And more:
While we aim to segregate risk using modalities, there may be foreseen and unforeseen risks across modalities in whole or in part. These include, but are not limited to, mRNA, chemical modifications, and LNPs and their components. In addition, if any one or more of our clinical programs encounter safety, tolerability, or efficacy problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues, or other problems, our platform approach and business could be significantly harmed. We may believe that a particular modality has been de-risked but later determine that new and different risks exist with respect to such modality.
In addition, the biology risk across the majority of our pipeline represents targets and pathways not clinically validated by one or more approved drugs. While we believe we have made progress in seeking to reduce biology risk in certain settings, such as for vaccine targets for which we and others have shown the utility of neutralizing antibodies, the risk that the targets or pathways that we have selected may not be effective will continue to apply across the majority of our current and future programs.
While we attempt to diversify our risks by developing one or more programs in each modality, there are risks that are unique to each modality and risks that are applicable across modalities. These risks may impair our ability to advance one or more of our programs in clinical development, obtain regulatory approval, or ultimately commercialize our programs, or cause us to experience significant delays in doing so, any of which may materially harm our business.
Certain features in our development candidates and investigational medicines, including those related to mRNA, chemical modifications, surface chemistries, LNPs, and their components, may result in foreseen and unforeseen risks that are active across some or all of our modalities. Any such portfolio spanning risks, whether known or unknown, if realized in any one of our programs would have a material and adverse effect on our other programs and on our business as a whole.
There are specific additional risks to certain of our modalities and our programs as a whole. For example, prophylactic vaccines typically require clinical testing in thousands to tens of thousands of healthy volunteers to define an approvable benefit-risk profile. The need to show a high degree of safety and tolerability when dosing healthy individuals could result in rare and even spurious safety findings, negatively impacting a program prior to or after commercial launch. While we believe that certain safety, tolerability, and levels of immunogenicity we have observed in the early-stage clinical trials in our prophylactic vaccine programs are sufficient to initiate additional trials, there can be no assurance that we will observe acceptable safety or efficacy profiles in later-stage trials required for approval of these programs. For neoantigen cancer vaccines, to date, no molecular (non-cell-based) therapeutic protein vaccine has been shown to be effective against cancer and there are many clinical and manufacturing challenges to personalized medicines, including cell-based therapies and vaccines. These risks include: a rapid production turn-around time that is measured in weeks in order to supply patients in our clinical trials before further progression and mutation of their tumors, the significant costs incurred in making individualized vaccines, and potential lack of immune responses potentially due to the biology of the tumor or immune status of the patient. These and other risks apply to our PCV and other neoepitope investigational medicine programs. Additionally, there may be challenges in delivering an adequate quantity of active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, required to drive efficacy due to the limitation in volume of API that can be delivered to a specific location, like a tumor or injured tissue. Our therapies for local injections often require specialized skills for conducting a clinical trial that could delay trials or slow or impair commercialization of an approved investigational medicine due to the poor adoption of injected local therapeutics or intratumoral therapies. In addition, the uncertain translatability of target selection from preclinical animal models, including mouse and non-human primate models, to successful clinical trial results may be impossible, particularly for immuno-oncology and systemic therapies, and cancer vaccines. In general, several biological steps are required for delivery of mRNA to translate into therapeutically active medicines. These processing steps may differ between individuals or tissues, and this could lead to variable levels of therapeutic protein, variable activity, immunogenicity, or variable distribution to tissues for a therapeutic effect. Gene therapies and mRNA-based medicines may activate one or more immune responses against any and all components of the drug product (e.g., the mRNA or the delivery vehicle, such as an LNP) as well as against the encoded protein, giving rise to potential immune reaction related adverse events. Eliciting an immune response against the encoded protein may impede our ability to achieve a pharmacologic effect upon repeat administration or a side effect. These risks apply to all of our programs, including our systemic secreted therapeutics and systemic intracellular therapeutics modalities.
