we initiated a phase two proof of concept trial of oral Kursuva for the treatment of moderate to severe pruritus in patients suffering from Natalgia Parasitica, a neuropathic disorder characterized by chronic pruritus in the upper to middle back. The phase two multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled eight-week study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral Krasuva in approximately 120 subjects with Natalgia Parasitica, randomized to receive oral Krasuva two megs twice daily versus placebo for eight weeks, followed by a four-week active extension period. Primary efficacy endpoint is a change from baseline, the weekly mean of the daily 24-hour worst-itch NRS score at week eight of the treatment period. And I'm pleased to note today that this trial has now passed the 50% enrollment mark, and based on our current recruitment rates, we expect full enrollment in this trial by the end of this year. So overall, our progress through Q2 and recent months has laid the foundation for a very significant second half of 21. We very much look forward to the expected PDUFA target action date later this month for Kursuva injection as potentially the first FDA-approved therapeutic for the treatment of pruritus in hemodialysis patients. And we're well-prepared, along with our partner, V4 Pharma, for commercial launch of Krasuva injection in the second half of this year. With a strong balance sheet, we're well-positioned to support our goal of initiating our first phase three program with oral Krasuva in mild to moderate AD patients by year end, as well as continue to progress our ongoing oral programs in CKD, in PBC, and Natalgia Parasitica patients. and we'll be updating you in all of the progress across these programs in the coming weeks and months. So, with that, I'll now turn it over to Tom to detail the financial results for this quarter.
spk01: Thank you, Derek. As a reminder, the full financial results for the second quarter of 2021 can be found in our press release issued today after the market closed. Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of June 30th, 2021, totaled $207.4 million compared to $251.5 million at December 31st, 2020. The decrease in the balance primarily resulted from cash used in operating activities of $44.7 million, partially offset by proceeds of $1 million from the exercise of stock options. For the second quarter 2021, net loss was 30.7 million, or 61 cents per basic and diluted share, compared to a net loss of 25.1 million, or 54 cents per basic and diluted share for the same period in 2020. There was no revenue for the three months ended June 30th, 2021. This compared to the 5.6 million during the same period of 2020. The company recognized $5.1 million of license and milestone revenue during the second quarter of 2020, $4.5 million of which related to our license agreement with VFM CRP, and $0.6 million of which related to achievement of a development milestone related to our license agreement with CKD Pharmaceutical Corp. The company also recognized $0.5 million of clinical compound revenue in the second quarter of 2020 to Mariucci Pharmaceutical Company and VFM CRP. Research and development expenses were $25.2 million for the three months ended June 30th, 2021, compared to $26.1 million in the same period of 2020. The lower R&D expenses in 2021 were principally due to a net decrease in costs associated with clinical trials and stock compensation expense, partially offset by a 10 million milestone earned by Interis Biopharma during the three months ended June 30th, 2021. General and administrative expenses were 5.7 million for the three months ended June 30th, 2021. This compared to 5.4 million in the same period of 2020. The higher G&A expenses in 2021 were principally due to an increase in payroll costs, commercial costs, and legal fees, partially offset by decrease in stock compensation expense. Other income net was 0.1 for the three months ended, June 30, 2021, compared to 0.6 million in the same period of 2020, The decrease in other income net was primarily due to a decrease in interest income resulting from a lower yield on the company's portfolio of investments in the 2021 period. Now turning to our finance guidance, based on timing, expectation, and projected cost for current clinical development plans, CARA expects that its existing unrestricted cash and cash equivalents and available for sale marketable securities as of June 30, 2021, will be sufficient to fund our currently anticipated operating expenses and capital expenditures into 2023 without giving effect to any potential milestone payments or potential product revenue under existing collaborations. I will now turn the call back over to the operator for Q&A.
spk04: Thank you. At this time, I would like to inform everyone, in order to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Again, that is star 1 to ask a question. We have your first question from Jessica with JP Morgan. Your line is open.
spk05: Thank you for taking the questions. Firstly, can you talk about the timing for the recently announced API supply agreement with PPL? Is this typical? Is this close to the PDUFA and does it affect the NDA in any way?
spk07: Yes, hi, thanks. Thanks for the question. No, it's a standard commercial API supply agreement. It does not affect the PDUFA date. or review of the NDA in any way whatsoever.
spk05: Okay, and for the oral program in non-dialysis setting, when do you expect to initiate the phase three program? Would you wait for the FDA decision for inclusion of earlier stage patients in the trial, or would you start irrespective of that?
spk07: No, so presently we're gathering both patient data and, you know, we have physician research underway in relation to incidence and severity of pruritus in predialysis CKD patients. And once we've gathered that information fully, our plan is to engage with the FDA probably in Q4 of this year to get an agreement on a viable pre-dialysis CKD population for inclusion in that phase three program. So it's likely that that would initiate early in 2022. Got it. Thank you. Thank you very much.
spk04: We have your next question from Chris Howardton with Jefferies. Your line is open.
spk02: Great. Congratulations. Very exciting times for Kara. Thanks for taking the questions. I guess for any... Yeah, of course. So for the... I guess for the maybe following up on the added criteria for the oral CKD program, was it the sense that the FDA did not feel like there was unmet need in less severe patients in stage 5, or was it you know, simply the case where there was insufficient information to make that kind of judgment call, I guess, is one question. And then the second question I had, Derek, was related to the atopic dermatitis program. I think, I feel like you described this last time, but if you could just remind us what it is that you'd like to align with the FDA with respect to that program. Is there something in addition to what you've described to us here in terms of going after the mild to moderate and the dose ranges that you believe to be active.
spk07: Right. Thanks, Chris. Let's start with your CKD question. I feel it's the latter of your two options in relation to the FDA. There's a lack of information presently in relation to pruritus incidence and the severity of that. in earlier stage CKD patients, relatively speaking towards in relation to stage five, which is obviously the final stage prior to hemodialysis. So with that in mind, our view has been we are, you know, empirically developing that information in collaboration with the National Kidney Foundation. We're running patient research. We're also running physician research. And we aim to get, if you like, more recent or more up-to-date information we can use there to define the breadth of the pruritus issue in the predialysis CKD population that we can then use as a basis for a discussion with the FDA in relation to where we define that population for inclusion in a Phase III. So it's really filling the gap in terms of lack of available information, if you like, real-time in those in those earlier populations that we have underway. So that's the progress there. And as I said, we aim to have that meeting with the FDA in the coming months to define that. In terms of AD, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there. Our view on the AD program is we're looking for a label to treat moderate to severe pruritus, specifically within mild to moderate AD patients that are in need of systemic antipyretic therapy. And our view there is that, you know, based on our Phase II data, we certainly see an appropriate profile for monotherapy that we can significantly reduce pruritus. It's a rapid onset. We have a very attractive safety profile for the drug. And so that's the basis of our study. and the Phase II briefing book, and I would like to see that program progress with the agency. Got it.
spk02: Okay. So it's simply, got it, alignment on trial design in the final regulatory path.
spk07: Exactly. Exactly. You know how that goes.
spk02: Okay. Always crystal clear. I guess maybe if you wouldn't mind, just a quick follow-up to maybe my previous question, is there, Do you have, what have you disclosed about, you know, your view of the epidemiology of the stage five patients that would experience moderate to severe pruritus?
spk07: Well, you know, based on the data that's out there, there's some published data out there you could find, Chris. You know, there's a DOPS analysis, two DOPS surveys looking at severity and frequency and pre-hemodialysis CKD patients. And it's certainly clear that the severity of the pruritus increases with the severity of CKD disease. And, you know, what we're looking at and beginning to see in our analysis is there is a somewhat similar frequency in stage four and stage five, particularly later stage four. And as you know, the dividing lines between those are somewhat arbitrary. It seems clear that physicians really, you know, regard regard the patient in terms of late stage versus earlier around these defined threshold versus EGFR definitions. And from their analysis and their feedback, it's clear that they regard pruritus as a significant issue in late stage predialysis CKD patients. So we're just trying to put some parameters around that population so we can define that more accurately and then talk to the agency again. on what should be included.
spk11: Okay. No, that's very clear. I appreciate the idea, Kelly. Okay. Well, thanks, Jack. Appreciate the questions. Thanks, Chris. Thanks for the questions.
spk04: We have your next question from David Anselm with Piper Sandler. Your line's open.
spk10: Hey, thanks. Just a few. So first on AD, I apologize if I missed this, but Is the FDA on board with the definition of mild to moderate per the body surface area being under 10%? I mean, is that something where there could be potential for daylight between you and the agency? Just give me a refresher on that in terms of the mild to moderate definition. That's number one. Number two is in liver disease. I guess the question here broadly is to the extent that you do show a signal in phase two, how wide of a population would you assess in a phase three program? Would it be primary biliary cholangitis or something more broadly in patients with hepatic impairment? And then thirdly, in notalgia parasitica, just I guess maybe getting into my skis here, but to the extent that you have a signal in that study, you know, what does a phase three program look like? Do you have to run two identical, you know, phase three studies? I realize it's a new indication, so maybe just help us understand how you would think about that to the extent you move forward. Thanks.
spk07: Yeah. Yeah, thanks, David. A three for you. It was well played. So on AD, yeah, the definition of mild to moderate, BSA less than 10% is pretty much standard. On that, they may add some IGA criteria to that, but that's a standard definition for mild to moderate disease based on the extent of lesions in those patients. I don't think that's contentious based on what we see on other labels out there. And as you know, it's a standard regulatory path to have labels specific for mild to moderate patients. That's not anything new for the agency. So that's that one. On liver disease, now, PBC, and I think we've had this discussion before, generally, you know, the reason you're entirely correct that paritis is broadly an issue across cholestatic liver diseases and a number of other liver-related disorders. And the reason we went for PBC initially is the incidence there and the severity is certainly higher than in other liver diseases, close to 70 percent there. So, that we regarded as, you know, an important parameter for enrolling patients that we wanted consistency in their pruritus. We've left that game long enough, and it's a patient-reported outcome, and, you know, one of the issues in controlling placebo rates here is not the inconsistency. and your pruritus response. So that was the reason to use PBC. It is, of course, an orphan indication, and that somewhat bitters a little bit in that it's much more difficult to recruit, and there are certain centers we'd like to get in there which have been difficult to get to because of the COVID restrictions, and that's a pity. But I think if we can push on here, we're going to see an uptick in our patients there soon, and, of course, we have high confidence in the mechanism for Kappa in that particular disease situation since we already knew that nalfurophene got that label extension in Japan, you'll recall, after their initial label for hemodialysis-associated varieties. So we have, you know, high conviction that this is a mechanism that should be effective here. Ultimately, running a Phase III program in PBC is unlikely for us. I think if we move into a Phase III program, And that will be a strategic decision when we get there in terms of what we're seeing in these other patient populations. It's likely to be a broader liver disease population so that we can actually run that program in an appropriate timeline. So that's the view on liver disease. We're really using PBC as a POC, if you like, as the efficacy in the liver disease situation. And it's somewhat similar for natalgia parasitica now. We think this is an interesting indication per se with probably, depending on which estimates you want to believe, probably around a million patients in the U.S., very common post-age 65, and really nothing available again for those patients. And I can tell you the entry scores we're seeing in these patients coming into that trial are on the severe end of moderate to severe So this is a significant clinical issue for those patients. Again, we're using that as a kind of a proof of concept patient group to cover the neuropathic itch area. It's a large patient population, estimated at some 8% of all the chronic pruritus in the U.S. So we wanted to make sure, again, we have a mechanism that's going to be applicable for, if you like, a nerve-related disorder that induces pruritus. So this we're using as our model population. Again, we'll look at the ultimate data and decide whether we push forward here into phase three. It's actually been surprisingly rapid enrollment here, which probably speaks to the size of the patient population. And again, if we look at this at the end of the day and it makes sense in terms of timeline to a label, that may be something we'd consider. But at this point, you know, we're interested in getting our first phase 3 in. It looks like it's going to be an atopic dermatitis, and then making sure, confirming efficacy from all these other patient populations, and then we'll decide, you know, which of those makes sense to push forward into larger trials once we have all that data. Does that answer your question, David? Did I speak too long?
spk10: You fell asleep. No, no, no, I'm here. I'm sorry. Yeah, I was on mute. But yes, no, that was very helpful.
spk07: Okay. Thanks, David. Thanks for your questions.
spk04: Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Again, that is star 1 to ask a question. We have your next question from Jason Gerberry with Bank of America. Your line is open.
spk08: Hi, guys. Thank you for taking my questions. I guess first question is just, Derek, how do you envision the ramp of a drug like IV Corsuva going in the first six months to a year in the dialysis setting? I'm just sort of curious, as you've looked at other products in this setting, like Parzivib, just sort of curious if you see a faster ramp or more cautious early slow trialing and then sort of a buildup, you know, after the first 12 months, you know, Just sort of curious, and I guess that has some implications for how the bundle could ultimately reset depending upon utilization and cost. And then my other question, there is some curiosity in the investment community about the potential impact of, I guess, super responders within the CALM trials in lieu of the Ardellix outcome and some other unfavorable FDA outcomes in the health space. So just curious if you can address that in your comfort level around those dynamics. Thanks.
spk07: Thanks, Jason. Thanks for dialing in. So in terms of RAMP and cursiva injection, I think we've had this kind of general discussion before, but it is an unusual market, highly consolidated in the U.S., as you know, with the vast majority of hemodialysis patients covered by two dialysis organizations, one of which we are aligned with in our corporate alliances, and that's Fresenius, the other being DaVita. So some 80% of U.S. trials are concentrated within those two dialysis organizations, and clearly utility of the drug there and protocol adoption of the drug there is highly important to success ultimately, which is one of the reasons we we decided to sign our initial agreement with V4 Fresenius, and as you know and recall from that, part of that agreement is we have a 50-50 profit split within Fresenius Clinic. And you're correct, looking at other drugs that have launched recently in that space, Parsabiv, of course, being the only example of a drug through Tdapa, yet there is a rapid adoption there, and we do see significant uptake in the first... in the first year, and certainly two years. And as you know, that's important for any drug in that space, as that's where we want to assess utility for future reimbursement post the DAPA. So looking at, if you like, V4's track record here with drugs such as Mercera in that space, they've certainly had great success with rapid uptake. And I do think the uptake curve in this particular market space is going to look different than a standard, you know, PCP space. We do anticipate a faster ramp with Krasuva injection. But good question, yeah, unusual market dynamics there. Then in terms of the data set we've used in our NDA for efficacy confirmation, now we're very comfortable with that and certainly based on the interactions we've had with the FDA through now our late cycle meeting. I don't think we're going to have any issues in relation to the data set we've used there from both CAM1 and CAM2 for that submission.
spk04: Okay, thank you.
spk07: Thanks, Jason.
spk04: We have your next question from Jack Padovano with Stifel. Your line is open.
spk09: Hi, this is Jack. I'm calling in for Annabelle Samimi. Thank you for taking our questions. So a few things related to the PDUFA date for IV course SUVA set this month. What types of commercial activities are your partners pursuing at this time to prep for launch? And what priority will V4 be positioning this in their portfolio? And what work has been done ahead of time of the PDUFA to file for the Tdapa payment from CMS? something that can be done ahead of approval or not? And additionally, just for some clarification with the Phase 3 AD trial, what kind of options do you expect to propose to the FDA as far as design adjustments outside of just tailoring to the mild to moderate population? Do you feel like there are other modifications you can make to improve the statistics?
spk07: Great, Jack. Thanks for the questions. Thanks for dialing in. So, let me, you know, I think I got all of those, but let me start with the PDUFA. So, I think, as I said on the call, we still expect PDUFA August 23rd. In terms of preparing for commercialization, as I said on the call, we will be assuming approval on August 23rd. We will actually be filing both our Tdapa and HCPCS applications the following month, so all that is in preparation of approval and will be underway that month. In terms of other commercial prep with V4 and in combination with V4, they'll be launching disease state awareness this quarter and actually into Q4 ahead of reimbursement. We are constantly talking with CMS in terms of reimbursement post-TDAPA, and that's been very productive and will continue. VFOR is working with large dialysis organizations, of course, some of whom they're very intimately related to, and midsize dialysis organizations on optimizing formulary and protocol placement once we get Cursiva injection approval. You will see launch activities at the upcoming ASN annual meeting in November related to Cursiva injection. And I certainly know that V4 has rep training well underway and are planning for a launch meeting in January of 2022. So all of that has been ongoing. And of course, prior to that, we had disease education directed from both the CARA MSL team and the V4 MSL team. So all that has been underway and continues to be underway in preparation for commercial launch. And then I think that covers your questions on Cursiva injection, Jack, but correct me if I'm wrong. And then your last question was phase three trial design and how we see position of that within the patient population. And, you know, our view there, and again, it's based on empirical data, and as I said in our in our pre-prepared remarks. We had known this was a heterogeneous population when we initiated that phase two trial. We pre-specified we were going to look at efficacy both in mild to moderate patients, which obviously have a different pathological presentation and actually different systemic immune profile than moderate to severe patients. And it's clear that we have a drug that shows its greatest efficacy in the mild to moderate population. So we'll also be presenting more data from that study a little later this year, which I think will help you in thinking about this, Jack, in terms of other endpoints, both quality of life and pathology endpoints that will be presented there. But we think we're very confident in where we think this drug works best, and that's in the mild to moderate patient population, which, as you know, is a defined patient population for labeling for the FDA. So that's the positioning we're going to propose when we meet with the agency. Great. Thank you so much. That was very helpful. Thank you, Jack.
spk04: Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Again, that is star 1 to ask a question. We have your next question from .
spk06: Hi. I have a couple questions around the oral CKD predialysis program. Can you just clear up some confusion I'm having on the stage five versus earlier stage phase three plan. I thought I recalled from last quarter that it was mainly an issue of how streamlined a program you could get away with with regards to using IV Corsuva safety data and the FDA essentially saying, you know, by all means, you can go ahead and do that. But if you want to do that, you know, you need to stick with Stage 5, and then you were going to try to convince them Stage 4 makes sense also, because Stage 4 and 5 really are the same patients, theoretically. Now I'm hearing a little bit about incidents and disease burden questions, so I'm wondering if these are part and parcel of the same issue or if I'm misunderstanding. And then just also on that same program, can you just remind us, what have you told us that I might be forgetting about the Phase 2 program? in terms of the population in that study, how much of that population was Stage 5 or Stage 4 to 5, and what differential efficacy did you see in that Phase 2? Thanks.
spk07: Thanks, Arun, and thanks for the question. So, yes, you're not misunderstanding on the Stage 5 and Stage 4 information we talked about last time. The view or the data we talked about last time was that it's clear that stage five is very similar to hemodialysis patients, actually based on published data out there and epidemiology data. What's not so clear and what we think is going to become clear as we're looking at data that's emerging from our studies is that stage four, particularly late stage four patients, are very similar to stage five. In fact, people don't spend a lot of time in stage 5. A lot of stage 4 patients may actually progress straight to hemodialysis. So we want to just firm that up, make sure we have all the statistics related to pruritus severity and incidence in both stage 4 and stage 5. In other words, confirm that both stage 4 and 5 are very similar to hemodialysis patients, which is the argument we've made initially, and therefore the same, if you like, recommendation should apply that we should be able to reference all the data we generated with Cursiva injection hemodialysis patients. As you know, we have a significant number of safety exposures there, really exposure levels that exceed those we see with oral, and also maybe a possibility of referencing that efficacy data related to both late stage 4 and stage 5. That's That's the exercise we have underway right now is gathering that information and then re-engaging with the agency in the coming months to present that data and indicate that really, yes, it's true that late stage and stage five look very similar to hemodialysis, but so based on the data we're generating, so do late stage four patients. And therefore, it would make sense to include them in any phase three program. And I think we talked about this last time. And really, from a logistical standpoint, to run that phase three program across an efficacy period only with stage five would risk losing, you know, very many patients to hemodialysis. So that's another part of the debate or discussion we'll be having with the FDA once we have that data set. And then I've forgotten what your second question was.
spk06: Yeah, the second question was just if you could remind us. I can't remember if you've told us before, and I just forgot. In the oral pre-CKD, the stage three to five, phase two, what was the representation in that study, and what efficacy did you see across the different stages?
spk07: Yeah, so you're right. That was a trial that encompassed all pre-stylist CKD subgroups from 3A through 3B, 4, and 5. Approximately 50 percent of the patients in that study were 3A and 3B, but as you know, that is the majority of patients out there in the population. And then the rest was stage four and stage five. In terms of efficacy, that is, Kursuva response is somewhat similar across these stages in terms of drug response. between the early stage and the late stage is that we see a higher placebo rate in early stage CKD patients versus stage four and stage five. And that's probably because those early stage patients have more labile pruritus response. They're earlier in the disease process. They don't have as consistent a response. So, you know, one benefit, if you like, for us in moving to Phase 3 and de-risking that Phase 3 program, because as you're well aware, one of the main issues with patient-reported outcomes is controlling that placebo rate, moving to Stage 4 and 5 is actually going to be beneficial for us in our late-stage program in that we should be minimizing aberrant placebo responses by focusing on the patient groups, subgroups that have the highest and most consistent pruritic responses.
spk06: Okay, and I apologize. If I could just get clarification on your previous answer about determining how similar stage 4 and 5 predialysis patients are to dialysis, do you mean in terms of their perception and severity of their pruritus, or do you mean in terms of the actual pathology and the health of those patients so that, you know, for relevance in terms of mechanisms of action from the IV study and whether it should apply to the same patient.
spk07: Yeah, no, it's actually a bit of both, but we're most interested in the pruritus severity and incidence between those two. And as you know, it's a continuum, isn't it? It's a continuum for these patients. So when we look at the data that's out there and the data we're generating, it's certainly clear that very late stage 4, are very similar to stage 5. And as you know, that pathology difference is slight, right, for late stage 4 to 5. So that's the data we're generating. We're going to use that in our discussion.
spk06: Okay. Well, I apologize for asking so many questions. Thanks so much.
spk07: Good luck. No, no problem. Thanks for the question, Arne.
spk04: Yep. Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Again, that is star 1 to ask a question. I'm showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn back to the CARA team for any closing remarks.
spk07: Okay, thank you, operator, and thank you, everybody, for participating in today's call. I'd also like to thank the entire CARA team, our study investigators, and most importantly, all of the patients who continue to participate in our clinical trials. So we look forward to updating you again actually very, very soon And thanks again for dialing in. Have a good rest of the day.
spk04: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you again for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.
Disclaimer