Momentum is building after recent success.

The CDK4 and CDK6 has markedly changed the perception of CDKs as therapeutic targets in cancer. There are currently three selective CDK4/6 inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in combination with hormonal therapy (HR+) HER2 negative (HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Pfizer’s palbociclib (Ibrance), Novartis’s ribociclib (Kisqali) and Eli Lilly’s abemaciclib (Verzenio)

All three agents in combination with aromatase inhibitors showed equally effective clinical benefit in overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and a slightly different but near-identical spectrum of adverse events. Ibrance was the first to the market, winning FDA clearance in 2015. In 2018, Ibrance sales reached $4,118 million (90% of the market), while sales of Kisqali and Verzenio were $235 million and $255 million, respectively. The clinical and commercial success of CDK4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer have led to the enrichment of the product pipeline with the addition of many other CDK and CDK4/6 inhibitors including:

1. Lerociclib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and breast cancer at Phase 1/2 stage
2. SEL24 in acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) at Phase 1/2 stage
3. CYC065 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at Phase 1 stage
4. SY-1365 in solid tumors at Phase 1 stage
5. ON 123300 in CDK4/6 overactive tumors at pre-IND stage

Momentum is building after recent success.

The CDK4 and CDK6 has markedly changed the perception of CDKs as therapeutic targets in cancer. There are currently three selective CDK4/6 inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in combination with hormonal therapy (HR+) HER2 negative (HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Pfizer’s palbociclib (Ibrance), Novartis’s ribociclib (Kisqali) and Eli Lilly’s abemaciclib (Verzenio)

All three agents in combination with aromatase inhibitors showed equally effective clinical benefit in overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and a slightly different but near-identical spectrum of adverse events. Ibrance was the first to the market, winning FDA clearance in 2015. In 2018, Ibrance sales reached $4,118 million (90% of the market), while sales of Kisqali and Verzenio were $235 million and $255 million, respectively. The clinical and commercial success of CDK4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer have led to the enrichment of the product pipeline with the addition of many other CDK and CDK4/6 inhibitors including:

1. Lerociclib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and breast cancer at Phase 1/2 stage
2. SEL24 in acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) at Phase 1/2 stage
3. CYC065 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at Phase 1 stage
4. SY-1365 in solid tumors at Phase 1 stage
5. ON 123300 in CDK4/6 overactive tumors at pre-IND stage

Past results are discouraging.

Despite significant efforts to translate scientific knowledge into clinical development of CDK inhibitors, clinical results have been disappointing in the past. Flavopiridol, a first-generation CDK inhibitor, was investigated in more than 60 clinical trials between 1998 and 2014. Flavopiridol did not meet the initial high expectations as it showed minimal clinical benefit in patients. Despite evidence of clinical activity in haematological malignancies, such as chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL, 40% response rate), Phase 3 clinical development was halted in 2012 based on lack of durable response and high disease burden in patients.

The second-generation CDK inhibitors, e.g. AZD5438, have also been extensively studied in the clinic. The efforts to achieve increasing potency and selectivity did not meet expectations. As such, development of second generation CDK inhibitors was terminated. Experts believe the failure of these drugs in the clinic could be due to the following:

1. Lack of full understanding of the mechanism of action
2. Poor selective targeting of CDK isoforms
3. Inappropriate patient selection
4. Lack of differentiation between healthy and cancerous tissues

Past results are discouraging.

Despite significant efforts to translate scientific knowledge into clinical development of CDK inhibitors, clinical results have been disappointing in the past. Flavopiridol, a first-generation CDK inhibitor, was investigated in more than 60 clinical trials between 1998 and 2014. Flavopiridol did not meet the initial high expectations as it showed minimal clinical benefit in patients. Despite evidence of clinical activity in haematological malignancies, such as chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL, 40% response rate), Phase 3 clinical development was halted in 2012 based on lack of durable response and high disease burden in patients.

The second-generation CDK inhibitors, e.g. AZD5438, have also been extensively studied in the clinic. The efforts to achieve increasing potency and selectivity did not meet expectations. As such, development of second generation CDK inhibitors was terminated. Experts believe the failure of these drugs in the clinic could be due to the following:

1. Lack of full understanding of the mechanism of action
2. Poor selective targeting of CDK isoforms
3. Inappropriate patient selection
4. Lack of differentiation between healthy and cancerous tissues

Overall positive outlook for CDK inhibitors.

Fundamentally, the cell cycle process and cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) are critical regulators of cell replication, migration of survival. Deeper understanding of the biology of CDKs has been instrumental to the development of more potent CDK inhibitors, particularly in regard to determining biomarker and combination strategies. The key points to success include:

1. specificity of the inhibitors in vivo and in vitro
2. selection of patients
3. selection of effective combinational strategies

Given the critical roles that CDKs play in multiple aspects of cell biology, CDKs inhibitors as a drug class is perceived as significant cancer therapeutics. The positive clinical data and commercial success of dual CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors suggest that these candidate medicines could potentially be efficacious in many cancer indications.

Sources:

Asghar et al. “The history and future of targeting cyclin-dependent kinases in cancer therapy” Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 February; 14(2): 130–146

Besson et al. “CDK Inhibitors: Cell Cycle Regulators and Beyond“ Dev Cell. 2008 Feb;14(2):159-69

Ameratunga et al. “To cycle or fight - CDK 4/6 inhibitors at the crossroads of anti-cancer immunity” Clinical Cancer Research 2018

www.biomedtracker.com

U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Overall positive outlook for CDK inhibitors.

Fundamentally, the cell cycle process and cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) are critical regulators of cell replication, migration of survival. Deeper understanding of the biology of CDKs has been instrumental to the development of more potent CDK inhibitors, particularly in regard to determining biomarker and combination strategies. The key points to success include:

1. specificity of the inhibitors in vivo and in vitro
2. selection of patients
3. selection of effective combinational strategies

Given the critical roles that CDKs play in multiple aspects of cell biology, CDKs inhibitors as a drug class is perceived as significant cancer therapeutics. The positive clinical data and commercial success of dual CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors suggest that these candidate medicines could potentially be efficacious in many cancer indications.

Sources:

Asghar et al. “The history and future of targeting cyclin-dependent kinases in cancer therapy” Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 February; 14(2): 130–146

Besson et al. “CDK Inhibitors: Cell Cycle Regulators and Beyond“ Dev Cell. 2008 Feb;14(2):159-69

Ameratunga et al. “To cycle or fight - CDK 4/6 inhibitors at the crossroads of anti-cancer immunity” Clinical Cancer Research 2018

www.biomedtracker.com

U.S. Food & Drug Administration