Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Q3 2020 Xencor Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. After the participant presentation, there will be a question and answer session. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Charles Lyle, Head of Investor Relations.
Thank you, and please go ahead, sir.
Thank you, and good afternoon. Earlier today, we issued a press release, which outlines the topics we plan to discuss today. The press release is available at www.zencor.com. Today on our call, Basil Daghyatt, President and Chief Executive Officer, will provide updates regarding COVID-nineteen impacts as well as our partnerships Alan Yang, Chief Medical Officer, will review updates throughout our clinical portfolio and John Cush, Chief Financial Officer, will review financial results. And then we'll open up the call for your questions.
Before we begin, I would like to remind you that during the course of this conference call, Xencor management may make forward looking statements, including statements regarding the company's future financial and operating results, future market conditions, the plans and objectives of management for future operations, the company's partnering efforts, capital requirements, future product offerings, research and development programs and the impacts of the COVID-nineteen pandemic on these topics. These forward looking statements are not historical facts, but rather are based on our current expectations and beliefs and are based on information currently available to us. The outcome of the events described in these forward looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated by these forward looking statements, including, but not limited to, those factors contained in the Risk Factors section of our most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10 ks and Quarterly Report on Form 10 Q. With that, let me pass the call over to Bassil.
Thanks, Charles, and good afternoon, everyone. Xencor's approach to creating antibody and cytokine therapeutics is centered around our XmAb protein engineering platform. By making small changes to an antibody structure, specifically in its Fc domain, we can improve its natural functions and performance and create new mechanisms of action. The plug and play nature of our suite of XmAb Fc domains allows us to engineer nearly any antibody to have improved activity, longer half life or bispecific structure. This flexibility and portability enable us to take a multiple simultaneous shots on goal in the clinic.
And the proof of concept data we generate will guide which programs we independently advance, which we will partner and which we will terminate. We're focusing our R and D on the expansion and use of our XmAb bispecific platform to create antibodies that are buying 2 or more different targets simultaneously and also to engineer cytokines with structures optimized for particular therapeutic use. We're currently running 6 Phase 1 clinical studies evaluating ciduximab bispecific antibodies. And we continue to explore novel mechanism of action for oncology treatments with our XmAb bispecific platform. And we're presenting 3 preclinical programs at the Society For Immunotherapy of Cancer meeting or SITC meeting next week.
Our B7 H3xCD28 bispecific is a preclinical program that targets a T cell co stimulatory signal via CD28 to the pan tumor target B7 H3. This creates an opportunity to enhance treatment in a wide range of tumor types with T cell targeted therapies like checkpoint inhibitors and CD3 engagers. We're also presenting our PD-one targeted TGF beta receptor blocker for T cell activation and our potency engineered IL-twelve program, both of which are engineered to enhance tolerability and duration of action while providing highly active immune stimulation in tumors. Now before we move on to our clinical portfolio today, I'd like to provide an update on the impact of COVID-nineteen pandemic on our operations. The pandemic did not significantly disrupt patient enrollment in our 6 ongoing clinical studies during the Q3.
Manufacturers that provide our drug supply, however, notified us that they are currently experiencing critical shortages of material used in their manufacturing processes. We have sufficient supply to the drug material to continue conducting our ongoing studies without interruption. However, we expect a small delay in the development timelines for the preclinical XmAb30,819 program, are ENPP3xCD3 bispecific for renal cell carcinoma. Time lines for advancing additional early stage programs into the clinic and for our ongoing clinical programs could be affected if the supply interruption goes longer than we currently estimate. The autoimmune IL-two FC program, XmAb 27564, however, is not affected by this and the initiation of a Phase 1 study is on track for early 2021.
We'll continue to update you on manufacturing impacts from COVID if and when they emerge. Within the company, we're maintaining a requirement for non laboratory employees to work remotely, but we're also continuing our on-site measures to protect the health and safety of our employees and of our community. With that, Alan Yang, our Chief Medical Officer will review updates to the clinical
an abstract containing updated data from our Phase 1 study of bivacotamab in patients with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia, which we will present in December. Bivacotamab is a CD123xCD3 T cell engager, 1 in a class of tumor targeted bispecific antibodies that contain both a tumor antigen binding domain, in this case, CD123 and a cytotoxic T cell binding domain, such as CD3. CD3 bispecifics activate T cells at the site of the tumor in order to potentially kill malignant cells. Data emerging from the study suggests that the patients with AML having low baseline disease burden and specific T cell signatures may be more likely to respond to treatment with vivacodimab. The primary toxicity, cytokine release syndrome, is generally mild to moderate in severity when observed and is manageable.
We continue to optimize the dosing regimen in this study along with our partner Novartis, we are exploring opportunities to develop bivacotumab in patients with lower baseline leukemic disease burden, for whom an intermittently dosed CD123 targeting antibody could be a needed therapeutic option. Next, a Phase 1 study of plimodimab or CD20, CD3 bispecific antibody continues to enroll patients with non Hodgkin's lymphoma in chronic lymphocytic leukemia with planned expansion cohorts to start in 2021. In addition, operational preparations are underway for a Phase 2 monotherapy trial in diffuse large B cell lymphoma and for a Phase 4a Phase 2 combination therapy study as well. Our 3rd clinical stage CD3 bispecific antibody is tilduzumab, which targets somatostatin receptor 2. Last month, we presented initial dose escalation data from the ongoing Phase 1 study in patients with neuroendocrine tumors or NETs.
Tidemab was generally well tolerated at the recommended dose identified for the expansion portion of the study at 0.3 micrograms per kilogram priming dose and a subsequent 1.0 microgram per kilogram repeat dose. Peripheral blood biomarkers indicated Tydunumab induced acute and sustained T cell activation. Dose dependent increases in proliferation and activation markers of CD positive T cells, CD8 positive T cells were observed, which is consistent with tilduzumab's mechanism of action. In 14 patients where we described clinical activity, the best overall response was stable disease and the median duration of treatment was approximately 7 months. We believe completion of enrollment and longer follow-up are required to evaluate progression free survival and the clinical utility of tidemab for patients with neuroendocrine tumors.
Early next year, we plan to initiate an additional clinical study in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma and small cell lung cancer, which are somatostatin II receptor expressing tumor types known to be responsive to immunotherapy. In addition to these CD3 bispecifics, we have developed another suite of bispecific antibodies where the binding affinities are tuned for selective engagement of T cells and we call these our tumor microenvironment activators. Selecting for dual checkpoint expression, for example, distinguishes these from combination therapy and most checkpoint inhibitors. T cells that have multiple checkpoint expression are typically found more in the tumor microenvironment than in the periphery. Our design of this class seeks to more effectively reactivate these tumor reactive T cells than existing therapies and is meant to potentially drive improved efficacy and tolerability compared to the dosing of separate anti CTLA-four and anti PD-one antibodies in combination.
In mid October, after abstracts from the SITC Annual Meeting were temporarily available to the public, we issued an 8 ks with an abstract containing data from our ongoing Phase 1 study evaluating XmAb2717, a dual PD-one CTLA-four checkpoint inhibiting bispecific antibody in patients with advanced solid tumors. The SITC meeting is next week, so we won't review the abstract in its entirety now. In summary though, XmAb20717 continued to be well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients and we are encouraged by the antitumor activity observed in patients with various types of advanced solid tumors at the 10 milligram per kilogram dose level. The study is currently enrolling patients with renal cell carcinoma to expansion cohort and continues to roll patients with additional dose escalation cohorts starting at 15 milligrams per kilogram as we did not reach the maximum tolerated dose. The expansion cohorts with melanoma, advanced non small cell lung cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers without approved checkpoint therapies are fully enrolled.
The first study is evaluating 2 other clinical stage tumor microenvironment activators, XmAb22841 and XmAb23104 continue to enroll and dose patients with advanced solid tumors. Finally, we're developing a suite of cytokines, which are immune signaling proteins we have engineered with the XmAb bispecific Fc domains. We also tune the potency of these cytokines to improve their properties and make them more drug like. For example, by slowing their receptor immediate clearance and extending their circulating half life. Our first cytokine program and lead in our collaboration with Genentech is the IL-fifteen fused to its alpha receptor and our bispecific Fc domain, which is XmAb24306 or RG6323.
It targets the expansion and activation of T cells and natural killer cells and does not bias towards regulatory T cells like its cousin, the cytokine IL-two. Genentech is currently enrolling patients in a Phase 1 study evaluating XmAb24306 initially as a monotherapy and then in combination with atezolizumab, their anti PD L1 antibody. We are planning to explore a number of our own combination studies after safety and dose in the ongoing Phase 1 has been established. Our second cytokine candidate, XmAb207,000 and 64 is an IL-two Fc fusion protein that we are planning to develop for patients with autoimmune diseases. It is engineered to selectively activate regulatory T cells and similar to the IL-fifteen program, we reduced its potency and incorporated our Xtend technology in order for it to have more drug like properties.
As Basil mentioned, we are on track to start dosing healthy volunteers in early 2021. We look forward to keeping you informed about all our clinical programs as they progress. Azul?
Thanks, Alan. So now on to partnerships. A core part of our business is to complement our internal development portfolio with partnering. These partnerships generate payments from the licensing of XmAb Technologies, the clinical advancement of XmAb candidates, as well as royalties from sales of approved products. There were no COVID-nineteen impacts to partnering revenue during the Q3, but we will continue to monitor potential impacts of course.
Now our many partnerships really highlight the plug and play nature of the suite of XmAb Fc domains that we've created. With small changes to the Fc structure that we've engineered, we can, for nearly any antibody, improve its activity, half life or readily create stable multivalent structures. We have 12 ongoing partnerships for XmAb technology, which have resulted in 2 market products, Alexion's ULTOMIRIS for rare blood disorders and now MorphoSys' MANGIVI or tafasitamab as the first second line treatment for patients with an aggressive form of lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Unlike ULTOMIRIS, where we just licensed the XtendSC technology to Alexion, we created tafasitamab, which MorphoSys licensed from us in 2010 and also initiated its clinical development running the Phase 1 study. It's a CD19 antibody engineered with our XmAb cytotoxic Fc domain.
MorphoSys has guided the decision on tafasitamab's European marketing authorization application should be in the second half of twenty twenty one. The plug and play nature of our XmAb Technologies enables partners to advance their programs with very few resources from us and we selectively license access to our XmAb Technologies. We recently entered into an agreement with Omeros Corporation providing them a non exclusive license to our XtendFC technology. As is typical for these types of agreements, Omeros is responsible for all development and commercialization activities for all candidates. We received an upfront payment of $5,000,000 and are eligible to receive milestone payments and royalties.
Finally, I just wanted to touch on progress our partners are making in advancing antibody therapies that incorporate Xtend Fc domains for the treatment of patients with COVID-nineteen, Alexion and Veer. Alexion is conducting a randomized controlled Phase 3 study of ULTOMIRIS in hospitalized patients with advanced COVID. Vir has non exclusive access to our Xtend Fc technology to extend the half lives of Vir-seven thousand eight hundred and thirty one and Vir-seven thousand eight hundred and thirty two, both novel antibodies that they're investigating potential treatments for COVID-nineteen. VERON has commenced a Phase 3 clinical study for VER-seven thousand eight hundred and thirty one for the early treatment of COVID-nineteen patients who are at high risk of hospitalization and they plan to initiate a clinical study of VER-seven thousand eight hundred and thirty two in the near future. Our partnership with VER additionally demonstrates the broad applicability of Xtend across viral infectious disease as there are other antibody programs, VER-three thousand four hundred and thirty four in hepatitis B virus infection and VER-two thousand four hundred and eighty two in influenza A are both advancing through early stage clinical development.
Now I'll hand the call over to John Cush, our CFO, who will review the Q3 and 1st 9 month financial results. John?
Thank you, Bassil.
During the Q3, Xencor's portfolio of partnerships, collaborations
and licensing arrangements continue to generate strong cash flow, which help offset the growing investment in our pipeline of clinical and early stage drug candidates. In this afternoon's press release, we reported cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities totaling $582,900,000 as of September 30, 2020, compared to $601,300,000 at December 31, 2019. The decrease reflects cash used to fund operating activities in the 1st 9 months of 2020, offset by total proceeds of $89,100,000 received in upfront payments, milestone payments and royalties from licensing agreements. Total revenue for the Q3 ended September 30, 2020 was $35,400,000 compared to $21,800,000 for the same period in 2019. Revenues in the Q3 included milestone revenue from MorphoSys related to approval of MYJUVY, licensing revenue from Omeris and royalty revenue from Alexion compared to revenues from the same period of 2019 which were primarily reflects milestone revenue from the Alexion, Amgen and Novartis collaborations.
Total revenue for 9 months ended September 30, 2020 was $80,800,000 compared to $153,200,000 for the same period in 2019. Revenues for the 9 month period in 2020 include royalty revenue from Alexion, milestone revenue from MorphoSys and licensing revenue from Gilead, Aimmune and Omeris compared to licensing and collaboration revenue from Genentech and Astellas and milestone revenue from Alexion, Amgen, Novartis collaborations in 2019. Research and development expenditures for the Q3 ended September 30, 2020 were $44,500,000 compared to $29,800,000 for the same period in 2019. Total R and D expenses for the 9 months ended September 30, 2020 were $121,900,000 dollars compared to $91,300,000 for the same period in 2019. Additional spending on R and D for the 3rd quarter and 1st 9 months of 2020 over months for the same period in 2019 is primarily due to increased spending on our clinical programs including plamotamab, XmAb20717 and our IL-two Fc cytokine development program XmAb207,554.
General and administrative expenses for the Q3 ended September 30, 2020 were $7,600,000 compared to $6,300,000 in the same period in 2019. Total G and A expenses for the 9 months ended September 30, 2020 were $22,100,000 compared to $17,500,000 for the same period in 2019. Additional spending on G and A for the Q3 and the 1st 9 months 2020 over amounts for the same periods in 2019 is primarily due to increased compensation costs related to additional general administrative staffing and spending on intellectual property, including patents and licensing costs. Non cash stock based compensation expense for the 9 months ended September 30, 2020 was $23,100,000 compared to $24,700,000 for the same period in 2019. Net loss for the Q3 ended September 30, 2020 was $12,600,000 or $0.22 on a fully diluted per share basis compared to net loss of $10,200,000 or $0.18 on a fully diluted per share basis for the same period in 2019.
The higher net loss reported for the Q3 of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 is primarily due to increased R and D spending over increased revenue earned during the period. For the 9 months ended September 30, 2020, net loss was $55,600,000 or $0.97 on a fully diluted per share basis compared to net income of $53,800,000 or $0.92 on a fully diluted per share basis for the same period in 2019. The net loss reported for the 9 months ended September 30, 2020 compared to the net income reported for the same period in 2019 is primarily due to higher collaboration licensing revenue reported in 2019 compared to 2020 and increased spending on R and D programs in 2020 over 20 19 amounts. The total shares outstanding were 57,400,000 as of September 30, 2020 compared to 56,700,000 as of September 30, 2019. Based on current operating plans, projected spending and expected proceeds from our partnerships and collaborations, we expect to have cash to fund research programs and operations into 2024 and to end 2020 with between $525,000,000 $575,000,000 in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.
With that, we would now like to open up the call for your questions. Operator?
And our first question comes from Ted Tenthoff of Piper Sandler. Please proceed.
Hey, thanks so much guys and a nice update. I wanted to ask with respect to 14,045, your C1 23 for AML. Definitely was intrigued to see the clean safety and some responses there. Maybe you can go into a little bit more detail in terms of what next steps might be and is there potentially use that in combination with other agents? Thanks.
Thanks, Ted. I'll just state at the outset, of course, we have some restrictions because of our ongoing partnership with Novartis around 14,045 about how much we can say. I don't know, Alan, do you want to comment on the population?
Yes, I have to be cautious here, but it was kind of an interesting scientific observation that we found more activity in patients with a lower burden of disease and there are specific populations in people with myeloid malignancies that will have lower burdens of disease that I'm sorry I can't say more at this time, but I think it's fairly obvious where you could go with this.
Yes. And regarding combination agents, I think we did observe also a correlation of response to people who express certain T cell markers. So we would potentially explore that as well. But the next step is as Novartis and Xencor advance along the timeline to getting the next set of groups of patients enrolled, we'll be able to disclose things more fully.
Our next question comes from Peter Lawson of Barclays. Please proceed.
Hi, everyone. This is Mitchell on for Peter and thank you for taking our questions. For vivacotumab, I can appreciate how you can't say so much about positioning, but could you talk about maybe the bar for AML in this population and how you see that? And then maybe your view on peer CD123, CD3 data in this space?
Yes. Without commenting too much on peer data, I think that the populations that are possible with this agent, if we focus on low leukemic burden, there's a variety of different bars depending on the specific subpopulation. So it's hard to give you an answer to that, but we do have good ideas about what the bar is without also disclosing unfortunately things we can't disclose.
Okay. And then I think you've mentioned potential other indications that the asset could go into. Do you have any ideas of where you might be able to take it beyond the low burden AML?
I would say it's low burden myeloid diseases in general that they're pretty broad expressors of CD123, things from myeloid lineages and there's a variety of myeloid malignancies beyond in addition to AML.
Great. Thanks so much.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Gregory Renza of RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed.
Hi, guys. This is Ying Huang for Greg. I also have a question on levocodimab. I was just wondering in light of the recent publication on CINDRED CD3, CD123 bispecific that demonstrated association between 2 Phase 3 mutations and complete response in AML. Just wondering what your thoughts are on the refill there?
And have you explored or plan to explore the potential in subpopulations of AML patients with specific mutation? Thank you.
Yes, I don't think specific mutations are how we orient this molecule CD123 is a pan marker in various myeloid malignancies. And so we think of it from a sort of a broader use perspective focusing now on where we see lower disease burden. So I don't think there's too much read through from there. Did that answer your question?
Yes, yes, I did. Thanks. And I have another one, if I may. Just wondering what's your level of confidence in the tolerability of 2717 based on the data so far? And how do you think the design of the molecule contribute to its differentiation from other PD-one CDD outlay for bispecific or combination therapy?
Yes, I'll comment on the design and then Alan maybe you jump in and talk about our tolerability observations. So the design of the molecule was so that to take advantage of its bispecific structure, it allowed us to design a molecule that requires cooperative binding in order to have strong binding, cooperative binding to both PD-one and CTLA-four. So there's only 1 PD-one binding domain, only one CTLA-four binding domain. They have fairly modest affinity. So if there's only one target or the other on the cell, they're not going to stick too well, which means they don't have a terribly high affinity to cells that have low expression of 1 or the other of the markers, you have to have both.
If you have both markers, you get nice avid binding. You have like both arms able to grab on and pull yourself onto the cell. So that was so we would focus our the molecules activity at de repressing these checkpoints on specific subpopulations that are typically more overrepresented in tumor microenvironments. That's the double positive checkpoint cell. So that's the distinction of the design and the hope there was to activate the cells that matter for better tolerability and efficacy profile.
So that's the essence of the design. And I think that's distinct from certainly from a combination therapy of 2 different antibodies, but it's also distinct from most of the PD-one CTLA-four bispecific antibodies that are in early clinical development alongside 2717. Now maybe you want to touch on the tolerability and the sort of nature of AEs that we see?
Yes, we're very pleased with the tolerability profile to date. As Basil alluded to the design, it's hard to sort of demonstrate differences in safety in a clinical study, especially a Phase 1 clinical study from sort of predecessor molecules. But with that said, there seems to be a suggestion that the AE profile is slightly different. We're seeing a lot of rash. We don't tend to see colitis.
At the way the study was designed, 10 milligrams or milligrams per kilogram was our sort of top dose and we didn't hit an MTD. So we're continuing to dose escalate now at 15 milligrams per kilogram to see if we can dose higher. The idea is if you have better tolerability, you could possibly dose higher and then get more efficacy. But we still have to sort of see what the maximum tolerated dose is. In addition, in the abstract, there was a Grade 5 and a Grade 4 event and I can add some color to that.
The patient with the Grade 5 pancreatitis did have pancreatic involvement and metastases and the one with the Grade 4 myocarditis had non small cell lung cancer that involved the myocardium. So that is sort of something that's in the abstract, but I think this helps to understand the A profile and we're actually very pleased with the data so far.
Got it. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jonathan Chang of SVB SVB Leerink. Please proceed.
Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. First question, can you provide any more color on the planned pomotimab monotherapy and combination studies in DLBCL?
At this time, all we're really able to say is that they're Phase 2 studies that were both in relapsed refractory DLBCL, looking at specific groups of patients or defined populations within there, but more details will be forthcoming. I think that the strategy that has always been that the broad use of a CD20, CD3 is going to depend on the strategy you have for how you combine it with other agents because there's so many agents of different MOAs that work in non Hodgkin lymphoma. That what we've seen for the last 20 years with the success of RITUXAN chemo is combining them in the right way gives you the best outcomes. And I think we're going to have a whole new generation of these combination regimens to choose from going forward. But a monotherapy in this setting could give you rapid acquisition of data and a much faster to market strategy sort of try to have both prongs going.
And as I said, we'll have more details forthcoming as the final operational plans and Nuance is locked into place.
Got it. Thank you. And just second question, still on pomodimab, when could we see updated data from that program?
We will be presenting updated data next year and we'll give specifics on the exact timing of that as we get a little closer to the data disclosures.
Got it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Tom Shrader of BTIG. Please proceed.
Hi. This is Kari for Tom. Thanks for taking our questions. For autoimmune disorders, I believe 2 different approaches are being evaluated in the clinic. One is to suppress auto CD8 or effector T cells and the other like yours, which is to stimulate or activate Tregs.
Can you tell us what are the advantages and what type of autoimmune disorders make sense for your approach?
Yes. I think that it is a bit it's sort of suggesting too much to think that anybody really understands the specific cellular etiology and drivers of any particular autoimmune disease. I recall not too many years ago, MS was considered a T cell driven disease and RA was considered a B cell antibody driven disease. And yet, of course, you see highly effective MS treatments from B cell targeting therapies like, accrevious and you see highly effective therapies when you look at T cell blocking therapies in RA like, AUREENZIA. So I think some simple descriptions of what drives the disease makes it hard to decide a priori what a particular agent or particular mechanism of action, which specific disease types it might benefit.
So I think that that means that we have to look at the factors like population unmet need, the preclinical models that will help us pick the indications for our autoimmune IL-two program. But I'm not a big believer that there's detailed enough mechanistic understandings of most the vast majority of autoimmune diseases to really dial yourself in like that.
Sure. Right. Yes, that makes sense. And just the last one for me. With all the engineering going around the IL-two molecules to avoid CD25 binding, which seems to prevent Treg activation and vascular leak syndrome at least preclinically, How is the IL-fifteen approach different from these novel attenuated IL-two molecules?
So IL-fifteen and this is for our oncology program, our XmAb24306 currently in Phase 1 studies with Genentech, our partner, IL-fifteen doesn't bind the CD25 or IL-two alpha receptor. It just doesn't, right? So I think that that's a critical feature that you might be able to tune away IL-two alpha receptor binding or eliminate it by pegylating in the right spot. I often see it starts out at that as baseline. And so that's we believe that's just an inherent benefit in a risk reducer.
The other factor is the potency reduction we do is dependent on or rather was selected to have really the minimal amount of potency you could have and still activate the cells. And so I can't comment on the exact degree of how people attenuated the potency of their molecules, but we think having a single defined composition of matter that has a specifically well known potency is an advantage over say mixtures of differing potencies or kinetically variable potencies based on some chemical reaction around the molecule. And having it attached to our Fc domains with our Xtend technology on it to sort of smooth out those bumps, I think is also a benefit. We'll see how that all plays out in the humans in our 24,306 program.
That's helpful. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Etzer DeRout of Guggenheim Securities. Please proceed.
Great. Thanks for taking questions and congrats on the updates here and the progress. Just a couple for me. So first, just going back to clinicaltrialsgov to remind myself of the other 2 checkpoint TME bispecifics. And just sort of given sort of we've been dealing with COVID for the better part of the year.
Just wondering about the progress of these programs in Phase 1 and when we could expect to see clinical data from those two assets?
Right. We like to guide on when we're going to have clinical data when we're pretty close to getting those disclosures going. Note those two programs started about a year after our 20717 program, which we just had our first data disclosures over the last few months. So they're about a year less mature, having been in the clinic now for something like 15 or 16 months each. I can't say without until we get closer and have more definitive information and tell you when we would update those programs.
But they are both actively enrolling. They have not had either of them any meaningful impacts from COVID, dose escalation and they both have dose escalation and expansion cohorts baked into them that we should be able to talk to people about in due course and hopefully not that long, but we can't give any specific guidance right now.
Yes. No, that's helpful. That's helpful. Thank you. And second question, just wondered, I guess, to the extent that you can speak to this, any major differences in patient characteristics that you can speak to in the upcoming vivacotumab data relative to sort of the previously reported data back in fat ASH 2018?
I guess within the bounds of the abstract, I don't know Alan, if there's much we can say about the different, I'm assuming you're asking about demographics, etcetera.
Yes.
Yes. Go
ahead. There
haven't been any significant change to the inclusion exclusion criteria. So in terms of population shifts of the total patients enrolled, there's probably not
going to be changes? Yes. So it
wouldn't reflect
our insights around the kinds of patients in the lower disease burden that were better likelihood of response. It would not reflect that.
Great. Awesome. Well, I can always follow-up as well after the presentation, but thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Gabriel Fung of Mizuho Securities. Please proceed.
Hi there. This is Gabriel on for Merrill Goldstein. Just a question here on the IL-fifteen-twenty four-three zero six candidate. How are you thinking about planning on expansion studies? How are you thinking about the planning of expansion studies moving forward?
Would these be more of combinations with portfolio products, more leaning more towards established external candidates? And does the agreement with Genentech have any restrictions on which targets either party can explore?
So I'll take that one. So in terms of timing, of course, you have to establish safety and dose schedule with the agent before we can kick off other combinations. We would look at not just our own internal candidates, but also 3rd party molecules, some of which have been predefined in the contract that we're planning on doing combination studies with, some of which we can just propose and initiate. There are some restrictions around, of course, creating problematic safety signals and things like that. Those are sort of part of the course for combination studies.
But also we cannot and we would not want to have the same exact mechanisms of action compete with each other within the sort of overall study approaches, right. So it'll be fairly broad and we know Genentech has a pretty broad view beyond just in the Phase 1 doing that initial combination with atezolizumab, which is something that's been disclosed.
Right. Good. And also just one extra quick question on the on your comment about on vivacotamab earlier when you discussed the you see more rash than colitis. Could you provide more color as to your discussions with the physicians on the trial as to how meaningful this difference is? And if maybe a physician would prefer a rash over a colitis events for the drug?
Alan, you want to take that without obviously speaking for all the doctors and oncologists in America?
Yes. So again, just to clarify, it wasn't for vivacotamab, it was for XmAb20717, our PD-one CTLA-four. And I think it's still early in the development to say that we're going to sort of distinguish it based on its safety profile. But I think it does suggest differences in the design of the molecule and it's doing the things that we're hoping it's doing. So at this stage, I'm optimistic, but I'm not going to go and say that people are going to use or prescribe differently based on the AE profile.
That's always been challenging in oncology,
Our next question comes from Arlinda Lee of Canaccord. Thank you. Our next question comes from Arlinda Lee of Canaccord. Please proceed.
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I had questions about your dose escalations for 14,045 and bibacotamab. So neither of these you've reached an MTD. And I'm wondering if you're still in dose exploring what you're looking forward to deciding a go forward dose?
And then on 14,045, is do you think that going into a lower burden myeloid malignancy would have the same dose. And I'm curious on the better efficacy that you're seeing. Are you also seeing lower CRS? Thank you.
So there's several layers of questions there. Maybe to start with the first, And I so you're talking about 1 program here, vivacotumab, right?
And the 2,717. Well, mainly
the vivacotamab, but also 2,717 you haven't.
Okay. So now I can multiply all that by 2. Hold on a sec. Let me just make a note. So I think that the places we're still nailing down the details around dosing regimen for 14,045 are around exactly the schedule of priming doses to give.
So that's that piece. That's always the last bits of details. And it's fair to say that the restrictions around dose changing and escalation within a patient that we had put on us by the FDA coming off the clinical hold just definitely make that a little slower of a process. So that's fair to say that that made it definitely more difficult. So you then asked the question about lower burden disease having necessarily the same or a different dose.
Alan, you might want to take that. I guess you would expect more flexibility around the tolerability of the agent with lower disease burden now?
Yes, it's a great question, Erlinda. And it's really around not so much the dose, but remember, we're giving ours intermittent dosing. So, every other day or weekly And it's the schedule and how quickly you can escalate because we know that you can give fairly high doses, they can be tolerated, but they have to be sort of primed and you have to sort of move up to that dose. And so it's really a balancing act of how quickly do you want the dose to go up and how high do you need it to go up to get the efficacy that you want to see. And I think there's a little bit of work that still needs to be done there.
Clearly, if you have lower burden of disease, you may need a different dose or schedule. But I don't think we have that completely figured out yet.
And then lower CRS with lower burden disease, I don't know that we have enough data to even comment on that, though nothing jumps out.
Yes, we are watching that. I will say from the history of bispecifics that has been sort of demonstrated clearly with blincyto, the higher leukemic burden has more CRS, etcetera. So it's something that we would expect to see and we will keep an eye out for that.
Yes. Now for 717, because we saw activity at 10 mgs per kg, we did expand there and it's a tolerable dose and we're exploring higher, but we're not letting exploring higher doses hold us back from really pushing forward with 10 mgs per kg and then maybe adjusting later if higher is really well tolerated and suggests it might give us an incremental bit of activity. But we are confident that 10 mgkg is an active dose.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Zixu of Berenberg. Please proceed.
Thanks very much. Congrats on the progress. A few questions here. In your prepared remarks, you mentioned about the strategy for companies to decide which program to move forward, which program to terminate. I guess at the current state of the other assets, which ones would you say that you would definitely move forward?
Well, they're all moving forward right now to get that key proof of concept data that gives you that ability to make the decision. And that's essentially where most of our programs stand. I think our plimodimab and 20717 programs are at that point where the proof of concept data is emerging as we observe, right? It doesn't all happen at once in these open label oncology trials, data emerges and rolls out and gives you the directions to take. So we're in the midst of that decision process for how to advance PAMA and 2,701 and we're actually optimistic about both.
I think we feel pretty confident that both are going to continue advancing. For the others, we await data and we'll have the thumbs up, thumbs down on those as data emerges.
Okay, great. And then for IL-twelve and IL-fifteen, I understand both are for oncology. Based on, I guess, preclinical or translational data, do you see the difference in terms of which indications for either program?
Not really. I think that they're both they both have a broad activity at improving T cell function and number, I don't think there's anywhere near the granularity of data you would want to look at indication based on their specific mechanisms.
Okay, understood. And finally for the IL-two program for autoimmune disease, I understand that you mentioned eventually probably this will be partnered out as company starts on oncology. When do you think will be a good time for the company to start looking? Do you want to get the Phase 1 data ready or are you looking for a part of these outside of it right now?
I would actually park the idea that we're definitely going to partner the IL-two program. I think it really comes down to the indication strategy that we select that we're right now pulling all the pieces together on that we would implement immediately after we come out of our healthy volunteers dose escalation, which we hope happens very quickly because that's the beauty of healthy volunteers studies in these autoimmune indications just to get your mechanism of action, your pharmacodynamics, your PK nail down. That indication strategy is going to drive whether we want to keep the asset for the long haul or partner it. I think that we have to be realistic that sometimes an autoimmune disease partnering is what you need to do. But I don't want to make that a predicate if that's what we're definitely going to do with that program.
We'll be able to give more color on that as our as we can start publicly disclosing our strategy.
Got it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I would now like to turn the call back to Basil DeHayat for closing remarks.
Thank you very much, operator, and thank you everybody for joining us today. Take care of yourselves. Have a great evening. We look forward to updating you again over the coming weeks.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating and you may now disconnect.