Tag Archives: antibodies

Thanks for the complement

Posted on by

The Alzheimer’s Association’s division devoted to frontotemporal dementia and related disorders has just announced its award for best publication of the year for 2004.  It’s entitled, “Genetic, transcriptomic, histological, and biochemical analysis of progressive supranuclear palsy implicates glial activation and novel risk genes.” The lead author is Dr. Kurt Farrell of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York, and the senior author is Dr. Adam Naj of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.  Full disclosure: I played a very minor role in an early phase of the work and am 34th of the 48 co-authors.

The study sought to identify new genes conferring risk for PSP by comparing genetic markers between a group of 2,779 people with PSP (a large majority autopsy-confirmed) and 5,584 people with no neurodegenerative conditions.  This is the largest such study in PSP to date, the first having been published in 2011. The study’s large size gives it greater power to distinguish a genuine PSP-related genetic variant from a statistical fluke. 

This technique can identify not a specific gene, but a small region of a chromosome, typically with 50 to 200 genes.  But the researchers then nominated a couple of the most likely genes in that region and tested brain tissue for excessive amounts or abnormal forms of the protein encoded by the candidate genes.

Besides confirming PSP’s previously-identified genetic risk factors, Farrell and colleagues identified a new risk gene called C4A, located on chromosome 6. The protein it encodes is part of the cell’s “innate immune system.” The C stands for “complement,” a complicated group of proteins that assist the antibodies.  Once an antibody latches onto an unwanted invader like a bacterium or virus, proteins from the complement system attach to the other end of the antibody, initiating a series of interactions that eventually produces an “attack complex” that pokes a major hole in the invader.

The other important finding from the same study was a strong tendency for all the genes known to increase PSP risk to affect the oligodendrocytes.  Those are the brain cells that form the myelin sheath insulating the axons of most of the brain’s neurons, greatly facilitating electrical conduction.  We’ve known for decades that loss of myelin is an early feature in PSP, and that some PSP risk genes encode proteins related to oligodendrocytes.  But the new paper provides important confirmation in a larger patient group, using techniques not previously available.

So, bottom line: Although the genetic basis of PSP is not usually enough to make the disease occur in more than one member of a family, it could still be one important factor, along with things like a poorly-understood toxin exposure.  Furthermore, the new evidence that the oligodendrocytes might be the first cells to get sick in PSP points researchers in that direction in their search for new, easily addressable drug targets.  Plus, the discovery that an important part of the immune system could be what’s ailing the oligodendrocytes means that the array of potential drug targets is now much better focused. Shotgun approaches to taming components of the complement system have been under way for about a decade now, and the new finding of Farrell et al could focus those efforts nicely.

A PSP shot?

Posted on by

For years, I’ve looked at drug companies’ lists of tau-directed treatments in or nearing clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease and wished that more of them would be tried for PSP. In both diseases, as most of you know, abnormalities in the tau protein are central to the brain cell damage. Of course, the prevalence of AD in the population is over 100 times that of PSP, with a correspondingly larger profit potential. But some big companies such as AbbVie, Biogen, Ferrer, GemVax & Kael, Novartis, TEVA, and UCB have given their AD drugs a shot against PSP. Even some smaller companies with lesser resources such as Allon, Amylyx, BioJiva, EmeraMed, Noscira, Sanofi, Transposon, and Woolsey have done so, and in some cases the failure of that PSP trial meant the bankruptcy of the company. Tough business.


Happily, two more companies have now taken the PSP plunge with drugs originally developed for AD. One is AADvac1, an active vaccine directed against the tau protein. An active vaccine is a component of the disease-causing protein, virus or bacterium. It stimulates the recipient’s immune system to make antibodies that then prevent, cure, or slow down the disease. You will recognize this as the mechanism for most disease-preventing vaccines like those for polio, measles and the flu. The other category of vaccines is passive, meaning that they are themselves antibodies against the relevant disease-causing molecule, virus or bacterium. Examples of passive vaccines are the rabies or tetanus shot given after an injury, and the anti-tau monoclonal antibodies from Biogen and AbbVie that have been tried unsuccessfully against PSP.


Early-phase clinical trials of AADvac1 for Alzheimer’s disease started in 2013. They were small, with only a few dozen participants, and although designed to assess safety, could have detected slowing of AD progression if it was dramatic.


The most recent such trial was published in late 2021. It showed no more side effects than placebo and excellent success in inducing anti-tau antibody formation. It was too small (117 subjects on AADvac1, 79 on placebo) to reveal less than a dramatic benefit and in fact there was no hint of benefit in its measures of dementia. However, a subsequent analysis of the trial published by a different research group in 2024 included only the 70% of the original group with high blood levels of p-tau217. That’s the most characteristic abnormal form of tau in AD, where the 217th amino acid in the protein carries a phosphate group. The re-analysis did show a strong trend toward benefit in several measures. The most dramatic effects, and the only ones reaching statistical significance, were the reduction and stabilization of blood levels of two proteins that rise in AD called neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acid protein. Less impressive but still favorable effects occurred in cognitive tests and imaging of brain atrophy. (Both the original and the re-analysis research groups did include important roles by employees of the drug company, Axon Neuroscience.)


I have no direct knowledge of whether the company is proceeding with a Phase 3 trial in AD based on this result, or if regulatory agencies would even allow them to do so. But I strongly suspect not, based on the absence to date of such a study from the company’s drug pipeline web page and from http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

But PSP is another story! We now have a way for small companies like Axon Neuroscience to test a drug at relatively little expense. See my last post for some details on the PSP Trial Platform (PTP), headquartered at University of California San Francisco. Starting probably in late 2025, the PTP will perform a Phase 2 trial of AADvac1 in people with PSP in parallel with trials of the drug AZP-2006 and a third drug yet to be revealed. The three trials will share a single placebo group and coordination infrastructure, drastically reducing costs, and once things reach a steady state, reducing time delays as well.


In the Phase 2 AD trial, AADvac1 was administered as 11 subcutaneous injections, initially every four weeks and later, every three months. I suspect that the plan for the PSP trial will be very similar. The double-blind treatment period will be 12 months and the primary outcome measure will be a 15-item version of the original, 28-item PSP Rating Scale. I’ll pass along more details and contact information once these become available.


I’ll post something on the other drug planned for the PTP soon.


NERD ALERT: AADvac1 is a string of 12 amino acids from the microtubule-binding domain of tau. The full tau molecule has 352 to 441 amino acids, depending on which exons are spliced in by the cell. The two monoclonal antibodies that failed to help PSP are both directed at the N-terminal, conventionally shown as the left end (AbbVie’s tilavonemab against amino acids 25-30 and Biogen’s gosuranemab against 15-22). Subsequent research has shown that the disease-causing part of tau, however, is the middle region, which includes the microtubule-binding domain (amino acids 243 to 368). Another monoclonal antibody, bepranemab, which attacks a slightly different part of the middle region (amino acids 235-250), is currently being tested against AD and may enter a PSP trial in the next couple of years.

He said he was just going out to buy cigarettes . . .

Posted on by

Yeah, yeah.  I know I haven’t posted anything in the past two years other than responses to questions.  No, I don’t know why.  But those who stray can be redeemed, I’m told.  So here’s the first installment of a quick and dirty summary of most of the important news in the world of PSP from 2018 and 2019:

I’ve mentioned with breathless hope the two large trials of monoclonal antibodies directed against the tau protein, one sponsored by Biogen, the other by AbbVie.  Both were designed to detect slowing of the progressive decline in function as measured by the PSP Rating Scale.  Bad news.  Back in July 2019, AbbVie ended its study prematurely after an interim analysis showed no benefit and that continuing the study would be futile.  Biogen completed its study in October and announced in early December that its results were no better than AbbVie’s.  In each case, there were no important adverse effects.  But each company is continuing development of its respective antibody for Alzheimer’s disease.  Those results won’t be available for a few years.

But there’s still hope for anti-tau antibodies in PSP.  Both the Biogen and the AbbVie antibodies were designed to recognize the “N terminal,” so-called because of its unattached amino group, which is based on nitrogen.  (The other end is called the “C terminal” because of its unattached acid group, which is based on carbon.)  But other drug companies are developing antibodies targeting other parts of the tau molecule, and they haven’t announced any intention to abandon those programs.  Next out of the gate will be the big Belgian company UCB, whose antibody targets the “microtubule-binding domain” of the tau molecule, which is much closer to the C terminal.  Its Phase 1 trial has started at selected centers in Europe and in the works is a larger, Phase 3 trial that will include sites in the US.  Still other anti-tau antibodies are being tested in Alzheimer’s by Lilly, Roche/Genentech and Johnson & Johnson, and there’s no reason to think that those antibodies couldn’t work just as well against PSP.

Other treatment ideas are approaching clinical trials as well.  The closest are the “OGA inhibitors,” which I described in a 2017 post.  Three companies are working on those: Asceneuron, Merck, and Lilly, though the last is just targeting Alzheimer’s so far.  I hope that Asceneuron’s trials will start in 2020, though my PSP treatment hopes have been dashed before. Also on deck are the “anti-sense oligonucleotides,” or ASOs, which prevent the tau molecule from being manufactured in the first place.  Such drugs are already on the market for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy and hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis, each of which affects the muscles or nerves rather than the brain and are not tau disorders.

You’ll recall that a new set of diagnostic criteria for PSP was published in 2017.  It’s called the MDS-PSP Criteria after the Movement Disorder Society (now renamed the “International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society” for obscure reasons), which sponsored the project.  New criteria were necessary to recognize early stages of PSP, when enrollment in treatment trials (and later, in treatment) would be most advantageous, and also to recognize the recently-described PSP subtypes.  In the past two years, a few studies have validated the criteria to some extent by comparing autopsy results with how closely patients satisfied the criteria during life.  Just last month, researchers in the UK found that applying the new criteria allowed them to expand their population with PSP by 74%.  The new patients were those with the “atypical” forms of PSP that went unacknowledged by the older criteria published in 1996.  The thing is, most of the “atypical” PSP patients will evolve to also satisfy the criteria for typical PSP, which we call PSP-Richardson syndrome, or PSP-RS.  So they would eventually have been recognized as PSP, but usually after years of erroneous diagnoses, unnecessary tests and futile, expensive and inconvenient treatments.

Quite enough for now.  I’ll continue these updates more faithfully, only next time it will get more technical.  Careful what you wish for.

A welcome formality

Posted on by

I see my patients with PSP on special clinic days when I have arranged for specialized professional help and have allotted extra time for the visits. The downside is that that it can be a dispiriting few hours, with little to offer anyone that day beyond symptomatic treatment, information and a pep talk. So I use this blog to accentuate the positive.

In that vein, I’m happy to report the drug/biotech industry’s efforts to develop a therapeutic antibody are proceeding apace. The latest tidbit is that the FDA has granted orphan drug status to the anti-tau antibody designated C2N-8E12 being developed by a joint venture of C2N Diagnostics and Abbvie. A 32-patient Phase I trial headed by Adam Boxer at UCSF will begin sometime soon. Achieving orphan status allows the company certain financial advantages and a longer patent life. Both are critically important for any new treatment for a rare disease, as the potential profits wouldn’t otherwise justify the development cost and risk.
Several other companies are working on anti-tau therapeutic antibodies, many of them aiming initially at PSP. Their ultimate Holy Grail is a treatment for Alzheimer’s, but it’s easier to conduct a clinical trial in PSP, as its progression is more readily predicted and measured. Furthermore, tau is the only protein known to aggregate in PSP, which makes that disease a simpler “model system” than AD, where both tau and beta-amyloid aggregate. The company furthest along this road is Bristol-Myers Squibb, whose tau antibody trial seeks 48 patients with PSP at 12 centers across the US and will start enrolling in a few weeks.
So I’m hoping for sunnier PSP clinic days soon!

Two pieces of good news: antibodies and TPI-287

Posted on by

To help that last, depressing post on CSF diagnostic tests go down, here are two spoonfuls of sugar.

The first is that the tiny biotech startup iPierian, Inc. has been bought by the giant Bristol-Myers Squibb.   iPierian, like at least a half-dozen other companies and several academic labs, is developing an antibody against tau.  Their first disease target is PSP.  The mere fact that BMS is interested indicates that some smart people think this idea has legs, and the R&D resources that big pharma can bring to bear are a great shot in the arm for the tauopathies.  Of course, the Holy Grail from the commercial standpoint is an Alzheimer’s treatment, but if a PSP treatment is spun off as a preliminary or corollary product, excellent.

Antibodies can’t gain access to the intracellular space in the brain.  The scientific idea underlying the antibody development is that misfolded, aggregated tau molecules are vulnerable to antibody attack during their foray through the intercellular space en route from neuron A to neuron B.  It’s like the cute green sea turtle hatchlings getting picked off by gulls during their awkward sprint across the beach.   The notion of tau secretion by neurons is critical to the new templating hypothesis of spread of misfolded and aggregated proteins in neurodegenerative disease.  (The idea has also been called “prion-like” but I’m with those who feel that this creates misplaced fear that all neurodegenerative diseases are transmissible and their sufferers are to be shunned.)

Now, let’s just hope that the stuff is tolerated, both by patients and by BMS’s business strategy.

Another purveyor of anti-tau antibodies, C2N, is in a more advanced stage of the pipeline with its own product.  A Phase I trial is due to start within a year.  More on that in coming weeks.

The other nice piece of news is that a trial of a microtubule-stabilizing drug in PSP and CBD has received IRB approval and will begin soon.  Designated TPI-287, the intravenously infused compound is a member of the taxane family that has been successful as antineoplastic agents.  It’s only in Phase Ib at this point and confined to a handful of centers, mostly in California.  Details should be up on clinicaltrials.gov soon, but here they are now:
• Study director: Adam Boxer, MD, PhD
• Sponsor: UCSF (Funder: CBD Solutions, Tau Consortium)
• Recruiting?: Yes
• Official study title: A Phase I, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Sequential Cohort, Dose-Ranging Study of the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Preliminary Efficacy of TPI-287 in Patients with Primary Four Repeat Tauopathies: Corticobasal Syndrome or Progressive Supranuclear Palsy
• ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: not yet available
• Conditions studied: Corticobasal Syndrome (CBS) and Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP)
• Intervention Drugs: TPI-287 or placebo control is administered as an intravenous infusion, once every 3 weeks for 9 weeks during the double-blind dose-finding phase (for a total of 4 infusions). There are 3 infusions in the optional open-label phase; total of 7 infusions in both phases.
• Phase: Phase Ib
• Purpose: Tau is a microtubule-associated protein, and abnormal tau function has been proposed to play a role in the development and progression of primary four repeat tauopathies, CBS and PSP. TPI-287 is a stabilizer of microtubule dynamics, and the stabilization of microtubules is hypothesized to compensate for the loss of tau function in primary four repeat tauopathies. The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and tolerability of intravenous (IV) infusions of TPI-287 in patients with four repeat tauopathies (4RT), CBS or PSP.
• Duration of participation: Approximately 4 months, 7 months with open label extension
• Inclusion criteria: Subjects must be between 50 and 85 years of age (inclusive) and be able to walk 5 steps with minimal assistance (stabilization of one arm or use of cane/walker). Subjects must also have a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 14 through 30 at the screening visit. Subjects must be willing and able to have brain MRIs as well as two lumbar punctures performed. Subjects must have a reliable caregiver who has at least 5 hours of contact with them per week and is willing to accompany the subject to study visits.
• Exclusion criteria: Subjects must not have any medical condition other than CBS or PSP that could account for cognitive deficits (such as Alzheimer’s disease, active seizure disorder, stroke or vascular dementia). Subjects must not have a prominent and sustained response to levodopa therapy. Subjects must not have a history of significant cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, or hepatic disease, significant peripheral neuropathy, major psychiatric illness or untreated depression. Subjects must not have previous exposure to microtubule inhibitors, must not have participated in another interventional clinical trial within 3 months of screening, and must not have been treated with another investigational drug within 30 days of screening.