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.
spk12: Welcome to VIIRT Biotechnology's second quarter 2023 financial results and business update call. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Sasha Damouni-Ellis, Executive Vice President, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer. You may begin, Ms. Damouni-Ellis.
spk11: Thank you and good afternoon. With me today are Marion DeBacker, Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Phil Pang, Chief Medical Officer, and Sung Lee, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that some of the statements we are making today are forward-looking statements under the securities laws. These forward-looking statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause our clinical development programs, future results, performance, or achievements to differ significantly from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties and risks associated with our business are described in the company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Forms 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K. I will now turn the call over to our CEO, Marianne DeBacker.
spk02: Thank you, Sasha. Good afternoon, and welcome to Veer Biotechnology's first earnings call. I'm Marianne DeBacker, CEO of Veer, and I'm pleased to welcome you all here today. I joined Veer four months ago and every day since I'm reminded of how well Veer aligns with my commitment over the past 30 plus years to bring new medicines to patients. Veer is one of those unique companies that used its ingenuity in the discovery of neutralizing antibody in the fight against COVID-19 and this during the very worst times of the pandemic. This was achieved in just 15 months and brought to nearly 2 million people around the world. Before that, VIIRS drug discovery engine had already yielded an antibody to treat Ebola, now recognized by the World Health Organization for its impact. After four months of learning about VIIRS differentiating capabilities, platforms, pipeline, and strong partnerships I could not be more enthusiastic to lead this team of passionate, driven professionals who always have the end goal in mind, serving patients. Today and over the next few quarters, I will share more about our focused efforts to drive our pipeline and our science forward. We hope you take away an understanding of our strategy, our development program, and the ability to execute. Infectious diseases continue to pose a major threat to global health, economic security, and to society as a whole. Just last month, in talking to a patient living with chronic hepatitis B, I was reminded of the deep personal impact such a disease has on not just the individual, but also on their families and their communities. We aim here at VIIR to address these needs with a broad range of drug candidates and additional data to come this year. First, I want to touch on our recently announced Phase II Peninsula trial, evaluating VIIR24A2 for flu prophylaxis, which missed its primary endpoint. Phil will share more details momentarily. It is important to remember that in the world of drug development and clinical trials, unexpected outcomes are not uncommon. That is exactly why we take multiple approaches and have a broad pipeline. Seasonal flu affects about 1 billion people around the world and claims up to 650,000 lives each year. It is a significant unmet need that warrants our attention. and we will follow the data in guiding our next steps. We do remain interested in this area, and we have VIIRS 2981 as a preclinical candidate, which has a differentiated mechanism of action to VIIRS 2482, covering both influenza A and B, and may be a more efficacious alternative to vaccines. Second, VIIR is working on a potential functional cure for the more than 300 million people living with chronic hepatitis B worldwide. Current standard of care is lifelong therapy, which decreases but does not eliminate the risk of cirrhosis or liver cancer. At VIIR, we aim to achieve a functional cure, meaning allowing control of the virus without such chronic medical therapy. This is akin to remission and further reduces the risk of debilitating disease progression. VIR is focused on regimens, such as combining an antibody with an siRNA designed to stop the virus and clear the infection. We expect a data readout from Part B of our ongoing March Phase 2 trial in the fourth quarter. which we hope will get us again one step closer to a functional cure for chronic hepatitis B. Third, I want to highlight what VIEW is working on to address chronic hepatitis delta, which affects more than 12 million people worldwide and imposes a four times greater risk of liver cancer compared to chronic hepatitis B alone. We know that around 5 to 15% of patients with chronic hepatitis B are co-infected with hepatitis delta virus. And the World Health Organization considers chronic hepatitis delta to be one of the most severe forms of viral hepatitis. Our goal is convenient once or twice monthly injections with transformative efficacy. Initial data from our clinical trial solstice are expected in the fourth quarter. We also expect to report significant progress in the discovery of new drug candidates using our proprietary antibody and T-cell platforms, which are yielding a robust pipeline that is optimized through AI and our unique data science capabilities. Currently, about 90% of our pipeline leverages data science tools. which enable us to discover, select, and develop drug candidates with the highest chance of success of becoming medicines that could benefit patients in need. Going forward, all our antibodies will be optimized using this approach. Still, we'll touch on the preclinical programs that have the potential for IND filings within the next 24 months. Lastly, we have a strong balance sheet that allows us the financial flexibility to fuel our development programs and grow our antibody platform. We are taking measures to continuously evaluate and judiciously allocate this capital to maximize value for our shareholders. As part of this process and under my leadership, we made the decision to phase out our small molecule platform. This is the first step as we continue to advance our core capabilities and scientific pros. The combination of all the strengths we have here at VIIR makes this a very exciting time. I am confident in our ability to advance our development programs and potentially impact the lives of many patients. I will now turn the call over to Chief Medical Officer Phil Pang to provide more details on our pipeline.
spk05: Thank you, Mary Ann.
spk04: Before speaking to our future research and ongoing development efforts, I want to address the top-line data from our Influenza Phase II Peninsula Trial. This trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between those who received VIIR 2482 and placebo. At 1,200 milligrams, which was the highest dose of VR2482 tufted, there was a non-statistically significant reduction in influenza illness of approximately 16%. Interestingly, in this same group, an approximate 57% reduction in influenza A illness was observed when illness was defined according to CDC criteria. More analysis is going to be needed to address why the study was unsuccessful. We are looking at the data from the perspective of how different symptoms, their duration, and severity might influence outcomes, and understanding drug concentrations, time to infection, and the sequence of the actual viruses the participants were exposed to will also be important. As far as next steps, any other significant development of VIRT2482 will be guided by these analyses. To be clear, however, we will not be initiating a Phase III trial. In the influenza space, as Marianne noted, we are continuing our efforts on VIR2981, an investigational neuraminidase-targeting monoclonal antibody that covers not just flu A but also flu B. In some animal models, it has shown markedly greater potency. The characteristics of VIR2981's parent antibody was recently published in Nature. Because VIR2981 has a different mechanism of action, targeting the enzymatic activity of the neuraminidase, not the stem of the hemagglutinin, we believe in its potential to prevent influenza illness. As we learn more from the Peninsula trial, we will certainly apply relevant findings to the ongoing development of VIIR 2981. More broadly, as Marianne noted earlier, the antibody platform in VIIR has already resulted in a medicine for COVID-19 in just 15 months. and the only single antibody capable of treating Ebola. So while this setback for VIR2482 is unfortunate, it doesn't change our perspective on our platform's ability to identify potentially best-in-class antibodies and to then leverage data science and AI to further engineer them. Specifically, we can enhance antibody binding, potency, vector function, half-life, developability, and stability. Even more broadly, we recognize the importance of a fully integrated data strategy from research all the way through product development and believe that this ability will continue to be differentiated here and there. We have 24 publications and numerous patents and awards related to our data science achievements. Now let's turn to chronic hepatitis B. Unlike the current standard of care, which requires taking antiviral medicines for the rest of one's life, and does not eliminate the risk of cirrhosis or liver cancer, our goal is a functional cure. After completing a functional cure therapy, there should be no need for further treatment, and there should also be a further reduction in the risk of liver complications. Our functional cure hypothesis is based on the now more widely accepted belief that chronic hepatitis B is an immunologic disease caused by a virus. As such, we believe that combinations of antivirals alone are not enough. Instead, we believe functional cure requires a combination of antivirals with immunologic agents. We call our approach stop and clear. We stop the virus from replicating and clear already infected cells by immunostimulation. This is the fundamentally different hypothesis we seek to prove in our clinical trials. Our clinical development pathway has been as follows. We began with Phase I and Phase IIa studies that are exploring different combinations of antivirals and immunomodulators. By specifically using small courts in these studies, we are able to explore a broad space of possibilities to help identify the right combination, dose, duration, frequency, and population. In the studies, we have made two major advances towards a functional cure for chronic hepatitis B that highlight why we believe we can succeed. One, at EASL in June, we showed that we could achieve a durable off-treatment response in 16% of participants who received VIR-2218 or siRNA and pegylated interferon-alpha for 48 weeks. While the sample size was small and the confidence intervals large, it's worth noting that interferon-alpha alone is generally thought to result in an off-treatment response only 3% to 7% of the time. At the AASLD conference in 2022, we showed that a short course of VR2218 with VR3434 resulted in nearly a three log knockdown in hepatitis B surface antigen. This is a viral protein that is a measure of virus activity. Notably, antiviral activity was additive and no new safety signals were observed. Our next development step has been to build upon these observations. Last summer, We started Part B of our Phase II MARCH study, which is exploring the combination of VIR-2218 and VIR-3434 with and without pegylated interferon alpha for durations of 24 and 48 weeks. We expect to present end-of-treatment data for the 24-week cohorts in the fourth quarter. Let me now direct your attention to chronic hepatitis delta. For chronic hepatitis delta, the only treatment approved, which is only available in some parts of the world and not the US, requires lifelong daily subcutaneous injections and has only a 45% chance of benefiting the patient. Our goal is a highly efficacious treatment that only needs to be administered once or twice a month. Because hepatitis delta requires the surface antigen protein from hepatitis B, We can target Delta using our existing chronic hepatitis B assets, Vir-2218 and Vir-3434. At Eazl, we shared the preclinical data demonstrating their potent antiviral activity against hepatitis Delta. A Phase II clinical trial is now underway evaluating Vir-2218 and Vir-3434 individually or in combination with one another in a small cohort of hepatitis Delta patients. We expect to present data from this trial in the fourth quarter. It is worth noting that because hepatitis delta is a potential orphan disease with high unmet medical need, the regulatory path for a treatment for delta may be accelerated. Turning now to our early stage pipeline, we've already highlighted VIR29E1, our neuraminidase flu antibody. I will now touch on other key assets based on our proprietary monoclonal antibody platform. First, VIIR8190, which in vitro can neutralize both RSV or respiratory syncytial virus and human metapneumovirus. Both of these viruses pose a serious threat to infants and immunocompromised. Second, VIIR7229, our next generation COVID-19 monoclonal antibody, which in vitro is differentiated by both extreme breadth and potency against a broad spectrum of historical and currently circulating variants. With respect to our T cell platform, which is based on human cytomegalovirus, we are advancing two assets. Vir1388 is our novel next generation HIV vaccine, which will soon be entering the clinic. Unlike Vir1111, which was deliberately attenuated by creating a replication defect, Vir1388 does not have that replication defect and, we believe, can be more immunogenic. We anticipate dosing our first patient in Q3 of this year. VIR-1949 is a potentially therapeutic vaccine against HPV-associated cervical, anal, and head and neck dysplasia and cancer, and is the second asset in our T-cell platform based on HCMV. We look forward to sharing more about these INDs in the future. I will now turn the call over to Chief Financial Officer, Dong Li.
spk03: Thank you, Phil. We're pleased to share our financial results for the second quarter of 2023. Total revenues were $3.8 million compared to negative $40.6 million for the same period a year ago. Recall that in 2022, the company recorded a revenue constraint related to Sotrova MAP in the amount of $397.4 million which caused the total revenues and collaboration revenue in the second quarter of 2022 to be negative. Specific to Sotrovimap in the second quarter of 2023, collaboration revenue was negative $13.8 million, mainly due to Sotrovimap sales being more than offset by manufacturing costs and expenses to support activities in countries where Sotrovimap continues to have a marketing authorization. Going forward and barring a reauthorization of Citrobimab in the U.S., we believe collaboration revenues will be at minimal levels and potentially make a negative contribution to our top line due to the ongoing required investments to support the marketing authorization, which our partner GSK leads the efforts in. Turning to operating expenses, R&D expenses in the second quarter of 2023 were $171.9 million compared to $115.1 million in the same period in 2022. Included in the 2023 amount is a non-cash charge of $10.7 million related to the impairment of legacy in-process R&D and consolidation of our labs. The year-over-year growth in R&D expenses was primarily driven by investments in the Phase II study, Peninsula, for VEER 2482 and manufacturing activities in anticipation of initiating a Phase III study. While the costs associated with the Peninsula study will ramp down in the next few quarters, we are currently evaluating the impact of the Phase III manufacturing capacity and supply for VIIR 2482. We expect to communicate more on this with our third quarter results. SG&A expenses in the second quarter of 2023 were $47.1 million compared to $41.6 million for the same period in 2022. The year-over-year growth was primarily driven by higher personnel costs to support the overall growth of the business. For the second quarter of 2023, we reported a consolidated net loss of $194.8 million compared to a net loss of $76.5 million for the same period in 2022. Turning to the balance sheet, we ended the second quarter of 2023 with cash and investments of $1.9 billion compared to $2.4 billion at the end of 2022. As communicated previously, we made a payment of $273.6 million in the second quarter to our collaborator GSK which comprise the majority of cash utilization during the quarter. This payment primarily relates to the amount reserved in 2022 for excess Citroën MAP supply and manufacturing capacity due to reduced demand expectations for Citroën MAP. There remains a balance of $69.7 million related to this reserve, which we expect a payment of approximately $41.8 million to GSK in the third quarter of 2023. As I conclude, I would like to make a few comments about our financial position and capital allocation. As Marianne stated earlier in the call, we are making decisions and taking actions to become more focused, which has resulted in the discontinuation of our small molecule platform. We're well capitalized to see our current Phase II programs in hepatitis B and hepatitis Delta through the end of Phase II and beyond. We also have the balance sheet strength to pursue further innovation by investing in our core antibody platform. And finally, you can expect us to be strong stewards of capital and have a disciplined approach to capital allocation and expense management. I'll now turn the call back to Sasha.
spk11: Thank you, Sung. We will now start the Q&A section. Please limit questions to two per person so that we are able to get to all of our covering analysts. Operator, please open up the line.
spk12: Okay, our first question comes from Gina Wang from Barclays. Your line is open.
spk13: Thank you. I have two questions regarding the flu 2482 program. So first, you know, regarding the peninsula study, so why the design didn't have a lower bound of a 30% like Pfizer and Moderna studies? You know, if we use 30% lower bound, the study would look like underpowered. Could that be the reason leading to the failure? And the second question is, with the negative top line, are you terminating for 82, and also the work in flu, and also any reach through to the other VIA programs or antibody platform?
spk05: Thank you, Gina.
spk04: Really appreciate that chance to answer your questions. And let me begin with your first question with regard to the design of the peninsula trial. So the first thing I want to say is that the short answer is that it was a well-powered study, and we need to think of it in the context of the fact that our desire was to show an efficacy beyond that traditional vaccines. So when you think about how to power a study, it's not just about demonstrating statistical significance, but it's about demonstrating clinical significance in the context of that. And so, for example, we could have powered a study to demonstrate that a 10% effect size was statistically significant. However, of course, as you know, Gina, that wouldn't have been clinically meaningful given the vaccines that are currently out there. This is in contrast to vaccine flu trials, which do have a desire that basically power their study for clinical significance and statistical significance to a lower bound confidence interval of 30%. But I'd like to remind you that with regard to monoclonal antibodies, both RSV and COVID, neither of them used such a flu vaccine specific endpoint. So I think that we were definitely well powered to ask the question and answer the question, could we achieve transformative efficacy? And unfortunately, we did not. With regard to the other aspects of 2482, I really want to point to the fact that we are undergoing more analysis right now as to why this study was unsuccessful. And we're looking at it from many different angles, including different symptoms, the PK, time to infection, and a number of the other things I talked about earlier on this call. And really, we need to be guided by those results and that analysis and that data to really decide what next to do. But clearly, as I said earlier also, we're not going to be embarking on a phase three. And then finally, with regard to your question about read-through, I would say that I think that Mary Ann said it best when she said that You know, we've already had two successes with our antibody platform, the Ebola antibody, the only single antibody to treat and cure Ebola, as well as the Trovumab, which was brought to market in less than 15 months. So I don't think there's any read-through on our ability to really design and identify successful medicines using this antibody platform.
spk02: Thank you, Phil. I would just add, Gina, obviously we want to be very strategic about how we allocate our And as Phil pointed out, we are not going to rush into any next steps. We really want to do a thorough analysis of the data and then really be guided by that outcome as to what we will be doing next.
spk05: Thank you. All right.
spk12: Our next question is from Paul Choi from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
spk08: Hi, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My first question is, if we think about stripping out the one-time true-up for the excess citrovimab supply and manufacturing to GSK, and I know there's a couple of moving parts there still, if we strip that out, if we look at maybe the year ago OpEx, is that sort of the normalized rate that you would think would be normal here going forward? and what does that imply for your cash runway, if you can prepare and just say how long your cash balance will go through. And then secondly, on HEP B, for the 2218-3434 plus or minus PEG data set that will be coming up later this year, can you maybe level set expectations on how we should think about potential efficacy there? Is there potential for synergy, or should we potentially think about it largely as additive? And also, what can you say on potential tolerability of the regimen given PEG interferon's historical challenges? Thank you.
spk02: Okay, thank you very much, Paul. Maybe the first question on Cache Runway, Sung, you can give some more information there.
spk03: Yeah, Paul, thanks for your question. I think you had a couple of questions there on basically operating expense, normal levels, is last year comparable and the implications for our cash runway going forward. So when you think about our operating expense and specifically R&D expense, for the last several quarters, the last three or four quarters, it's been heavily driven by the investment in the flu phase two study, the peninsula study. In addition to that, We also invested in manufacturing activities for an anticipated phase three study in flu. So, these have been the primary drivers of our R&D operating expense for the last several quarters. Now, going forward, obviously, you know, I go back to the prepared comment I made on the ramping down of the Peninsula study in the next few quarters. There are some variables here where we have an ongoing phase two study in hepatitis B and hepatitis Delta. And we're gonna get to some important data readouts in quarter four this year. So pending the readouts of those data, that could be a big swing factor for where our OpEx trajectory will be in the future and certainly has implications for our casualization as well. But I just wanna make a clarification here. The cash utilization when you go from Q1 to Q2 is not indicative of a run rate. As I mentioned in my prepared comments, there was a $273.6 million payment to GSK related to a liability book last year. So I think you have to really cancel that noise out, and then you'll kind of understand what our true cash utilization has been. And it's been averaging somewhere close to $120 million per quarter in each of the quarters this year so far. And then going forward, you know, just coming back to something I said before, the cash utilization will largely depend on the data readouts for hepatitis delta and hepatitis B. But just to finish answering your question, with $1.9 billion of cash and investments, you know, we're really in a good position here to fund not only to the end of phase two for those programs, but also through phase three.
spk02: Thank you, Sung. And then, Paul, related to your question on our chronic hepatitis B functional cure program, as you rightly pointed out, in fourth quarter of this year, we will be reporting data on combining 2218, our siRNA, with 3434, our antibody plus minus interferon alpha, 24 weeks end of treatment. So, and we have actually some really promising data that we have seen and have announced at EASL earlier this year. So I would invite Phil to talk a little bit more about what we have seen as the signals of efficacy and also additivity.
spk04: Thank you, Marianne. So, Paul, great to talk to you again. And before we get going here, as Marianne mentioned, I think it's important to say before we can talk about what's going to be new, I just wanted to reiterate what we've seen most recently at the last two liver congresses. So as Marianne noted at ASLB last year, we saw that a short course of the siRNA 2218 and 3434 was additive, but that duration was only four and 13 weeks. And so what we're looking for that's going to be new at ASLB in the fourth quarter of this year is the 24-week data of combining the two of these drugs together. We're also going to be looking at these two drugs together with the addition of interferon alpha. And I think all of that together is what will be new, along with, of course, new data from hepatitis delta.
spk05: Operator, can you go to the next question?
spk12: Okay, our next question comes from Rowena Ruiz from Learing Partners.
spk07: Great, thanks. Hello, everyone. So, maybe first question on Delta virus. What specific measures could you disclose in the phase two solstice trial and what's the efficacy bar that you're looking for?
spk02: Thank you for that question, Rowana. I will ask Phil to give you some more details on that.
spk04: Thank you, Marianne, and thank you, Rowana. So with regard to our Delta trial solstice, remember at EASL this last year, this last June actually, sorry, this past June, we just showed that in preclinical models, 3434, our FC-enhanced monoclonal antibody, was able to knock down the hepatitis Delta virus or the RNA from the virus. And we also showed that 2218 or siRNA could do the same, and that when combined in an animal, they were additive in their behavior. So now we're looking at solstice, which also began in the early part of the spring, and we're asking ourselves the question, can 3434 alone, 2218 alone, and what's going to happen if you add the two of these drugs together in terms of their ability to knock down hepatitis delta RNA virus? So that's what we're looking forward to seeing at in the fourth quarter of this year. As you know, the efficacy bar is, rather the bar for getting approval is a two log reduction in hepatitis delta RNA and normalization of ALT, which is only seen 45% of the time with the only currently available drug. And that drug requires daily subcutaneous injections. What we're hoping for is transformative efficacy, along with maybe having only an injection once or twice a month. So I think that that could be very differentiating for us. Now, in terms of what we're gonna actually see in terms of data, as I mentioned, it'll be the monotherapy and the combination, but this is early data from a small cohort, so we wanna basically be able to see are they actual antivirals in patients, and that's what we look forward to seeing.
spk02: Yeah, so more data coming quarter of next year.
spk07: Okay, great, and I have a quick follow-up. Yeah, maybe bigger picture, could you give us a sense of what your strategic priorities for the company will be in 2024? And I guess thinking about flu, hepatitis, Delta virus, HPV, and all the programs you have going on, are some of them going to shift to like higher focus next year? And like, what should we be following more closely along those lines?
spk02: Yeah, thank you for that question. As mentioned before, as it relates to our flu program, what next steps are really going to be determined by further analysis of the data. But our near and intermediate focus is really on our clinical programs. So chronic hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis Delta, those are really our top priorities. We will also bring HIV program into the clinic in the next, this quarter. So our focus, our capital allocation will really be all around making sure that as fast and as efficiently as possible we can progress those programs towards data.
spk05: Got it. Thanks.
spk12: Our next question comes from Eric Joseph from JP Morgan.
spk09: Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Just one or two on HPV. Just trying to get a better sense of the update we might see from March Part B in the fourth quarter, whether we should expect, well, really the types of patient numbers, I guess, we should anticipate and whether we should expect readouts across the four different treatment regimens. And then I'm also curious to get a sense from you guys of what level of S antigen clearance would support the addition of 34 of 34 being additive to what you've reported so far from the trial of 2218 plus PEG, the doublet alone. Thanks.
spk04: All right. So, Eric, thanks for the question. So, I would like to begin by stating let's level set to what was shown at EASL. And at EASL, what we showed was that 48 weeks of 2218, the SARNA, with interferon alpha was able to result in an off-treatment response in about 16% of patients six months after the end of treatment. That was preceded by an on-treatment seroclearance, as you referred to earlier, of around 30%. So basically, 30% of patients had an on-treatment response, and then 16% had a continued off-treatment response with 48 weeks of 2218 plus interferon alpha. What we're going to be seeing in the fourth quarter of this year is, of course, the 24-week on-treatment data from the triplet and the doublet. And so what we should be looking for is that 2218 plus 3434 gets us to patients who have a seroclearance And remember, when you give 2218 and 3434 for only four or 13 weeks, we did not see any patient with seroclearance. So therefore, the goal will obviously be to see more patients or a number of patients with seroclearance and whether or not we can match or exceed the 30% we saw with 48 weeks of the prior double. The other thing that's important to look forward to is, of course, adding interferon onto that combination of 2218 and 3434 and seeing how much better we can do with that. Now going back to, you know, Paul's earlier question about tolerability, you know, clearly interferon alpha has some tolerability issues if given for a long period of time, but that's in the context of low efficacy. If we can achieve functional cure rates greater than 30 or 40%, we think that this is something that patients will really be keen to understand better and appreciate given the fact that, you know, living with a chronic disease is, as Marianne alluded to in the prepared remarks, something we've heard a lot about from patients as something that they want.
spk02: As it relates to enrollment and timing, we are right on track as to our expectations.
spk09: Would it be too Would it be premature in the fourth quarter to see any post-treatment follow-up or off-treatment follow-up for patients that only received the 20- or 24-week regimen?
spk04: So, Eric, at this time, all we've guided to is the on-treatment data from the 24-week arms. And we are definitely looking forward to that information along with, as I alluded to earlier with marijuana, the chronic hepatitis D Delta. So I think those are going to be the two exciting data sets that we hope to be able to share in the fourth quarter. Excellent. Thanks very much. Looking forward to it.
spk12: Our next question comes from Eva Privatera from TD Cowan.
spk01: Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking our questions. Just to follow up on the prior question, for the triple combination with data in the second half, what rate of on-treatment sero clearance would get you excited or be indicative of the off-treatment clearance?
spk04: Yeah, so to answer that question, I think, again, context is important. For 2218 plus interferon alone, for only 24 weeks, we saw only a 5%. rate of seroclearance on treatment. So I think anything beyond that is biological proof of principle that 3434, when added to 2218 and interferon, is moving the needle. And of course, if you can get there without interferon and 2218 plus 3434, I think that that would also be quite impressive. So I think both of those things are important steps forward. And then, of course, the higher the on-treatment response rate, the more excited we'll be in terms of whether or not this is going to be able to make a meaningful difference to patients.
spk01: But what delta would you anticipate between the on-treatment and the off-treatment? Is there any way to know?
spk04: Well, I think one of the exciting things that we saw at EASL was one of the first times that there was a predictor of off-treatment response. Now, granted, it was a small cohort of patients, but we demonstrated in that small cohort of patients that patients who seroconverted, not just serocleared, but seroconverted to anti-S antibodies at high levels greater than 100 or 200, that they were the ones most likely to have an off-treatment response. So certainly we're going to be looking at that metric in our studies to see what the off-treatment response will be. Clearly in our studies, it went from 30% down to 16%, but really I think it's going to be guided by which patient's mount an anti-S response and what level of anti-S response that they mount. And we'll look forward to seeing what that data looks like.
spk01: Great. Thank you very much.
spk12: Our next question comes from Mike Oles with Morgan Stanley.
spk00: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Maybe just another follow-up on the March Part B data expected later this year. Just based on what you've seen so far, in terms of some of the other studies from Part A, et cetera, do you think 24 weeks will be enough, or do you think you may have to go to 48 weeks? And is this a situation where longer term tends to be better, or could there be a reason why longer would not be better for some reason? And then maybe your thoughts on the need for PEG interferon or not. Thanks.
spk04: Great. So that sounded, I think, like a three-part question, Mike. So let me make sure I get all three parts. So the reason for longer being better biologically is, of course, based on historical precedent, that when you give PEG interferon alpha for 24 versus 48 versus even 72 weeks, you do get a better response, even if it's still low single digits. So that's why longer has been historically better. Of course, that's balanced by what I think Paul was alluding to earlier when he talked about tolerability, which is the issue is that the longer you give pegylated interferon alpha, the more side effects accumulate for the patient. So you're trying to find a balance between those two things, because in the end, it's really going to come down to efficacy. And as I was once jokingly told, efficacy is always, along with safety, really where the rubber hits the road. So I would say that If we can demonstrate a 24-week cure that is similar to the 48-week cure, we will of course go with the 24 weeks, because I think that that would allow patients to have a shorter course of interferon therapy. But really, if it's a meaningful efficacy delta, then we'll have to decide as we look forward to talking to patients and talking to providers, what exactly would be most desirable in that group. So that's really the balance between longer is better from an efficacy perspective and longer being less ideal from a safe, not a safety, but a tolerability perspective. Did that answer your question, Mike?
spk00: Yep. That'll make sense. And then your thoughts on the need for PEG, I guess. Shorter with PEG might work, but longer maybe doesn't make sense.
spk04: So I would say that the, let me answer that in two ways. Let me answer that from a biological perspective and then from a patient perspective. From a patient perspective, I think that it is really going to depend on what the efficacy is. So imagine you're a patient right now and someone says, I'm going to give you a year long course of therapy. It's going to have some side effects, but you only have a one in 20 chance of it actually benefiting you at all. Most people say, you know, I'm not willing to roll the die in that circumstance. However, if you were to come back to that same patient and say, I'm going to give you a year of therapy. But if I do it in combination with these other drugs, I could increase your chance of cure to one in three or one in two. I think that's a very different story. So I don't think it's just about absolute duration. I think it's about efficacy in the context of that duration. As far as the biological need for interferon, I think there are things in favor of suggesting why it might be necessary. I think the fact that it is the only known way to cure hepatitis B right now that has been approved is one interesting point, but I think it points more broadly to the need for an immune modulator to really achieve a functional cure, which is really an immunologically induced remission. So one of the aspects about VR3434 that we're really excited about is the fact that it's not just a neutralizing antibody. It has a modified FC domain, which allows it to act as a potential therapeutic vaccine. And it's that aspect of VR-3434 which we believe may allow it to act as a substitute or an alternative to interferon-alpha. So, of course, the jury's still out on that. We're going to see what 24 weeks looks like on treatment this coming Q4. And then we'll, of course, have what 48 weeks of that treatment look like next year.
spk05: That's helpful. Thank you.
spk12: All right, our next question comes from Joseph Stringer from Needen and Company.
spk06: Hi, thanks for taking our questions. Two from us. First, on the HIV program, you were previously evaluating the year 11-11 and Phase 1 trials. What's different about 13-88, and what gives you confidence that this T cell vaccine is the right approach, and what are timelines around initial data? Given current cash balance, what are your thoughts on external BD? What's your appetite for bringing in external assets, whether they be early or late stage? Thanks.
spk02: Thank you, Joe. So maybe I'll start with the last question first. And obviously, we are in a very unique position where we have a strong balance sheet that will allow us to really fund our critical phase two and phase one assets for the next stages of inflection. It also offers us the opportunity to remain opportunistic. And if we see assets or opportunities out there that can really strengthen our pipeline and our capabilities within pure biotechnology, then of course we would take advantage of that. For your first question related to the differentiation of pure 11-11 versus VIR-1388. Maybe, Phil, you can take that one.
spk04: Thanks, Marianne. So, Joseph, we are on track to dose our first patient this quarter in Q3 with VIR-1388, which, as you noted, is a prophylactic HIV vaccine. In terms of what's different about it compared to VIR-1111, I think that, you know, obviously we need to wait for the results in humans, but at least we can say in tissue culture, the biggest difference is that VIR-1111 was deliberately attenuated, which means we made it less able to replicate in tissue culture because we wanted to really get some basic understanding of how this vector, which is based on human CMV, behaves in people. We now have the opportunity with 1388, based on that safety information from VERA 1111, to take what we call a less attenuated virus into the clinic. So this virus, at least in tissue culture, is able to replicate a little bit better and therefore we believe can be more immunogenic in humans. So I think that that's really the big difference. And there is, of course, some other minor differences in terms of some other deletions or insertions we have made, but that's the key difference between VIR11 and 1388. Thank you, Phil.
spk02: And then maybe, Sung, if you could comment a little bit more about our cash position.
spk03: Yeah, happy to do that, Joey. This is Sung. So I mentioned earlier, I think there was a question about our cash runway. So, you know, with $1.9 billion on the balance sheet, it gives us a lot of financial flexibility. And as Marian said earlier, certainly to fund our current development programs, which are broadly in phase two, and HIV obviously is in phase one, but we can get to the next inflection point for all of those programs should the data support it. So it's a real fortunate position to be in. And just to reiterate again, and I really want to make this clarification because I do think some information might have been misunderstood. We did have a large payment to GSK during the second quarter, and that certainly is, you know, we don't consider that to be part of our run rate.
spk05: Great. Thank you for taking our questions.
spk12: All right. Our next question comes from Patrick Truccio from HC Wainwright.
spk10: Thanks. Good afternoon. I have a couple of follow-up questions on HBV program. So first, I'm just wondering if you can talk about the bar for regulatory success in HBV, specifically if you need to demonstrate a 30% sustained clearance of HB surface antigen six months after treatment is halted to achieve approval. or if a rate below this can be sufficient for approval in the setting of HPV. And then can you talk about the potential for demonstrating a partial cure in HPV? You know, what's the latest around how this is being defined and if it could at some point become part of maybe a regulatory bar for approval in the setting of HPV treatment? And then separately with the preclinical pipeline candidates unveiled today, how should we think about the remaining preclinical work that remains in potential timing for filing of INDs.
spk02: Excellent. Thank you so much, Patrick. So, perhaps you can start me talking a bit about our preclinical pipeline.
spk04: Definitely, Mary Ann. So, Patrick, in terms of your third question, I think that, you know, it really is an exciting time for VIRA. I already mentioned to you with the last question, 1388, which is the HIV prophylactic vaccine that is going to be entering the clinic this quarter. I did want to actually add a note to that, which is to say that it is based on human cytomegalovirus, as I noted earlier. And human cytomegalovirus is one of the most immunogenic vectors that has ever been described. Sometimes up to 20% of your T cells can be mounted against that vector. And importantly, it generates a type of T cell known as an effective memory mucosal T cell, which is quite important, we believe, in the prevention of diseases like diseases like HIV, but also allows us to use it in other diseases, such as human papillomavirus. And that is another thing that is going to be entering the clinic in the next 24 months, basically a therapeutic T-cell vaccine called Vir1949, which is for the control of precancerous lesions caused by human papillomavirus. So both of those things are quite unique and exciting for Vir. In terms of the respiratory franchise, And the antibody platform, we've already talked about VIR-2981, our neuraminidase-targeting monoclonal antibody that has activity not just against influenza A, but influenza B. We also have VIR-8190, which I touched on earlier, which is uniquely able to neutralize not just RSV, but human metanemovirus, and also VIR-7229, a next-generation COVID-19 monoclonal antibody that has really shown quite broad activity and quite potent activity against historical and current strains. So we really have a broad set of things that we believe that can make a huge patient impact in the future that will be entering in the clinic in the next couple of years. Going backwards then to your questions around HBV, in terms of partial cure, I think that this is an area that's, what I would say, evolving in regulatory science. As you know, the guidelines for the EU and the US are somewhat different. And so right now that is going to be something we need to follow. As you know, whether or not you could achieve patients who do not require treatment because their DNA is suppressed, but their HPV service antigen is still present is sort of a middle ground that people are still unclear on. So certainly that is a fallback position one could always take. But I think the important thing, as you said, is truly to achieve an HBV functional cure, which is, as you defined, loss of surface antigen six months after the end of treatment. With regard to what the bar is, I actually don't think 30% is a regulatory bar. I think 30% is a gross estimate of what we would consider clinically meaningful to patients, and that obviously always comes with context. What do I mean by that, Patrick? So for example, if you were able to achieve a functional cure of, let's say, 20%, but you were able to do it with a simple set of injections that had very minimal side effects and very well tolerated, I think people would be willing and patients, more importantly, would be certainly willing to give that a try because what you're offering to patients is I'm going to give you a regimen that is extremely well tolerated that has a one in five chance of really benefiting you versus on the other hand, if it is, for example, an interferon containing regimen, I think that the functional cure rate would probably have to be higher because, of course, then they have to balance the tolerability concerns with the chance of benefit. So I think 30% is more of a ballpark over the thumb estimate many clinicians will give you. I don't think it's a regulatory bar. I think it is a rule of thumb and context is going to really matter.
spk05: Thank you, Phil.
spk02: Thank you so much.
spk05: And Patrick, just to...
spk02: Yeah, just to reiterate what we have focused here today is on discussing those preclinical candidates for which we could potentially expect an IND within the next 24 months. Thank you.
spk10: Thank you so much.
spk12: All right. If there are no other questions, I will now turn the call back over to Dr. Marianne DeBacker.
spk02: Thank you, operator, and thank you all again for your attention today. Veer Biotechnology is a truly vibrant and dynamic company that I believe is poised for significant growth and most importantly for patient impact. I am thrilled to lead Veer into what I believe will be the next transformational trajectory as we build on the progress that we have achieved so far. I feel confident that we have the internal scientific expertise and the passion to power our mission forward. So thank you all for joining us here today. We really appreciate your time and your interest in beer biotechnology. Thank you. Operator, you may end the call.
spk12: This concludes the meeting. You may now disconnect.
Disclaimer