Neovacs — Update 1 August 2016

Neovacs — Update 1 August 2016

Neovacs

Analyst avatar placeholder

Written by

Neovacs

Lupus signature

IFN-Kinoid review

Pharma & biotech

1 August 2016

Price

€0.81

Market cap

€34m

Net cash (€m) at December 2015

6.1

Shares in issue*
*At 30 June 2016

42.59m

Free float

81%

Code

ALNEV

Primary exchange

Alternext Paris

Secondary exchange

N/A

Share price performance

%

1m

3m

12m

Abs

8.0

(32.7)

(18.2)

Rel (local)

1.8

(32.8)

(8.3)

52-week high/low

€1.5

€0.7

Business description

Neovacs is a French biotech company focused on the development of active immunotherapies for the treatment of lupus and dermatomyositis. A Phase II programme with IFN-alpha-Kinoid in lupus is underway. Trials in type 1 diabetes, AMD and cancer are planned for 2017.

Next events

Interim results

October 2016

Analysts

John Savin PhD

+44 (0)20 3077 5735

Lala Gregorek

+44 (0)20 3681 2527

Neovacs is a research client of Edison Investment Research Limited

Neovacs’s lead project, IFN-Kinoid (IFN-K) for lupus, started a 178-patient EU, US and RoW Phase II in Q315. It expects data by mid-2017. This is based on clinical response and measurement of the interferon signature (IS), a diagnostic marker of lupus. CKD, a leading Korean pharmaceutical company, partnered the product for Korea in 2015; marketing may start in 2018. Neovacs plans to partner IFN-K, implying possible launches in 2021. VEGF-Kinoid for cancer and AMD could start Phase I in H117 and a type 1 diabetes kinoid is in preclinical testing. Cash in December 2015 was €6.1m; a French rights issue in June 2016 raised €8m gross at €0.85/share.

Year end

Revenue (€m)

PBT*
(€m)

EPS*
(c)

DPS
(c)

P/E
(x)

Yield
(%)

12/14

0.2

(9.8)

(34.4)

0.0

N/A

N/A

12/15

1.2

(11.2)

(31.5)

0.0

N/A

N/A

12/16e

0.0

(14.0)

(29.9)

0.0

N/A

N/A

12/17e

1.8

(12.6)

(22.8)

0.0

N/A

N/A

Note: *PBT and EPS are normalised, excluding amortisation of acquired intangibles, exceptional items and share-based payments. 2017 revenues only if Phase II successful.

Phase IIb data due June 2017 then partnering

Neovacs is aiming to complete recruitment into the 178-patient Phase IIb by late summer 2016, with an expected June 2017 release of preliminary data on the two combined, 36-week endpoints. Neovacs has FDA approval to include US centres. The trial is based on the neutralisation of the interferon gene expression signature, now seen as a key lupus marker. It will also score clinical responses assessed using the BILAG system. Two IFN-based candidates from AstraZeneca have shown that patients with high interferon signatures respond better to IFN control. Neovacs intends to find a partner to run and fund Phase III studies from 2018. This could enable a US and EU regulatory filing by 2020 and possible marketing from 2021.

Korean deal validates concept and brings cash

Neovacs’s licensing deal with CKD ,with €1m upfront and €4m more due over the next three years, allows the possibility for a 2018 conditional early approval in that market if the current Phase IIb is successful. Neovacs believes there may be a lupus prevalence of up to 20,000 in South Korea. Treatment would be from specialist centres, so a market could develop quickly. We assume a 15% royalty. Neovacs will manufacture IFN-K for CKD.

Valuation: Well-placed for deals and value creation

IFN-K is assumed to be Phase III funded and marketed by a partner. The IFN-K probability used is 30%, an upper Phase II level reflecting the IS strong positioning. A 15% royalty is assumed with a €25m deal fee in 2018 and regulatory milestones of €100m. US 12-year biological exclusivity ends in 2032; European protection ends in 2030. The model has been fully reassessed and rebased and now gives an indicative value of €54.9m, from €39.9m in April 2015. This equates to €1.29/share, or €1.15 fully diluted; shares in issue have increased from 23.4m to 42.6m. Further funding needs are expected to be at least €8m in 2017, implying further dilution. Neovacs is expected to progress products and deals over the next few years.

Investment summary; Lupus signature

Company description: Revitalised business

Neovacs is based on kinoid technology, a type of vaccine that aims to create a long-lasting immune response against the natural immune response signalling molecules driving particular medical conditions. Neovacs has rebuilt its pipeline, Exhibit 1, after the late 2014 failure of Tumour Necrosis Factor Kinoid (TNF-K) in rheumatoid arthritis. Interferon alpha kinoid (IFN-K) started an international, 178-patient, Phase IIb study, NCT02665364 in September 2015. Data are expected in mid-2017. This study now includes a 12-patient US arm. In 2015, Neovacs developed its relationship with a key supplier, Stellar Biotechnologies, and a manufacturing joint venture has been agreed with grant funding. In late December 2015, Neovacs partnered IFN-K with CKD, a Korean pharmaceutical company. If the current Phase II is successful, CKD will be able to market IFN-K in Korea on a registry basis from 2018. Neovacs is based in southern Paris. It has 24 employees

Valuation: Well placed for deals and value

As IFN-K will be Phase III funded and sold by a partner, a 15% royalty is assumed with a €25m deal fee in 2018 and regulatory milestones of €100m. The IFN-K Phase IIb probability used is 30%, an upper Phase II level reflecting the IS strong positioning. US 12-year biological exclusivity ends in 2032; European protection ends in 2030. The French tax rate is set at 24% on the assumption that Neovacs will offset profits. This gives an indicative value of €1.29/share or €1.15 fully diluted. This is assessed before further funding needs, which are expected to be at least €8m in 2017. Over the next few years, Neovacs is well placed to develop products and do deals.

Financials: June funding gives cash into 2017

In FY15, Neovacs had an accounting gain of €4.3m as governmental loans for the failed TNF-Kinoid project became non-repayable. Operational costs in FY16 are expected to be €14m vs €12.5m in 2015, due to Phase IIb costs. FY15 cash use was €7.8m before funding. Year-end 2015 cash was €6.1m, with the €1m upfront fee from CKD due in Q116 and a tax credit of €1.8m also due. A June 2016 rights issue raised €8m gross at €0.85/share. This gives Neovacs sufficient cash for at least 2016. Additional funding of at least €8m may be needed in 2017 plus the next Korean milestone, due in H217 (management expects about €1.75m) if the Phase IIb is successful. We estimate a tax credit of €3.1m (30% of R&D) for 2016, paid in 2017. Further funding depends on partnering deals in 2018.

Sensitivities: IS case strong for lupus response

The hypothesis that the disease is exacerbated in about 80% of lupus patients due to overproduction of interferon alpha leading to an interferon signature (IS) has received support from two large Phase II AstraZeneca studies. Neovacs is using a combined IS and clinical co-primary endpoint in the current IFN-K Phase IIb. The use of a high IS score to select patients should reduce risk, as a high IS is seen in about 80% of patients and other trial data indicate better outcomes in this group (see Exhibit 5 below). However, the IS case is not yet fully established through a pivotal study. Neovacs intends to partner the project at Phase III using the Phase IIb data. The €5m Korean deal shows that the project can attract partners at a good value. Substantive Phase III trials will be required for the crucial US FDA approval and IFN-K is several years behind AstraZeneca’s anifrolumab, in Phase III with good Phase II data. IFN-K needs a different commercial strategy as it is a one-off course of injections, rather than a chronic monoclonal therapy with reoccurring monthly injections and a long-term income stream.

Company description: Signature lupus signal

IFN-K had been in early clinical development (a 28-patient Phase I/II in 2010-11), but the former management gave the larger RA market targeted by TNF-K priority. TNK-K failed, apparently as the antibodies generated bound, but did not neutralise, TNF. Neovacs has data showing that IFNα-K generates a range of neutralising antibodies against IFN. Once immunised, patients may not need a booster course for a number of years. However, this makes the treatment, in effect, a one-time course with no repeat revenues. IFN-K- is likely to be much cheaper to manufacture than a monoclonal. This could mean higher margins.

The next clinical product is likely to be vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Kinoid (VEGF-Kinoid) for cancer and eye disease (acute macular degeneration (AMD).

Exhibit 1: Neovacs pipeline June 2016

Product

Indication

Stage

Development notes

IFNα-Kinoid

Lupus

Phase I/II completed

The Phase I/II in 28 patients was announced in 2011 and published in 2013 (Lauwerys et al 2013). The primary safety outcome was met. Other data are discussed below.

Phase IIb

This trial is underway and plans to enrol 178 patients. Of these, 160-patients will be recruited in the EU, Asia and Latin America. A 12-patient arm has been added in the US after the FDA approved an IND. Data are due in mid-2017, probably in Q3 as the primary data collection date is stated to be June.

IFNα-Kinoid

Dermatomyositis

Phase I/IIa

Multi-centre trial with 15 adults expected to begin by late 2016.

IFNα-Kinoid

Type I diabetes

Research

Type I is an autoimmune disease. No other data. Trial planned for 2017.

VEGF-Kinoid

AMD

Preclinical

Immunisation with VEGF-Kinoid prevented the disease in a preclinical model. Trials from 2017 possible.

VEGF-Kinoid

Solid tumours

Preclinical

Anti-VEGF products are widely used in the treatment of solid tumours. Trials from 2017 possible.

IL-4-Kinoid

Allergies

Preclinical

Seminal studies suggest that anti-IL-4 immunotherapies may control allergic reactions.

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Neovacs announcements

Kinoid platform

Malfunction of the immune system causes over secretion of the cytokines (proteins that act on cells to stimulate or inhibit their function), which play a key role in autoimmune diseases. Neovacs’s “kinoid” technology vaccinates patients to neutralise these cytokines and control the disease. Kinoids consist of a target protein, such as interferon alpha (IFNα) conjugated with a carrier immunogenic protein: keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2: Production and use of kinoids to control cytokine levels

Source: Neovacs

The patient is immunised by intramuscular injection of the kinoid with an emulsion adjuvant. The KLH stimulates the body’s immune system to produce polyclonal antibodies to neutralise and eliminate the target self-protein. A key observation is that the antibodies need to be neutralising against the cytokine. If not, the cytokine can still function and the disease may not be affected. Neovacs has stated that this was the reason TNF-K failed in clinical development as the antibodies were not neutralising. In IFN-K Phase II data, management observed that the antibodies were “strongly” neutralising. The immune response in some patients can last for at least four years. Polyclonal antibodies are a natural, diverse and more powerful response than monoclonal antibodies. By comparison, monoclonal antibodies need to be injected every four to eight weeks. IFN is produced in various subtypes. A monoclonal will only bind certain subtypes, but IFN-K generates a range of antibodies. Neovacs found that antibodies against all subtypes of INFα were generated.

IFN-K for lupus might be protected by a patent application (WO 2012136739 A1) filed on 4 April 2012. A patent WO 2004024189 A1 (granted in the US but not Europe) filed on 16 September 2003, covers IFNα liked to KLH and WO2002011759 (8 August 2001) claims IFN or VEGF linked to KLH.

Lupus: A debilitating chronic disease with few options

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the most common form of Lupus: an autoimmune disease of the connective tissues of various organs, Exhibit 3. There is no cure at present.

Exhibit 3: Lupus – the disease

Aspect

Comment and background

What is lupus?

Lupus (from the Latin for wolf) is a chronic autoimmune disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations and complex courses. The condition is difficult to diagnose reliably and can either be missed entirely or often misdiagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis; this makes assessing the epidemiology and number of treatable cases, difficult. Symptoms may include swollen painful joints, fatigue, kidney damage, skin rashes and sensitivity to sunlight. There is a classic “butterfly” rash that appears across the cheeks and nose. Four main types of lupus erythematosus exist: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, the predominant, serious form of lupus), discoid, drug-induced and neonatal. SLE is characterised by dysregulated immune pathways, particularly related to B-cells and T-cells. An uncommon complication is lupus nephritis causing kidney failure.

Genetic factors (aetiology)

Lupus seems to be caused by interaction between genetics (especially complement deficiencies) and environmental triggers such as viruses and drugs. Different genetic groups have different susceptibility; the highest rates are seen in US African-American women in middle age.

Symptoms

The immune system attacks the body's cells and tissue, resulting in inflammation and tissue damage. SLE most often affects the heart, joints, skin, lungs, blood vessels, liver, kidneys and nervous system with the production of autoantibodies like antibodies against double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), a clear disease biomarker found in 45-60% of cases (Lam 2005). The disease course is unpredictable, with periods of illness (called flares) alternating with remissions. Biomarkers like anti-dsDNA do not correlate well with disease progression or flare.

Diagnosis

Because lupus is so complex, accurate diagnosis and assessment is difficult. A scoring system uses the 1982 American College of Rheumatology criteria: SLE is diagnosed if four or more criteria (out of 11) are met. It is usually stated that the “Gold Standard” is diagnosis by a rheumatologist as non-specialists often misdiagnose. Low-grade SLE might never be diagnosed.

Tough lab tests

There are two lab assays that are objective criteria. Measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) including anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) is taken as a key lupus measure. The assay rarely returns to normal in a short time and its correlation to clinical outcomes is less clear. Lupus patients often show lower levels of dsDNA antibodies in response to therapies.

Tracking the disease

Various scoring systems (SLEDAI, PGA, BILAG, discussed later under clinical trials) have been developed to track the course of the disease. These systems include both clinical assessments (for example rashes, oral ulcers,) and tests for autoantibodies and urinary protein and blood.

Treatment

There is currently no cure; treatments are largely symptomatic:

Lifestyle changes including rest, sun protection, diet, exercise, no smoking to prevent flares; and

Drug treatment, which depends on signs and symptoms, includes: non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for pain; antimalarials for skin and joint disease, to prevent flares; corticosteroids for acute flares and severe disease; immunosuppressants for more serious disease; and biological agents: only Benlysta (belimumab, GSK) has shown efficacy, other agents might be used off label if individuals respond.

As a last resort, Plasmapheresis - removal of white immune cells using an external medical device - may be used to control a bad flare.

Aspect

What is lupus?

Genetic factors (aetiology)

Symptoms

Diagnosis

Tough lab tests

Tracking the disease

Treatment

Comment and background

Lupus (from the Latin for wolf) is a chronic autoimmune disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations and complex courses. The condition is difficult to diagnose reliably and can either be missed entirely or often misdiagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis; this makes assessing the epidemiology and number of treatable cases, difficult. Symptoms may include swollen painful joints, fatigue, kidney damage, skin rashes and sensitivity to sunlight. There is a classic “butterfly” rash that appears across the cheeks and nose. Four main types of lupus erythematosus exist: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, the predominant, serious form of lupus), discoid, drug-induced and neonatal. SLE is characterised by dysregulated immune pathways, particularly related to B-cells and T-cells. An uncommon complication is lupus nephritis causing kidney failure.

Lupus seems to be caused by interaction between genetics (especially complement deficiencies) and environmental triggers such as viruses and drugs. Different genetic groups have different susceptibility; the highest rates are seen in US African-American women in middle age.

The immune system attacks the body's cells and tissue, resulting in inflammation and tissue damage. SLE most often affects the heart, joints, skin, lungs, blood vessels, liver, kidneys and nervous system with the production of autoantibodies like antibodies against double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), a clear disease biomarker found in 45-60% of cases (Lam 2005). The disease course is unpredictable, with periods of illness (called flares) alternating with remissions. Biomarkers like anti-dsDNA do not correlate well with disease progression or flare.

Because lupus is so complex, accurate diagnosis and assessment is difficult. A scoring system uses the 1982 American College of Rheumatology criteria: SLE is diagnosed if four or more criteria (out of 11) are met. It is usually stated that the “Gold Standard” is diagnosis by a rheumatologist as non-specialists often misdiagnose. Low-grade SLE might never be diagnosed.

There are two lab assays that are objective criteria. Measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) including anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) is taken as a key lupus measure. The assay rarely returns to normal in a short time and its correlation to clinical outcomes is less clear. Lupus patients often show lower levels of dsDNA antibodies in response to therapies.

Various scoring systems (SLEDAI, PGA, BILAG, discussed later under clinical trials) have been developed to track the course of the disease. These systems include both clinical assessments (for example rashes, oral ulcers,) and tests for autoantibodies and urinary protein and blood.

There is currently no cure; treatments are largely symptomatic:

Lifestyle changes including rest, sun protection, diet, exercise, no smoking to prevent flares; and

Drug treatment, which depends on signs and symptoms, includes: non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for pain; antimalarials for skin and joint disease, to prevent flares; corticosteroids for acute flares and severe disease; immunosuppressants for more serious disease; and biological agents: only Benlysta (belimumab, GSK) has shown efficacy, other agents might be used off label if individuals respond.

As a last resort, Plasmapheresis - removal of white immune cells using an external medical device - may be used to control a bad flare.

Source: Edison Investment Research

IFN-Kinoid (IFN-K) in lupus: Clinical development

IFN-K is the lead product now in a 178-patient Phase IIb. This trial follows on from a Phase I/II in 28 patients (Lauwerys et al 2013) summarised in Exhibit 4. In the Phase I/II, most patients were tested for IS at baseline. Patients who produced higher levels of anti-IFN in response to IFN-K reduced their IS scores. The authors viewed the results as “promising” but not powered to show efficacy.

The Phase IIb (NCT02665364) started in September 2015. This trial has a 166-patient target for Europe, Russia and Latin America. It was extended in April 2016 to include 12 US patients under an FDA IND. The total will be 178 patients. Five doses of IFN-Kinoid are given: 240µg on days 0, 7 and 28 then a booster shot of 120µg in week 12 and week 24. The endpoint is determined at week 36. Data are due in June 2016, so recruitment needs to compete around the end of Q316.

Exhibit 4: IFN-K Phase II design and results

Aspect

Result and commentary

Design

The study was randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled with four dose groups of 30, 60, 120 and 240µg. All patients received three doses given at days 0, 7 and 28. Half the patients received a fourth injection at day 84. Patients were assessed at day 112 and day 168.

Patient disease severity

All the patients enrolled had mild to moderate disease activity, defined as a SLEDAI-2K score of between 4 and 10. The median score was 8; the median in the higher dose groups was 6.

Primary outcome

The primary safety outcome was met with no significant issues.

Secondary outcome

The measure was seroconversion: production of antibodies. The linked KLH antigen caused all treated patients to make anti-INFα antibodies. In the highest dose cohort (240µg), four out of five patients produced neutralising antibodies (note: one patient only received one dose due to a disease flare). At 120µg and 60µg doses, three out of six made anti-IFN. No patients made anti-IFN at the lowest 30µg dose, so there appears to be a rough dose relationship in response rates, which is reassuring. However, individual patients showed considerable variability in antibody levels so it is not possible to see to see a clear relationship between dose and the level of antibody made in doses over 30µg. However, it was noted that patients with high IS scores made up to 10 times more antibody than patients with low IS scores.

Interferon signature key to patient selection

This is composed of 21 genes. On enrolment, 19 patients in the treatment group were tested for IS (two were not tested). Of these seven had a negative IS and 12 had a positive IS.

Comparing baseline to day 112, IS scores in treated patients decreased significantly p=0.046. There was no decrease in IS in placebo-treated patients, p=0.84. This indicates that high IS patients may respond well to IFN blocking by IFN-K stimulated antibodies.

Subtypes bound

Importantly, the induced antibodies also bound most of the 13 IFNα subtypes. This is a very important potential therapeutic advantage compared to monoclonal antibodies, which only target a few IFN subtypes.

Serological effects

When patients (treated and placebo combined) with low anti-IFN levels were compared with eight patients with high antibody levels on day 112, a significant increase in C3 levels was seen p=0.027, relative to baseline. C3 is a component of the innate immune system activated and depleted by inflammatory responses. It is reduced in active lupus so increased C3 levels indicate less innate immune activation The relevance of this is not clear as the low antibody group contained untreated patients and showed a wide spread of values, so this could be a spurious result. The related C4 level showed a non-significant change. The level of anti-dsDNA, a key clinical marker of lupus, was not changed.

Clinical outcome

All patients showed a decrease in SLEDAI-2K and BILAG scores and there was no difference between the treated and placebo groups.

Long-term follow up

Six patients that developed long-term anti-IFN antibodies have been followed for over four years as a safety measure and have shown no side effects. Five of the six patients presented a positive IFN signature at baseline. The IFN signature was observed in two out of five patients who developed neutralizing antibodies. Correlation in the increase of C3 serum level and neutralizing anti-IFNα antibodies also persisted in the same two patients, confirming previously reported results. This is important as it indicates, in a small sample, that suppression of IFN by auto-antibodies does not impair general health. Note that AstraZeneca found higher levels of herpes zoster and other latent viral infections in up to 10% of patients.

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Lauwerys et al 2013

Signing on: The Interferon signature co-primary endpoint

The co-primary endpoint in the Phase IIb IFN-K study is a reduction in interferon signature (IS). Obermoser (2010) commented that: “the type I interferon cytokine family has been postulated to play a central role in SLE pathogenesis, by promoting feedback loops progressively disrupting peripheral immune tolerance and driving disease activity.” The development of the interferon signature theory and clinical data from AstraZeneca in the last few years offer a robust paradigm for patient selection. Exhibit 5 has details of IS and references.

Kennedy (2015) published a Genentech IFN biomarker study that found three signature genes marking out high and low populations. The high IFN group showed a clear serological response to various anti-IFNα therapies but the low IFN group did not. However, there was no correlation with mean disease activity assessed by BILAG or SLEDAI-SELENA scores. It would be natural for IFN responsive genes to show lower expression if IFN levels are lowered, but the disease only responds if IFN is the primary driver. Kennedy concluded that: “The ISM does not distinguish between high and low disease activity, but may have utility in identifying patients more likely to respond to treatment(s) targeting IFN-α”.

Exhibit 5: Interferon signature – states of understanding

Aspect

Comment

Hypothesis

The hypothesis is that lupus is caused by environmental and generic susceptibility factors resulting in the production of antibodies against components of the cell nucleus like nucleic acids (RNA and DNA). These molecules are constantly being released from damaged and apoptotic cells and are normally quickly degraded and recycled. However, nuclear auto antibodies are often seen some years in advance of any lupus symptoms. Once lupus starts, excess IFNα exacerbates the disease.

IFNα production

IFNα is made by multiple immune cell types, but the one implicated in lupus is a specialist cell type: plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). Seems to be triggered by antibody nucleic acid complexes in the patient’s blood, see Lövgren 2004. Signalling via Toll-like receptors of the innate immune system may also be involved; a potential other therapeutic approach. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells are rare, making up 0.2–0.8% of the peripheral blood immune cells, but they have the capability of producing 100–200 times more IFNα than other cells.

IFNα genes and types

IFNα is a 13 gene family, so multiple subtypes exist. IFNβ is closely related to IFNα, both are classed as type I IFN. At least 100 genes are stated to be activated by IFNα. Given this number, the exact nature of the IS will not be clearly defined.

IFN role

IFN is important in mounting anti-viral immune system responses so viral infection and reoccurrence of latent viral diseases like herpes zoster (shingles) is a side effect of IFN suppression.

Measuring IS

In the Neovacs Phase II study, the IS seen was analysed by transcriptome analysis and use of a whole genome array chip. Analyses showed that baseline gene expression profiles were not homogenous among SLE patients and there was no consistent IS. Statistical clustering analysis identified two groups. In one group, 21 IFN genes were up-regulated compared to healthy volunteers (IS+ve patients; n=18). In the second group, the pattern of gene expression was similar to that in healthy volunteers (IS-ve patients; n=9). AstraZeneca used a four-gene IS profile in the Sifalimumab Phase IIb and a 21-gene IS profile in the Anifrolumab study, Yao 2010.

Kennedy (2015) identified three gene markers of IS, called the IS metric (ISM) and used these to identify two groups: ISM-High and ISM-Low in 574 patients (from various trials) with 85 controls. The genes were HERC5, EPSTI and CMPK2. It is not known if these represented in the Neovacs IS profile

Significance of IS in the Neovacs Phase II

Patients who were IS+ve had significantly higher anti-dsDNA concentrations (plus other immune changes). However, there was no clinical difference (on SLEDAI-2K) between IS+ve and IS-ve. IS+ve patients responded better to IFN-K in making anti-IFNα antibodies - IFNα is a known stimulant to antibody production so this may be an incidental benefit. IS+ve at baseline showed a reduced IS after 112 days – as expected if IFNα levels were reduced. However, anti-dsDNA levels did not alter; some innate immune markers did change. The trial was too small for any clear effect to be noted in any event.

Sifalimumab data

(a monoclonal against IFN)

A Phase II trial by AstraZeneca (Khamashta 2016) of sifalimumab recruited predominately high IS patients. High IS patients did better in the primary SRI endpoint than the patients with low IS and showed statistical significance in a predefined BICLA response, the metric selected by Neovacs. This trial noted a greater placebo response (80%) in low IS patients but only about 30% in high IS patients; why is not known. BICLA response rates were similar between high and low IS groups: about 45%.

Anifrolumab data

(a monoclonal against IFN receptor)

Anifrolumab is a type I IFN receptor antagonist that prevents IFN triggering cell signalling. It would therefore be expected to have a broader anti-IFN activity, given the various subtypes, than sifalimumab. Phase II data on two doses vs placebo in 305 patients are only published in abstract to date: Furie 2015. High IS patients comprised 75% of cases. The primary endpoint at day 169 was met: the efficacy observed was “similar or more pronounced” in high IS patients. Median suppression of 21 IFN-regulated genes was about 90% for both doses of anifrolumab. Clinically, at day 169, placebo in high IS patients showed a 13.2% response vs 36% at 300mg, p=0.004, and 28.2% at 1000mg, p=0.029.

IS interim conclusion

The severity of lupus may be caused by the response of the pDC cells to auto-antibodies rather than by the auto-antibodies themselves. The AstraZeneca evidence form two large trials is that while IS does not link to disease status on trial enrolment, it does correlate with therapeutic responses to treatment designed to block IFN. The hypothesis still needs Phase III validation.

Aspect

Hypothesis

IFNα production

IFNα genes and types

IFN role

Measuring IS

Significance of IS in the Neovacs Phase II

Sifalimumab data

(a monoclonal against IFN)

Anifrolumab data

(a monoclonal against IFN receptor)

IS interim conclusion

Comment

The hypothesis is that lupus is caused by environmental and generic susceptibility factors resulting in the production of antibodies against components of the cell nucleus like nucleic acids (RNA and DNA). These molecules are constantly being released from damaged and apoptotic cells and are normally quickly degraded and recycled. However, nuclear auto antibodies are often seen some years in advance of any lupus symptoms. Once lupus starts, excess IFNα exacerbates the disease.

IFNα is made by multiple immune cell types, but the one implicated in lupus is a specialist cell type: plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). Seems to be triggered by antibody nucleic acid complexes in the patient’s blood, see Lövgren 2004. Signalling via Toll-like receptors of the innate immune system may also be involved; a potential other therapeutic approach. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells are rare, making up 0.2–0.8% of the peripheral blood immune cells, but they have the capability of producing 100–200 times more IFNα than other cells.

IFNα is a 13 gene family, so multiple subtypes exist. IFNβ is closely related to IFNα, both are classed as type I IFN. At least 100 genes are stated to be activated by IFNα. Given this number, the exact nature of the IS will not be clearly defined.

IFN is important in mounting anti-viral immune system responses so viral infection and reoccurrence of latent viral diseases like herpes zoster (shingles) is a side effect of IFN suppression.

In the Neovacs Phase II study, the IS seen was analysed by transcriptome analysis and use of a whole genome array chip. Analyses showed that baseline gene expression profiles were not homogenous among SLE patients and there was no consistent IS. Statistical clustering analysis identified two groups. In one group, 21 IFN genes were up-regulated compared to healthy volunteers (IS+ve patients; n=18). In the second group, the pattern of gene expression was similar to that in healthy volunteers (IS-ve patients; n=9). AstraZeneca used a four-gene IS profile in the Sifalimumab Phase IIb and a 21-gene IS profile in the Anifrolumab study, Yao 2010.

Kennedy (2015) identified three gene markers of IS, called the IS metric (ISM) and used these to identify two groups: ISM-High and ISM-Low in 574 patients (from various trials) with 85 controls. The genes were HERC5, EPSTI and CMPK2. It is not known if these represented in the Neovacs IS profile

Patients who were IS+ve had significantly higher anti-dsDNA concentrations (plus other immune changes). However, there was no clinical difference (on SLEDAI-2K) between IS+ve and IS-ve. IS+ve patients responded better to IFN-K in making anti-IFNα antibodies - IFNα is a known stimulant to antibody production so this may be an incidental benefit. IS+ve at baseline showed a reduced IS after 112 days – as expected if IFNα levels were reduced. However, anti-dsDNA levels did not alter; some innate immune markers did change. The trial was too small for any clear effect to be noted in any event.

A Phase II trial by AstraZeneca (Khamashta 2016) of sifalimumab recruited predominately high IS patients. High IS patients did better in the primary SRI endpoint than the patients with low IS and showed statistical significance in a predefined BICLA response, the metric selected by Neovacs. This trial noted a greater placebo response (80%) in low IS patients but only about 30% in high IS patients; why is not known. BICLA response rates were similar between high and low IS groups: about 45%.

Anifrolumab is a type I IFN receptor antagonist that prevents IFN triggering cell signalling. It would therefore be expected to have a broader anti-IFN activity, given the various subtypes, than sifalimumab. Phase II data on two doses vs placebo in 305 patients are only published in abstract to date: Furie 2015. High IS patients comprised 75% of cases. The primary endpoint at day 169 was met: the efficacy observed was “similar or more pronounced” in high IS patients. Median suppression of 21 IFN-regulated genes was about 90% for both doses of anifrolumab. Clinically, at day 169, placebo in high IS patients showed a 13.2% response vs 36% at 300mg, p=0.004, and 28.2% at 1000mg, p=0.029.

The severity of lupus may be caused by the response of the pDC cells to auto-antibodies rather than by the auto-antibodies themselves. The AstraZeneca evidence form two large trials is that while IS does not link to disease status on trial enrolment, it does correlate with therapeutic responses to treatment designed to block IFN. The hypothesis still needs Phase III validation.

Source: Edison Investment Research based on cited sources

Keeping score: The clinical co-primary endpoint

The other co-primary endpoint is the clinical response measured by the BICLA scoring system (see below). Various lupus systems have been developed over the years. These have continued to evolve. Mikdashi (2015) provides a summary of the latest iterations; Petri (2007) provides an overview and Lam and Petri (2005) give scoring sheets if much more detail is required. The BICLA composite score in the IFN-K Phase IIb trial combines BILAG and SLEDAI-2k.

Exhibit 6: Scoring and assessment systems in SLE

System

Detailed commentary

SLEDAI

The major evaluation system was SLEDAI (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), updated in 2002 to SLEDAI-2000 (Gladman 2002). SLEDAI has 16 clinical items and eight laboratory tests. It relies on physician accuracy (for example scoring swollen joints) and uses weighted scores so is relatively insensitive. This evolved into SELENA-SELDAI due to the belimumab clinical trial. Most physicians would view many of these indicators, like rash, as indicative of ongoing lupus and this version is now a core component of the SRI (SLE responder Index).

The total score possible is 105 but few patients score over 20. As a numerical output that was quick to score, it was used for statistical interpretation of clinical data. A SLEDAI ≥6 or more indicates active disease.

BILAG

British Isles Lupus Activity Group system was an attempt to look at disease progression in individual organs so is more clinically focused and assesses if a patient has got worse, been stable, improved or developed a new symptom. This is then scored by computer software. The most recent version is BILG-2004 (Isenberg 2005). It is more complicated for a physician to assess than SLEDAI as it has 86 components covering eight organ systems. Weighted, numerically assigned BILAG organ scores have not been validated, which creates problems for statistical analysis.

Each organ gets a score on a scale of A to E. A is very active disease, B is moderate activity, C is mild stable disease, D is resolved activity, and E indicates the organ was never involved.

The organ system are: General, Mouth and Skin, Neurological, Joints and Muscles, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary, Blood Vessel Inflammation (Vasculitis), Kidney, and Blood

PGA

Physician Global Assessment – an overview derived from rheumatoid arthritis.

This rates 0 for no disease, 1 for mild disease, 2 for moderate disease, and 3 for severe disease.

SRI

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) responder index was devised for the belimumab trial. It is a secondary endpoint in the current IFN-K trial.

SRI response is defined as: “1) a >/=4-point reduction in SELENA-SLEDAI score, 2) no new BILAG A or no more than 1 new BILAG B domain score, and 3) no deterioration from baseline in the physician's global assessment by >/=0.3 points”. Furie 2009

BICLA

The BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment was devised for the epratuzumab trial; see Wallace 2014. It is a co-primary endpoint on the current Phase IIb IFN-K trial. This uses both BILAG-2004 and SLEDAI-2K criteria and defines a patient as either a responder or non-responder based on a complicated set of BILAG and SLEDAI criteria linked also to changes in other medication for lupus. The trial statistical analysis then becomes a simple responder vs non-responder analysis, rather than using SELDAI scores, which might not be clinically relevant.

A BICLA response is defined as: “(1) BILAG-2004 improvement (all A scores at baseline improved to B/C/D, and all B scores improved to C or D); (2) no worsening in disease activity (no new BILAG-2004 A scores and ≤1 new B score); (3) no worsening of total SLEDAI-2K score from baseline; (4) no significant deterioration (<10% worsening) in 100mm visual analogue PGA and (5) no treatment failure (defined as non-protocol treatment, ie, new or increased immunosuppressives or antimalarials; or increased or parenteral corticosteroids; or premature discontinuation from study treatment)” (source: Wallace et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jan; 73(1): 183–190).

Source: Edison Investment Research, detailed sources as hyperlinks

The lupus market

Because lupus is so difficult to diagnose, estimates of its incidence (new cases per year diagnosed) and prevalence (patients with ongoing disease) vary widely. Exhibit 7 summarises data.

Exhibit 7: US lupus market estimates

Lead author

Findings

Lahita, 1995

An often cited number for the US is 1.5m prevalence (cited by The Lupus Foundation of America), but this comes from a marketing survey. The author concluded that “self-reporting studies are notoriously inaccurate… indicating that the numbers... may not be true”.

Helmick, 2008

This study estimated 161,000 confirmed cases in the US (with up to 311,000 possible cases).

Sacks et al, 2010

This study estimated 280,000 (range 230,000-318,000) US prevalence cases using data from the 2001-2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and 2001-2005 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey based on one million medical visits.

Feldman et al, 2013

A Medicare based study found 34,339 treated patients listed in records (over 2000-04). This is too biased a sample for population estimates, but reliable in itself as these patients had a specific clinical code assigned.

Chakravarty et al, 2007

This 2000 survey used medical records of hospitalised patients in California and Pennsylvania. Estimates were of about 100/100,000 adults in California and about 150/100,000 adults in Pennsylvania. This is about 250,000-360,000 prevalence.

Somers, 2014, and
Lim, 2014

To get more robust data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are running a set of large surveys. Two have been published. In Michigan, Somers (2014) surveyed 2.4 million people. In Atlanta, Georgia, Lim (2014) surveyed 1.5 million people. These surveys give age-adjusted figures per 100,000, age adjusted by sex and genetic group – although Hispanic figures are poorly represented. Translated into actual patients in the overall 2015 US population of 320 million (US Census), there may be about 160,000 prevalence cases in the US. Exhibit 8 uses the ACR score ≥4 criteria (see above).

European data

In Europe, only leading countries plus accessible European markets like Switzerland and Norway are included. There is relatively sparse data for individual countries in Europe. The UK has reasonable estimates and these align with the US Caucasian population, noting that there is a West Indian group with rates that seem similar to African Americans in the US.

Findings

An often cited number for the US is 1.5m prevalence (cited by The Lupus Foundation of America), but this comes from a marketing survey. The author concluded that “self-reporting studies are notoriously inaccurate… indicating that the numbers... may not be true”.

This study estimated 161,000 confirmed cases in the US (with up to 311,000 possible cases).

This study estimated 280,000 (range 230,000-318,000) US prevalence cases using data from the 2001-2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and 2001-2005 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey based on one million medical visits.

A Medicare based study found 34,339 treated patients listed in records (over 2000-04). This is too biased a sample for population estimates, but reliable in itself as these patients had a specific clinical code assigned.

This 2000 survey used medical records of hospitalised patients in California and Pennsylvania. Estimates were of about 100/100,000 adults in California and about 150/100,000 adults in Pennsylvania. This is about 250,000-360,000 prevalence.

To get more robust data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are running a set of large surveys. Two have been published. In Michigan, Somers (2014) surveyed 2.4 million people. In Atlanta, Georgia, Lim (2014) surveyed 1.5 million people. These surveys give age-adjusted figures per 100,000, age adjusted by sex and genetic group – although Hispanic figures are poorly represented. Translated into actual patients in the overall 2015 US population of 320 million (US Census), there may be about 160,000 prevalence cases in the US. Exhibit 8 uses the ACR score ≥4 criteria (see above).

In Europe, only leading countries plus accessible European markets like Switzerland and Norway are included. There is relatively sparse data for individual countries in Europe. The UK has reasonable estimates and these align with the US Caucasian population, noting that there is a West Indian group with rates that seem similar to African Americans in the US.

Source: Edison Investment Research based on cited references

The incidence number is very low, so hard to measure. As lupus is an episodic chronic disease, many people live with the condition, so prevalence figures are more robust, though still variable. The most recent US estimates indicate about 160,000 US cases, Exhibit 8. Extrapolating from this, there may be about 170,000 cases in accessible European markets, but this is not a definitive figure and many might be undiagnosed. If an approved IFN-K is only indicated for high-IS patients, and probably only reimbursed for them, sophisticated genetic testing (21 genes) or a simpler, three gene test like that of Kennedy will need to be easily available to find the patients.

Exhibit 8: US and accessible European lupus market

Population

Incidence

Prevalence

US

Michigan

Georgia

Average

Michigan

Georgia

Average

Caucasian

Male

114,486,930

1,374

801

1,088

9,960

8,587

9,273

Female

117,362,783

7,394

5,516

6,455

101,754

69,244

85,499

African-American

Male

18,890,321

397

604

501

3,646

4,477

4,061

Female

20,674,464

2,646

2,770

2,708

38,517

40,563

39,540

Hispanic and other

Male

25,013,761

450

3,727

3,727

Female

25,013,761

1,200

16909

16,909

Total US

321,442,019

12,402

159,010

Leading accessible European

Male

210,00,0000

1,995

17,010

Female

210,000,000

11,550

152,985

Total accessible European

13,545

169,995

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Somers (2014), Lim (2014), US Census and Eurostat

Korean deal: 2018 sales possible

In December 2015, Chong Kun Dang (CKD) Pharmaceutical Corp, a leading Korean pharmaceutical business, licensed IFN-K for the South Korean market. It paid €1m upfront, with a further €4m due until 2018. A Koran IND has been granted and five centres in Korea are participating in the current Phase IIb study. The Korean system allows a conditional approval from 2018 if the current Phase IIb is successful. This means that IFN-K could be sold from 2018. If approved at Phase II, it is assumed that follow-up of patients (a registry) will be needed. Management expects that over 1,000 patients will be treated between 2018 and 2020.

The South Korean market has a population of about 50 million. Recent surveys suggest a lupus prevalence of 26.5 per 100,000 (Shim et al, 2014), so about 13,250. Ju et al (2014) found 9,000-11,000 treated patients in 2006 based on health insurance records. Neovacs management estimate 20,000 cases overall in the population. Treatment is in specialist centres. CKD was founded in 1941. It had 2014 sales of KRW544bn (€422m) and profits of KRW35bn (€29m).


Competition and other development-stage projects

Benlysta, a monoclonal antibody, is the only biological agent to be approved so far for SLE, in 2011. It reduces the production of autoantibodies. There are other therapies in development (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9: Ongoing efficacy studies for SLE* (Phase II and III)

Company

Product

Duration

n

Primary endpoint

Data

NCT ID

Phase III

AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab

52 wk

450

SRI≥4, high and low dose)

Sep-18

NCT02446912

52 wk

360

SRI≥4 (single dose level)

Oct-18

NCT02446899

Anthera

Blisibimod

52 wk

442

SELENA-SLEDAI ≥10.

July 2016

NCT01395745

52 wk

350

SRI-6

Dec 2018

NCT02514967

ImmuPharma

rigerimod/IPP-201101

52 wk

200

SRI≥4,

Dec-17+ (first patient June 16)

NCT02504645

Phase II

Celgene

CC-220

<84 days

140

CLASI score + AE

Aug-16

NCT02185040

BMS

lulizumab pegol (BMS-931699)

169 days

350

BICLA response rate

Jan-17

NCT02265744

Seattle Genetics

Adcetris

127 days

40

AE, dose ranging

April-17

NCT02533570

Neovacs

IFNα-Kinoid

36 wk

178

BICLA + IFN signature

June-17

NCT02665364

Biotest

BT-063

14 wk

36

AEs, Proof of Concept

Aug-17

NCT02554019

Resolve Therap.

RSLV-132

24 wk

50

CLASI

Sep-17

NCT02660944

Eli Lilly

Baricitinib

24 wk

300

SLEDAI-2K

Oct 17

NCT02708095

J&J

Stelara (Ustekinumab)

24 wk

100

SRI-4, Wk 24

Dec-17

NCT02349061

Ablynx

ALX-0061

24 wk

300

m BICLA response

Mar 18

NCT02437890

Source: Edison Investment Research. Note: *Excludes studies for lupus nephritis, investigator-sponsored, Japanese bridging and open-label extensions. SRI = Systemic Lupus Responder Index. BILCA= British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Composite Lupus Assessment. CLASI = Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (skin disease only). AE = adverse events. NB Ustekinumab is already approved for various indications so this is a line extension.

Benlysta sales have been hampered by a high price of around $35,000 per year, modest efficacy and a restrictive label. Worldwide sales for Benlysta in 2015 were £230m; growth was 25%. Of these sales, 90% were in the US. Of the development-stage products, most threatening might be AstraZeneca’s anifrolumab, which blocks the IFN receptor to reduce interferon effects; IFN-K neutralises IFN. Anifrolumab will have Phase III data by late 2018, so could be marketed from 2020.

Dermatomyositis: An additional IFN-K indication

Potential further indications for kinoid technology are autoimmune diseases like dermatomyositis. This a rare autoimmune condition related to lupus. There is no cure. It manifests as a skin complaint, but underlying muscle and connective tissues are attacked causing weakness. Neovacs plans to initiate a 15-patient Phase I trial starting in Q316, with data in late 2017, using the proceeds from the June rights issue.

Data on the market is very limited. Reeder (2010) estimated an incidence of up to 3,200 new cases a year, and a prevalence of 22/100,000: 70,000 cases based on a small sample. Neovacs has cited a similar incidence but prevalence at perhaps up to 32,000.

VEGF-K: A potential blockbuster product in preclinical

Neovacs has decided to enter the immunotherapy market with Vascular Epithelial Growth Factor Kinoid (VEGF-K; in preclinical development). Trials could start in Q316 with data in H217. VEGF is proven to be involved in the formation of new blood vessels in cancer growth, particularly of colorectal cancer. Stopping vascularisation slows tumour growth. VEGF is also involved in wet acute macular degeneration (AMD). This has developed into a major market for anti-VEGF antibodies, but these are expensive and need to be injected into the eye every month. A cheaper product that avoids the need for eye injection would have a considerable advantage, but it would need to be as effective to preserve sight. Markets are detailed in Exhibit 10.

Exhibit 10: VEGF-K potential indications

Indication

Current product

Cancer

The market is dominated by Roche’s Avastin (bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody). Avastin had 2015 sales of CHF6.68bn (US$6.9bn), split 44% US, 26% Europe. VEGF-K could target the same market. Avastin patents expire over 2019-20 and several biosimilar products are likely to launch which will lower prices but possibly expand the market.

AMD

Lucentis (ranibizumab) is sold in the EU by Novartis, with sales of US$2.06bn in 2015, and by Roche in the US, with 2015 sales of CHF1.5bn ($1.6bn).

AMD

Eylea (aflibercept, Regeneron) had sales of US$2.68bn in 2015 in the US and, through Bayer, €1.23bn (US$1.4bn), up 62%. This product has taken share and growth from Lucentis, so provides the key benchmark.

Indication

Cancer

AMD

AMD

Current product

The market is dominated by Roche’s Avastin (bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody). Avastin had 2015 sales of CHF6.68bn (US$6.9bn), split 44% US, 26% Europe. VEGF-K could target the same market. Avastin patents expire over 2019-20 and several biosimilar products are likely to launch which will lower prices but possibly expand the market.

Lucentis (ranibizumab) is sold in the EU by Novartis, with sales of US$2.06bn in 2015, and by Roche in the US, with 2015 sales of CHF1.5bn ($1.6bn).

Eylea (aflibercept, Regeneron) had sales of US$2.68bn in 2015 in the US and, through Bayer, €1.23bn (US$1.4bn), up 62%. This product has taken share and growth from Lucentis, so provides the key benchmark.

Source: Edison Investment Research

Stellar Biotechnologies joint venture

The joint venture, based near Paris, will be owned 30% by Stellar and 70% by Neovacs and will operate as Neostell SAS. A CEO and board have been appointed and the company was legally established on 19 July 2016. Founding capital in Neostell, set at €400,000 will be made if the IFN-K Phase IIb study in Lupus is positive. Bpifrance, a French government agency, will provide non-dilutive funding for €5m until 2019 to finalise clinical development and to scale up manufacturing of IFN-K. Neostell will produce all Neovacs’s kinoid products (particularly IFN-K) and other conjugated therapeutic vaccines on behalf of third parties. Edison assumes that partners are supplied at a transfer price including a margin divided between the parties. Stellar Biotechnologies, a US company, manufactures keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), the immunogenic carrier protein conjugated to the antigen to make kinoids like IFN-K. Stellar has supplied KLH to Neovacs for many years and will supply Neostell.

Sensitivities

The hypothesis that the disease is exacerbated in about 80% of lupus patients due to over production of interferon alpha leading to an “interferon signature” (IS) has received support from two large Phase II AstraZeneca studies. Neovacs is using a combined IS and clinical co-primary endpoint in the current IFN-K Phase IIb. The use of IS should reduce risk as a high IS profile is seen in about 87% of patients and other trial data indicate better outcomes in this type of group. However, the IS case is not yet fully established through a pivotal study. To progress to Phase III, Neovacs intends to partner the project using the Phase IIb data. The €5m Korean deal shows that the project can attract partners at a good value. Substantive Phase III trials will be required for the crucial US FDA approval and IFN-K is several years behind AstraZeneca’s anifrolumab, in Phase III with good Phase II data. IFN-K needs a different commercial strategy as it is a one-off course of injections rather than a chronic therapy with reoccurring monthly injections and so income.

Valuation

Most value rests on IFN-K in lupus. The other projects are small (like dermatomyositis) or lingering in preclinical like VEGF-K. Edison’s market forecast for lupus starts with the 80% of patients with IS; the IS figure is not definitive. This is derived from Exhibit 8, so 137,000 in the US and 146,000 in Europe. Exhibit 11 shows our US forecast and Exhibit 12 the European forecast. RoW is based on 20% of the European figure: US epidemiology is not typical. The fall in 2033 in the US and 2031 in Europe is due to the loss of biological exclusivity and assumed generic competition.

Exhibit 11: IFN-K courses US (not probability adjusted)

Exhibit 12: IFN-K courses Europe (not probability adjusted)

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data

Exhibit 11: IFN-K courses US (not probability adjusted)

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data

Exhibit 12: IFN-K courses Europe (not probability adjusted)

Source: Edison Investment Research based on Exhibit 8 data

US pricing assumed by Edison is similar to Benlysta at €38,500 or €35,000. INF-K offers the advantage, in theory, of lasting immunity, so one 24-week course could last three to four years at least. The European price is assumed to be €20,000 as European state-backed healthcare is very price sensitive. Good pharmacoeconomic data will be required to justify the pricing in Europe. The sales decline as patients are only treated once and the incidence rate is very low. Market penetration rates of 15-25% three to five years after launch therefore erode the market. This gives the sales curve in Exhibit 13.

Exhibit 13: IFN-K non-risk adjusted sales forecast

Source: Edison Investment Research

As IFN-K will be Phase III funded and sold by a partner, a 15% royalty is assumed. There is a further assumption of a €25m deal fee in 2018 and regulatory milestones of €100m, both probability adjusted, at 50% (Phase II deal) and 30% (regulatory milestone), respectively. The Korean fees potentially due (€4m) are 50% probability adjusted for Phase II outcome alone. The IFN-K probability of reaching the market is 30%, an upper Phase II level reflecting the IS strong positioning. This was formerly 20% and has been increased as the Phase II has started, there is validation from the Korean deal and we have evaluated data published by AstraZeneca on IS.

Neovacs intends to develop more Kinoid products so will incur ongoing costs. These are assumed by Edison to be no more than 50% of revenues. The model runs from 2021 launch to 2032 when US 12-year biological exclusivity ends; European protection ends in 2030. The French tax rate is set at 24% on the assumption that Neovacs will offset profits against new projects. This gives an indicative value of €1.29/share before dilution by warrants and options or €1.15/share fully diluted, Exhibit 14. This is assessed before further funding needs, which are expected to be at least €8m in 2017, with further funding needed thereafter depending on deal values and timings. The funding is additional to the current cash, which is being invested in products.

The previous value of Neovacs was €39.9m with 23.4m shares in issue at that time: €1.70 per share. The model and lupus market forecasts have been fully reassessed and restructured onto a partnering basis with the latest US epidemiology. The new, higher value of €54.9m has a lower per share value as there are now 42.59m shares in issue as of end June 2016.

Neovacs benefits also from the Neostell JV. This is assumed to supply the partner(s) with IFN-K with a profit margin. This is shared 70:30 between Neovacs and Stellar. A nominal value set at 10% of the IFN-K NPV has been included. Initial costs of these developments are included in expenses.

Exhibit 14: Neovacs indicative value as of 2016 based on the period 2016-3032

Probability

Royalty

NPV (€m)

Value

IFN-K

30%

15%

183.87

Cost of goods (70% of Neostell JV)

(7.89)

Expenses (admin and R&D are not separated in accounts)

(145.07)

Tax, interest and working capital

3.17

Interest and working capital adjustments

2.43

Other projects

Nominal value

18.39

Total current indicative value

54.90

Shares in issue (27 June 2016)

42.59m

Value per share before dilution

€1.29

Warrants and options

5.01m

Diluted value per share

€1.15

Source: Edison Investment Research. Note: NPV figures are discounted at 12.5% after probability adjustment.

There are 2.18m remaining share options with various expiry dates up to 2025; this includes founder options that could convert to 20,500 shares. In addition, in 2015 Neovacs issued 7.5m warrants linked to the 2015 US investment, which can convert to 2.83m shares by 1 July 2020. This gives 5.01m potential new shares if all are exercised.

Financials

In FY15, Neovacs had a gain of €4.3m as governmental loans in relation to the previous TNF-kinoid project were deemed non-repayable as the project failed. Operational costs in FY16 are expected to be €14m, as against €12.5m in 2015, due to Phase IIb costs. The FY15 cash use was €7.8m before funding. Year-end cash was €6.1m but the €1m upfront deal fee from CKD was due in Q116 with a tax credit of €1.8m also due. A June 2016 rights issue raised €8m gross at €0.85/share issuing 9.5m new shares. The net cash from this issue is assumed by Edison to be €7.6m. This gives Neovacs sufficient cash for at least 2016. Additional funding of €8m in 2017 is assumed by Edison to be needed. The next Korean milestone could be paid in H217 if the Phase IIb is successful; management expects about €1.75m. We estimate a tax credit of €3.1m (30% of R&D) for 2016, paid in 2017. Further funding needs will vary depending on the completion and value of partnering deals in 2018.

Exhibit 15: Financial summary

€000s

2014

2015

2016e

2017e

Year end 31 December

GAAP

GAAP

GAAP

GAAP

PROFIT & LOSS

 

 

Revenue

161

1,181

0

1,750

Cost of Sales

0

0

0

0

Gross Profit

161

1,181

0

1,750

EBITDA

(9,604)

(11,227)

(13,982)

(12,570)

Operating Profit (before GW and except.)

(9,604)

(11,227)

(13,982)

(12,570)

Intangible Amortisation

(50)

(52)

(50)

(50)

Other

0

0

0

0

Operating Profit

(9,653)

(11,279)

(14,032)

(12,620)

Net Interest

(158)

0

(50)

(50)

Exceptional items

(7)

4,188

0

0

Profit Before Tax (norm)

(9,762)

(11,227)

(14,032)

(12,620)

Profit Before Tax (FRS 3)

(9,818)

(7,091)

(14,082)

(12,670)

Tax

2,306

2,565

2,860

2,928

Profit After Tax (norm)

(7,457)

(8,662)

(11,172)

(9,691)

Profit After Tax (FRS 3)

(7,513)

(4,526)

(11,222)

(9,741)

Average Number of Shares Outstanding (m)

21.7

27.5

37.3

42.6

EPS - normalised (c)

(34.4)

(31.5)

(29.9)

(22.8)

EPS - normalised and (fully diluted c)

(31.6)

(26.8)

(26.5)

(20.5)

EPS - FRS 3 (c)

(34.7)

(16.4)

(30.1)

(22.9)

Dividend per share (c)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

BALANCE SHEET

Fixed Assets

371

433

433

433

Intangible Assets

9

7

7

7

Tangible Assets

73

51

51

51

Investments

289

375

375

375

Current Assets

8,985

11,120

7,541

5,799

Stocks

0

0

0

0

Debtors

2,819

4,446

4,428

4,496

Cash

5,625

6,087

2,527

717

Other current assets

542

586

586

586

Current Liabilities

(2,012)

(4,924)

(4,924)

(4,924)

Creditors

(1,978)

(4,170)

(4,170)

(4,170)

Short term borrowings

(34)

(754)

(754)

(754)

Long Term Liabilities

(4,568)

(260)

(260)

(8,260)

Long term borrowings

(1,289)

0

0

(8,000)

Other long term liabilities

(3,280)

(260)

(260)

(260)

Net Assets

2,776

6,369

2,790

(6,952)

CASH FLOW

Operating Cash Flow

(10,175)

(10,255)

(13,994)

(12,668)

Net Interest

(158)

0

(50)

(50)

Tax

2,306

2,565

2,860

2,928

Capex

(25)

(19)

(20)

(20)

Acquisitions/disposals

0

0

0

0

Financing

9,666

8,170

7,643

8,000

Dividends

0

0

0

0

Net Cash Flow

1,613

461

(3,561)

(1,810)

Opening net debt/(cash)

(2,897)

(4,303)

(5,333)

(1,772)

HP finance leases initiated

0

0

0

0

Other

(209)

569

0

(8,000)

Closing net debt/(cash)

(4,303)

(5,333)

(1,772)

8,037

Source: Neovacs accounts, Edison Investment Research

Contact details

Revenue by geography

Neovacs
3-5, Impasse Reille
75014 Paris
France
+33 (0)1 53 10 93 00

www.neovacs.fr

N/A

Contact details

Neovacs
3-5, Impasse Reille
75014 Paris
France
+33 (0)1 53 10 93 00

www.neovacs.fr

Revenue by geography

N/A

Management team

CEO: Miguel Sieler

Chief Medical Officer: Thérèse Croughs

Mr Sieler spent 32 years with Bayer. He was CEO of Bayer Korea to 1994, then CEO of Bayer Pharma France until 1998, after which he was chairman and CEO of the Bayer Group in France. He retired in 2008. He is a director of Nexity and Stratoz. He holds a master of law degree from the University of Tubingen, Germany, and graduated from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, France.

Thérèse joined Neovacs in 2015. Previously she was CMO at Cytheris for over six years, director of BU Lauriad & NCE at BioAlliance Pharma, following several years at Novo Nordisk. She worked for 10 years at Bayer, as international project leader for rFVIII. She has a medical degree from the Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

VP Pharmaceutical Development: Bernard Fanget

Chief Scientific Officer: Géraldine Grouard-Vogel

Bernard joined Neovacs in 2005. He was previously senior VP, Pharmaceutical Development, of Flamel Technologies and before Flamel was corporate VP, Global Industrialization, at Sanofi Pasteur. He has a degree in biological chemistry from the University of Lyon, France.

Géraldine joined Neovacs in 2005. She previously worked at Sanofi-Pasteur USA in bacterial vaccine development and as a researcher at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research at the Seattle University. She has a degree in pharmacy from Angers University (France) and a PhD in immunology with Dr Jacques Banchereau at Schering-Plough Lyon (France). She has authored several scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Management team

CEO: Miguel Sieler

Mr Sieler spent 32 years with Bayer. He was CEO of Bayer Korea to 1994, then CEO of Bayer Pharma France until 1998, after which he was chairman and CEO of the Bayer Group in France. He retired in 2008. He is a director of Nexity and Stratoz. He holds a master of law degree from the University of Tubingen, Germany, and graduated from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, France.

Chief Medical Officer: Thérèse Croughs

Thérèse joined Neovacs in 2015. Previously she was CMO at Cytheris for over six years, director of BU Lauriad & NCE at BioAlliance Pharma, following several years at Novo Nordisk. She worked for 10 years at Bayer, as international project leader for rFVIII. She has a medical degree from the Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

VP Pharmaceutical Development: Bernard Fanget

Bernard joined Neovacs in 2005. He was previously senior VP, Pharmaceutical Development, of Flamel Technologies and before Flamel was corporate VP, Global Industrialization, at Sanofi Pasteur. He has a degree in biological chemistry from the University of Lyon, France.

Chief Scientific Officer: Géraldine Grouard-Vogel

Géraldine joined Neovacs in 2005. She previously worked at Sanofi-Pasteur USA in bacterial vaccine development and as a researcher at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research at the Seattle University. She has a degree in pharmacy from Angers University (France) and a PhD in immunology with Dr Jacques Banchereau at Schering-Plough Lyon (France). She has authored several scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Principal shareholders itemised in the FY15 report]

(%)

APICAP

6.87

Novartis Venture Fund

3.61

US investors (three undisclosed investors)

21.86

Founder shareholders and management (current and former)

5.15

Participation Besançon

1.89

Companies named in this report

AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Genentech, GSK, Anthera, ImmuPharma, Celgene, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Biotest, Resolve Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, J&J, Ablynx

Edison, the investment intelligence firm, is the future of investor interaction with corporates. Our team of over 100 analysts and investment professionals work with leading companies, fund managers and investment banks worldwide to support their capital markets activity. We provide services to more than 400 retained corporate and investor clients from our offices in London, New York, Frankfurt, Sydney and Wellington. Edison is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Edison Investment Research (NZ) Limited (Edison NZ) is the New Zealand subsidiary of Edison. Edison NZ is registered on the New Zealand Financial Service Providers Register (FSP number 247505) and is registered to provide wholesale and/or generic financial adviser services only. Edison Investment Research Inc (Edison US) is the US subsidiary of Edison and is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Edison Investment Research Limited (Edison Aus) [46085869] is the Australian subsidiary of Edison and is not regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Edison Germany is a branch entity of Edison Investment Research Limited [4794244]. www.edisongroup.com

DISCLAIMER
Copyright 2016 Edison Investment Research Limited. All rights reserved. This report has been commissioned by Neovacs and prepared and issued by Edison for publication globally. All information used in the publication of this report has been compiled from publicly available sources that are believed to be reliable, however we do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this report. Opinions contained in this report represent those of the research department of Edison at the time of publication. The securities described in the Investment Research may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. This research is issued in Australia by Edison Aus and any access to it, is intended only for "wholesale clients" within the meaning of the Australian Corporations Act. The Investment Research is distributed in the United States by Edison US to major US institutional investors only. Edison US is registered as an investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Edison US relies upon the "publishers' exclusion" from the definition of investment adviser under Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and corresponding state securities laws. As such, Edison does not offer or provide personalised advice. We publish information about companies in which we believe our readers may be interested and this information reflects our sincere opinions. The information that we provide or that is derived from our website is not intended to be, and should not be construed in any manner whatsoever as, personalised advice. Also, our website and the information provided by us should not be construed by any subscriber or prospective subscriber as Edison’s solicitation to effect, or attempt to effect, any transaction in a security. The research in this document is intended for New Zealand resident professional financial advisers or brokers (for use in their roles as financial advisers or brokers) and habitual investors who are “wholesale clients” for the purpose of the Financial Advisers Act 2008 (FAA) (as described in sections 5(c) (1)(a), (b) and (c) of the FAA). This is not a solicitation or inducement to buy, sell, subscribe, or underwrite any securities mentioned or in the topic of this document. This document is provided for information purposes only and should not be construed as an offer or solicitation for investment in any securities mentioned or in the topic of this document. A marketing communication under FCA Rules, this document has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.
Edison has a restrictive policy relating to personal dealing. Edison Group does not conduct any investment business and, accordingly, does not itself hold any positions in the securities mentioned in this report. However, the respective directors, officers, employees and contractors of Edison may have a position in any or related securities mentioned in this report. Edison or its affiliates may perform services or solicit business from any of the companies mentioned in this report. The value of securities mentioned in this report can fall as well as rise and are subject to large and sudden swings. In addition it may be difficult or not possible to buy, sell or obtain accurate information about the value of securities mentioned in this report. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Forward-looking information or statements in this report contain information that is based on assumptions, forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable, and therefore involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of their subject matter to be materially different from current expectations. For the purpose of the FAA, the content of this report is of a general nature, is intended as a source of general information only and is not intended to constitute a recommendation or opinion in relation to acquiring or disposing (including refraining from acquiring or disposing) of securities. The distribution of this document is not a “personalised service” and, to the extent that it contains any financial advice, is intended only as a “class service” provided by Edison within the meaning of the FAA (ie without taking into account the particular financial situation or goals of any person). As such, it should not be relied upon in making an investment decision. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Edison, its affiliates and contractors, and their respective directors, officers and employees will not be liable for any loss or damage arising as a result of reliance being placed on any of the information contained in this report and do not guarantee the returns on investments in the products discussed in this publication. FTSE International Limited (“FTSE”) © FTSE 2016. “FTSE®” is a trade mark of the London Stock Exchange Group companies and is used by FTSE International Limited under license. All rights in the FTSE indices and/or FTSE ratings vest in FTSE and/or its licensors. Neither FTSE nor its licensors accept any liability for any errors or omissions in the FTSE indices and/or FTSE ratings or underlying data. No further distribution of FTSE Data is permitted without FTSE’s express written consent.

Frankfurt +49 (0)69 78 8076 960

Schumannstrasse 34b

60325 Frankfurt

Germany

London +44 (0)20 3077 5700

280 High Holborn

London, WC1V 7EE

United Kingdom

New York +1 646 653 7026

245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor

10167, New York

US

Sydney +61 (0)2 9258 1161

Level 25, Aurora Place

88 Phillip St, Sydney

NSW 2000, Australia

Wellington +64 (0)48 948 555

Level 15, 171 Featherston St

Wellington 6011

New Zealand

Frankfurt +49 (0)69 78 8076 960

Schumannstrasse 34b

60325 Frankfurt

Germany

London +44 (0)20 3077 5700

280 High Holborn

London, WC1V 7EE

United Kingdom

New York +1 646 653 7026

245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor

10167, New York

US

Sydney +61 (0)2 9258 1161

Level 25, Aurora Place

88 Phillip St, Sydney

NSW 2000, Australia

Wellington +64 (0)48 948 555

Level 15, 171 Featherston St

Wellington 6011

New Zealand

Hogg Robinson Group — Update 1 August 2016

Hogg Robinson Group

Continue Reading

Subscribe to Edison

Get access to the very latest content matched to your personal investment style.

Sign up for free