Peter Hammerman joined the Swiss firm in late 2016, becoming the
fourth leading cancer scientist to be poached in little more than
year from Harvard, a short walk along Massachusetts Avenue from the
Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR), the company's
Cambridge-based research arm.
The aim of this Harvard recruitment drive: to reinvigorate
Novartis's oncology business.
The drugmaker has been slow to move into treatments that fight
cancer by boosting the immune system - immunotherapies - over the
past decade. This initial scepticism has cost it billions of dollars
in lost sales as Roche, Bristol Myers-Squibb and Merck and Co all
cashed in with so-called PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor drugs.
"Certainly a challenge that has been laid down in front of many of
us at Novartis (is) we don't have a marketed PD-1 or PD-L1 agent,"
Hammerman, one of the world's leading cancer experts, told Reuters
in his first interview since joining Novartis.
"Our competitors do. That's a reality," he added. "But I think we
have a broad and very strong portfolio."
Hammerman is the global head of oncology translational research at
NIBR, where he leads Novartis's effort to understand just what
drives tumor growth and how drugs affect the process.
He is treading the same Harvard-to-Novartis path walked by blood
cancer specialist Jay Bradner, who now heads NIBR; Jeff Engelman,
who heads the institute's overall cancer drug discovery; and cancer
vaccine pioneer Glenn Dranoff, leader of NIBR's immuno-oncology
efforts.
With the four, Novartis believes its oncology business is now on the
right path.
It has added PD-1 molecules to its pipeline, thanks to its 2014
purchase of U.S.-based CoStim, and Hammerman and his colleagues are
now studying 12 potential immunotherapy treatments.
Novartis, with rival U.S. biotech Kite, is also setting the pace in
a separate field of cancer immunotherapy, called CAR-T, where
doctors extract immune system T cells, supercharge them to better
kill cancer, and re-inject them into the patient.
Novartis plans to seek U.S. approval for its drug soon and sees
blockbuster potential.
INVESTOR CONCERN
But investors still need convincing after the company's slow
entrance into immunotherapy drugs, which are widely regarded as a
crucial part of cancer treatment for years to come and which
industry analysts forecast could eventually generate annual sales of
$30 billion to $40 billion.
Compounding the pain, Novartis' main cancer drug Glivec, whose
annual sales once topped $4.6 billion, lost patent protection last
year.
Novartis's share price has dropped 20 percent in the past two years,
partly on concerns over its immuno-oncology pipeline. Some investors
think it could be forced into a big acquisition to remedy
shortcomings.
By comparison Merck's stock is up 11 percent.
"I've sold Novartis," said Phil Webster, a BMO fund manager in
London. "I'm a bit worried about what they're going to do, what
they're going to buy, because clearly there are holes in that cancer
pipeline."
CAR-T is still unproven commercially, while companies with already
approved immunotherapies have a head start since PD-1 and PD-L1
treatments will almost certainly form an important foundation for
future treatments in which they are combined with chemotherapy or
other cancer drugs.
[to top of second column] |
"It's a big advantage," said Dan O'Day, Roche's drugs chief, whose
immunotherapy Tecentriq won approval last for bladder and lung
cancer.
"It is clear that PD-L1 (and) PD-1 is a backbone therapy."
Hammerman remains undaunted, contending shortcomings of PD-1
therapies - only 20 to 30 percent of patients benefit - mean the
race for new, better ways to activate armies of T cells to more
effectively seek out and destroy tumors is far from over.
"There are certainly ways to innovate and improve upon what is
happening in the context of PD-1 and PD-L1 therapy," he said.
HARVARD BUDDIES
The Harvard lab named after Hammerman, where he did similar work,
had 10 employees. Novartis, where he has 65 staff, lured him away
with promises of assets unheard of even in Ivy League academia.
"We have a lot more patients, a lot more samples, a lot more trials
and a lot more resources to do this than any given academic lab,"
Hammerman said.
Rejoining his Harvard buddies, with whom he regularly grabs lunch
and the occasional after-work beer, was a factor, too.
The four have published hundreds of scientific papers among them,
including a 2016 report in the journal Nature co-authored by
Hammerman, Engelman, Dranoff and others on how tumors develop
resistance to anti-PD-1 agents.
"It was really the combined draw of all three of them that brought
me over here," Hammerman said.
Such talent, however, doesn't come cheap.
Pay for Engelman, Dranoff and Hammerman is not public but Bradner
made $5.7 million last year, Novartis's 2016 annual report shows.
One thing is clear: when the four took their careers up
Massachusetts Avenue, academia's loss was Big Pharma's gain.
"They are among best scientists with whom I've ever been
acquainted," said Harvard scientist Stuart Schreiber, a world leader
in chemical biology.
"Harvard has suffered from the loss of this level of talent."
(Additional reporting by Simon Jessop in London; Editing by Pravin
Char)
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|