0:00

Want to get caught up on the latest

0:02

, greatest bioprocessing equipment

0:04

and solutions without putting in

0:07

travel requests , flying across

0:09

the country , spending gobs of money

0:11

and time , getting harassed by salespeople

0:13

. Of course you do Register

0:16

for Bioprocess Online's BioExpo

0:19

Live being held July 30th

0:21

through August 1st . This

0:23

inaugural expo is a fantastic

0:25

opportunity for biopharma companies

0:27

and contract manufacturers to evaluate

0:30

the latest and greatest from the comfort

0:32

of your desktop or mobile device Conveniently

0:36

. We've broken down the lineup into upstream

0:38

solutions on July 30th , downstream

0:40

solutions July 31st and

0:43

quality analytical and data

0:45

solutions on August 1st . It's

0:47

absolutely free to register for this

0:49

series of short , digestible and

0:52

interactive sessions . Just

0:54

hit the link in today's show notes to

0:56

register for BioExpo Live today

0:59

. Cross

1:03

my heart , hope to die , stick

1:06

a needle in my eye . I'm

1:08

quite certain that schoolyard phrase which suggests

1:11

the acceptance of torturous pain

1:13

and even death before a vow be

1:15

broken , was not derived

1:18

from some kid's experience with the perinatal

1:20

delivery of a drug to the back of the eyeball

1:22

. But I'm also quite certain

1:25

that it does fairly capture

1:27

the prevailing sentiment about needles

1:30

and their contact with eyeballs . And

1:32

I'm certain that , while biopharma has developed

1:34

some amazing large molecule therapeutics

1:37

for multiple diseases of the eye , the

1:39

patient experience and thus

1:41

adherence would be orders of

1:43

magnitude better if their administration

1:46

did not involve long needles

1:48

plunged deep into eye sockets

1:50

. I'm Matt Pillar , and my guest

1:52

on today's episode of the Business of

1:54

Biotech agrees . His name is Clarke

1:56

Atwell and he's a biopharma

1:58

veteran who's spent the last 20

2:01

some years founding and leading

2:03

companies focused largely

2:05

on ophthalmology . He's

2:08

currently leading ClarisBio as

2:10

founding CEO , a company

2:12

that's in a phase 1-2 trial

2:14

of its lead candidate , a hepatocyte

2:17

growth factor called CSB001

2:20

in patients with neurotrophic

2:22

keratitis . In patients with neurotrophic

2:24

keratitis and you guessed it , the candidate is currently

2:27

and hopefully will remain topically

2:29

administered . Cross

2:32

my heart , hope that I stick a needle in my eye

2:34

. I

2:39

interviewed Clark for Bioprocess Online a few months back and I enjoyed our visit so

2:41

much that I just had to have him on the podcast to share his story . Clark

2:44

, it is great to see you and welcome to

2:46

the business of biotech . Thank

2:48

you very much . It's a pleasure

2:50

to have you , and I want to start

2:52

out by getting to know you a little bit

2:55

and what inspired you to

2:57

become an entrepreneur and

2:59

founder in biotech

3:02

. Given that you started your career

3:04

with some heavyweights Merck

3:07

and Roche and

3:09

directorial positions there before

3:11

you jumped into your first startup . I think your

3:14

first startup was Lux Biosciences

3:16

. You can correct me if I'm wrong here , but generally

3:19

, what inspired this pivot

3:21

that you made away from big

3:23

bio and into the murky

3:26

depths of biotech ? Well

3:31

, it actually wasn't a pivot . So my father

3:33

is a serial entrepreneur , my

3:35

grandfather was a serial entrepreneur and

3:38

I always wanted to be in

3:40

a biotech a smaller company

3:42

I applied to

3:45

coming out of college . After my master's

3:47

I applied to Amgen

3:50

and Genentech and at the time

3:52

this is how old I am at the time they were

3:54

small companies and

3:56

when I called them at

3:59

Amgen specifically , the head of HR

4:01

said that they were hiring

4:03

over 200 people and they were

4:05

not over 200 people and they were not hiring people

4:07

who didn't have any experience . So she

4:10

very wisely said that I should go learn my

4:12

craft at a large pharma and

4:15

I was very fortunate that Merck

4:17

at the time hired a lot of people

4:19

out of my master's program about eight people

4:21

a year and

4:27

so I joined Merck and the pivot there was that I had

4:29

to actually reconsider whether I wanted to be an entrepreneur

4:32

because Merck was such a great company . When

4:34

I was there , I was still under Dr Vagelos and

4:37

it was just an amazing

4:39

company . I did not go to an Ivy

4:41

League school , but I imagine that the

4:44

same level

4:46

of intelligence and thoughtfulness

4:48

and process would be at Harvard

4:50

or MIT or something like that . So

4:54

I always walked into the room and felt I was

4:56

the dumbest person in the room and

4:58

I just continually learned every day

5:01

when I was at Merck and it was just a pleasure

5:03

to be there . So the real pivot was leaving

5:05

. That was the harder thing to

5:07

leave . Yeah

5:10

, you said , your dad and your grandfather were

5:12

entrepreneurs . Were they in life sciences as well

5:14

?

5:15

No , my grandfather was in

5:17

electronics mostly and

5:20

my father went from . There

5:24

was no common theme . He would start

5:26

. He was a stockbroker . He

5:29

had a shipping company . We

5:31

had a farm in Africa . We

5:34

went all over the place .

5:36

Yeah , Well , I can see where those seeds were

5:38

definitely planted there right . If your dad

5:40

was a risk taker who was willing

5:42

to plunge himself , you know , make

5:44

such , you know lateral moves

5:47

. It was kind of written on the wall

5:49

for you , wasn't it ? Yeah , so

5:51

it was . Since

5:56

you left Merck , what was , I

5:58

guess , the inspiration for the

6:00

attention that you've been focusing on

6:03

ophthalmic diseases since

6:06

you kind of charted this

6:08

entrepreneurial path , I

6:10

think ?

6:11

two things . I think the path there was immunology

6:13

. When I was at Roche

6:16

I was lucky enough to be on the

6:18

team to launch CellCept in

6:20

solid organ transplantation and I just I

6:22

loved immunology . It was one of

6:24

those areas that's still being discovered

6:26

and there's lots of new . Everything

6:29

changes . You know , if you have Janeway's book of immunology

6:31

you can pretty much throw it out and start again because

6:34

they update it regularly and it

6:36

was . It's a field that that

6:38

changes dramatically and they're

6:40

just learning so much about it and it touches

6:43

so many aspects of or so many diseases

6:45

or conditions in the body . So

6:48

I really enjoyed that and

6:51

that was how , at Lux Biosciences

6:54

, our first disease

6:56

in the eye was uveitis , which is an autoimmune

6:58

disease of the eye . But

7:00

my introduction to ophthalmology

7:02

came through a brief stint

7:05

at iTech , which was

7:07

David Geyer's company and

7:09

it was his first company and

7:13

it was eye-opening excuse

7:16

the pun , but I enjoyed

7:18

it very , very much . And

7:21

I came to the company through Merck

7:23

alumni that brought me in and

7:25

so I consulted there for about nine

7:28

months and I really enjoyed it .

7:30

Yeah , Was it sort of a conscious

7:32

? You know ? I mean , I spend a lot of time talking

7:34

with biotech leaders who

7:36

don't necessarily marry

7:38

themselves to a specific organ

7:41

or a specific indication even

7:43

, and then some who do you

7:45

know , they decide that that's where they want to play

7:48

and that's where they want to build their career , and it's a conscious

7:50

decision . Where do you kind

7:52

of fall on that ? Do you feel like it was a conscious

7:54

decision to go there and stay

7:56

there ?

7:58

No , I don't think it's a conscious decision

8:01

. I think there are a couple of things

8:03

about ophthalmology that I like a lot . One

8:05

is there are very few organs in the body that

8:07

you can actually observe and you can actually

8:09

see what you're doing and having an effect . So

8:11

that is definitely a benefit

8:14

. The other benefit of ophthalmology

8:16

is , as long as you're doing things that are

8:18

just exclusive to the eye in

8:20

the sense of delivery of drugs , you don't

8:22

have to worry about first pass effect and all

8:25

the other things that you do with a systemic drug

8:27

, so your timelines are a little shorter in the

8:29

eye . And then the other thing I think that

8:31

keeps you in a therapeutic area is

8:33

you develop a network of

8:36

colleagues , friends , people

8:38

you trust and people who your

8:41

team basically . And I think you see that

8:43

in a lot of companies where you

8:45

you work with the same people

8:47

over and over again because you trust each other , you

8:49

finish , you finish each other sentences and

8:52

I think that network kind of creates

8:54

a gravity that keeps you in a therapeutic

8:56

area . But yeah

8:59

, I've worked in infectious disease , uh

9:01

, solid organ transplant , cardiovascular

9:03

HIV , and

9:06

I've enjoyed them all , because

9:08

I enjoy the learning process

9:10

and you learn so

9:12

much when you're deep into

9:14

an indication .

9:16

Yeah , have you found that

9:18

there's any transfer , common

9:24

threads from those other indications that you've worked in to ophthalmology or , I guess , learnings

9:27

that you've taken away from some of those other experiences

9:29

with you know , organ transplant

9:32

and other indications

9:34

that transfer well to the work that you do

9:36

now ?

9:40

I think the thread of immunology is

9:43

very , very helpful and

9:46

a lot of the diseases we'll look at

9:48

with HGF there is an immunological

9:50

component . I think that

9:53

the

9:56

other elements I think are more

9:58

from the patient side . When

10:00

I was fortunate enough to work on Crixivan

10:03

at Merck , it was the early

10:05

days of HIV and Merck

10:07

, when they launched Crixivan , never really saw it

10:09

as a product in the sense of it

10:12

was going to drive revenue or profitability

10:14

. They kind of looked at it as more

10:16

of a service and

10:18

it was something that they had a capability

10:20

in for the protease inhibitors and

10:23

they worked to bring

10:25

that forward . And so the way they

10:27

they worked with the community and their

10:30

relationship with the community taught

10:32

me a lot about how to how to work with

10:34

patients and how to be thoughtful

10:37

not you're not just making a drug , but you're also

10:39

helping a patient population

10:41

and how to look at it you

10:44

, uh , you mentioned , you mentioned teams

10:47

and sort of building momentum and having some gravity

10:49

around people in a

10:51

space .

10:53

And when I think about the Claris bio origin

10:55

story , I want to get

10:57

that from you because I think about the

11:00

doctors . I believe there were

11:02

two Harvard researchers and I'll probably

11:04

mispronounce their names , so correct me if I get these wrong

11:06

, but Drs Reza , dana and

11:08

Sunil . Chauhan Chauhan yes , yeah

11:14

, chauhan . Okay , so they

11:16

were the hepatocyte

11:19

growth factor researchers . That sort

11:21

of became the nucleus

11:24

of the molecule , I

11:26

guess , for lack of a better way of putting

11:28

it , tell me a little bit about

11:30

their work and how

11:32

it sort of well

11:35

, tell me about their work and then we'll kind

11:37

of talk about how that evolved

11:39

into the buildup of

11:41

a company of clarice bio yeah

11:44

.

11:44

So I had met , uh , I had met dr

11:46

reza dana at when I was at lux

11:48

. He was a consultant to us and as

11:50

uh , as we were developing our

11:52

drug there and um , so

11:55

I , I I got a call from him

11:57

and he said would you , would you be interested in starting

11:59

a company ? So I went to meet them

12:01

and they had um . So Reza

12:04

Dan is a cornea specialist everything I'm talking about

12:06

is in the cornea but

12:10

he and Dr Sunil Chauhan

12:12

were working with mesenchymal

12:14

stem cells and

12:17

they were seeing this very positive effect

12:19

in the sense of prevention of

12:21

fibrosis and acceleration of healing in

12:24

several animal models that they were working on

12:26

. But they also realized that with

12:29

applying cells to

12:31

the surface of the eye was going to be tricky

12:33

in the sense of what's your

12:35

dose , how do you make

12:37

them ? And then consistently make the same cells

12:40

and then apply them to the eye . They

12:42

saw it was a regulatory minefield

12:45

, which I think it would have been , but

12:47

cleverly they looked at the secretome

12:50

of the mesenchymal stem cells and

12:52

said these are the top five or six

12:54

proteins that are being produced and

12:56

they went in and silenced them one by one

12:58

. And it's when they silenced HGF

13:01

that the effect of the cells basically went away

13:03

. And that was their

13:05

aha moment , and that was when they

13:07

discovered that it was HGF that was driving

13:09

the salubrious effects of the cells . And

13:12

so from there they

13:14

methodically went through

13:16

several animal models of

13:18

injury and healing . But

13:21

they also . What I thought was very

13:23

satisfying when I met them is they'd spent

13:25

a lot of time working on the mechanism of action

13:27

. And I think in

13:29

the drug world at least my experience is

13:31

in the package insert you always have the mechanism

13:34

of action and there's a lot of hand

13:36

waving there . And I would

13:38

do at Merck , even at Merck , when we would

13:40

put in the mechanism of action , it would

13:42

, years later we'd learn more

13:44

and more and more about what the real mechanism was

13:47

. But with , with , with , with

13:49

raisins you know what they had done is

13:51

because they are very , very curious people

13:54

. They had gone through and systematically

13:56

looked at the mechanism of

13:58

action .

13:58

So we have the three publications

14:00

already published and there's a fourth coming out on

14:03

the mechanism of action , and

14:14

I think when you can marry the mechanism of action

14:16

with the activity , it gives you a lot of confidence that the drug is going

14:18

to be effective . Yeah

14:25

, so how does that confidence equate to something valuable and tangible as a business , given that you know

14:27

to the point that you just made and I can I can certainly validate that based on conversations that

14:29

I've had with hundreds of of biotech

14:31

founders given that mechanism

14:34

of action hasn't historically

14:36

been like a super

14:38

important thing

14:41

to understand , you know , as

14:43

long as there are safety and efficacy , right

14:45

, like it's sort of been tertiary to

14:47

the equation , right . So , given

14:49

that historic , I guess , record

14:52

, open

14:54

that up for us a little bit , why is it advantageous

14:57

to pursue that curiosity

15:00

and fully understand the MOA ?

15:03

I think so . If you're

15:05

in a biotech , you usually

15:07

get one shot on goal , maybe two , and

15:10

so you have to be very

15:13

we're about failing , and failing quickly

15:15

. That's our job , right , but

15:17

you want to give yourself the best chance of success

15:20

. If you understand your MOA , it

15:22

allows you to marry your mechanism

15:24

of action to your

15:26

disease that you're going to treat and

15:29

you try to pair those up as much as possible

15:31

. So whatever activity the drug has

15:33

and you look at the disease and you look at what's

15:35

causing that disease or how to

15:38

ameliorate the effect of that disease

15:40

, then if you can marry those

15:42

two , I think it's very helpful . I think

15:44

from the founding of a

15:46

company building the team around a molecule

15:49

where you understand the mechanism

15:51

of action , it gives you a certain level

15:53

of confidence . And then I think the third

15:55

thing , and probably equally

15:57

important , is that when you're raising

15:59

money , having that , if

16:01

you don't have any human data or you're just

16:03

starting out pre-ind , having

16:06

that mechanism of action and

16:08

the animal models , it builds confidence

16:10

with potential investors as well that you are

16:12

, that you will succeed or potentially

16:14

could succeed .

16:15

It's not guaranteed sure

16:18

, yeah , yeah , no guarantees . What

16:20

? Um , when , when dr dana

16:22

first reached out to you and said , hey , would you

16:24

be interested in in putting a company

16:26

together around this ? And you obviously did

16:29

your due diligence and looked at the , that

16:31

MOA and the and the molecule itself

16:33

, what was what

16:36

was sort of step one on on

16:38

Clark Atwell's mind in terms

16:40

of , okay , if we're going to put

16:42

a business together around this , this is

16:44

what we need to do imminently .

16:49

I think , a couple of things . The first one was

16:51

trying to figure out what disease we wanted to go

16:53

after and thinking the potential

16:55

applications . That was

16:57

one . The second one was we were pre-IND , so

17:01

the HGF

17:03

itself at the time was

17:06

we were using research-grade HGF

17:08

from research suppliers

17:11

that had HGF , and

17:14

in order to move

17:16

as quickly as possible into the clinic , we

17:18

needed a source , and so we

17:20

found a partner in Japan called

17:23

Kringle Pharma , and they had

17:25

been developing HGF in several

17:27

systemic indications and so they

17:29

had GMP drug and they also

17:31

had a package

17:36

of data that was both clinical

17:38

and preclinical . So that allowed

17:40

us to leapfrog . So that

17:42

, combined with some

17:45

idea of where we wanted to go with the molecule

17:47

, we could

17:49

build a business plan around that , where we weren't

17:51

funding a company where we're going to have to go out

17:53

and manufacture the drug and we

17:55

were starting from

18:03

the beginning line . We already had some momentum

18:05

behind us with all of those things . So

18:07

that allowed us to go

18:10

to several VCs

18:12

and say , look , you know , we can be in the clinic

18:14

in less than a year , and

18:17

that was something that I think was attractive

18:19

to the team but was also attractive to

18:21

the VCs the

18:26

team but was also attractive to the VCs and it allowed you to get a different kind

18:28

of venture capital group behind you because they could see that you

18:30

could get into the clinic very quickly . So

18:32

getting the drug , we had to have

18:34

a license with our partners

18:36

in Japan and

18:39

they were fun to work with , because doing

18:42

partnerships in Japan is

18:45

notoriously difficult , but our partners

18:47

are . They're biotech

18:49

so they think like us , so they move very , very

18:52

quickly . And that was nice because we got to

18:54

learn how we would behave as partners

18:56

together and

18:58

we were very happy that they were like-minded

19:00

. And I think the next thing

19:02

was we had to . So

19:05

we reached out to Novo and

19:07

I had a previous relationship

19:09

with Novo through Lux Biosciences

19:12

and Thomas Derberg

19:14

and reached out to him and

19:16

he liked . He liked the

19:18

concept very much , but

19:20

we wanted to see if we could recapitulate

19:23

everything that had been done at Harvard at

19:25

at scale . And

19:27

so Ken Harrison's , our partner

19:29

from Novo , and he had recommended

19:31

or suggested using OxyVator

19:34

NGF as

19:36

a predicate molecule . We had not decided to go

19:38

into NK yet , but we redid

19:41

everything that was done at Harvard . We took

19:43

those models and transferred them

19:45

to a CRO and

19:47

had them redo

19:49

those models at scale . So instead

19:51

of the three animals that they'll use in

19:54

an academic lab , we were using 10 animals

19:56

per group and we looked at different

19:58

concentrations of the drug . We used our GMP

20:01

drug from our partner and

20:03

we looked at comparing it to

20:05

NGF , which is the active ingredient

20:07

in OxyVein's drug . And

20:10

at Harvard , ray

20:12

and Sumil had done various different

20:15

models . They'd done a mechanical injury

20:17

, a bacterial

20:20

or chemical injury model

20:23

and they had looked at prevention

20:25

of scarring , they'd looked at acceleration

20:27

of healing and they'd looked at regressing

20:30

preformed scars . And

20:32

so we did all of that work at

20:35

a CRO

20:37

in North Carolina , howard Research

20:39

, and we had set

20:41

up with Novo preset

20:43

success criteria

20:45

and we exceeded those , and

20:48

so that was when we closed

20:50

our Series A .

20:51

Yeah , If you look

20:53

at the sort of accelerated

20:56

you know early timeline that

20:58

you recognize that you would be

21:00

able to take advantage of , Can you

21:02

even begin to quantify how

21:04

big a head start , in terms of I

21:07

don't know years or even dollars , you

21:09

might have had as you came

21:12

into this engagement ?

21:16

I think the partnership with the

21:18

work that Reza and Sunil

21:20

had done and the partnership with Kringle

21:22

probably cut

21:24

three to four years off of our timeline

21:28

.

21:28

Yeah , it's incredible . Yeah

21:30

, good starting position . Yeah

21:33

, so you mentioned you

21:35

know you had to determine what you were going to put

21:38

a stake in the ground in around your

21:41

lead candidate and

21:43

you've got a molecule that is showing

21:45

a whole lot of positive data

21:47

in any number

21:49

of indications Trauma , you

21:52

know other

21:54

diseases that cause scarring

21:56

, and how

22:00

do you decide it's an advantageous position

22:02

to be in ? Right Boy ? We could probably

22:04

affect quite a few

22:06

conditions with this molecule

22:09

. What goes into that

22:11

decision-making ?

22:12

process

22:16

with the investors

22:18

, a lot of conversations with the

22:22

team , a lot of consultation

22:24

with Reza and Sunil and

22:26

outside key opinion leaders

22:28

, and

22:34

we did have , initially , another indication that we were thinking about . And as we were going through

22:36

it and having these discussions it

22:38

became very apparent from our scientific

22:41

advisory board they're like guys , there's a

22:43

much better disease for this drug and

22:45

that was when neurotrophic keratitis

22:47

sort of came into it . So it marries

22:49

, you have an active wound

22:51

, so we have the ability to accelerate

22:54

wound healing . It

22:56

is a disease where the

22:58

nerves are impacted

23:00

and damaged . We actually regrow nerves . The nerves are impacted and damaged . We

23:03

actually regrow nerves . And then it

23:06

does have a scarring component in that a

23:08

lot of the patients when they develop

23:10

an ulcer , the stroma is impacted

23:13

and

23:17

when you impact the stroma you are going

23:19

to get a scar . So it sort of fit a lot

23:22

of . We sort of think of HGF

23:24

as a Swiss army knife and

23:26

it was using the spoon , the saw , the

23:28

pliers . It used a lot

23:31

of the attributes of the drug

23:33

. So it's something that we thought as

23:35

an initial indication it would be

23:37

a good way to go forward .

23:39

Yeah , yeah , it's a great analogy . I

23:41

love an analogy that really helps a simple-minded

23:43

guy like me visualize what's

23:45

going on ? there . You mentioned just

23:47

a few minutes ago that

23:50

the data

23:53

that had been put together from

23:55

the early days you

23:58

knew would make Claris more

24:00

attractive to . I think the words you used

24:03

were a different kind of VC

24:05

, so I want to understand that a little bit better

24:07

the funding , the funding scene in

24:09

general and your , your strategy around

24:11

funding the company . But what do you mean

24:13

by a different kind or a different

24:15

group of VCs ?

24:19

I think if

24:23

you think of VCs as

24:25

an ecosystem , you

24:27

have the mice and then you have the

24:29

elephants and the

24:32

larger VCs . They move together

24:34

. So

24:38

they're always investing together and the reason for that is they like

24:40

to write big checks or they have to write big checks right , and the

24:43

reason for that is they like to write big checks or they have

24:45

to write big checks , right . So if you have a large fund , you have to , you have to spend

24:47

your time on larger investments

24:49

and then

24:51

you only invest with people who are

24:53

like minded that write those large checks

24:55

. Because you can't have , you

24:58

obviously can't deal with a smaller VC that

25:00

can't write those checks right . Eventually they can't

25:02

write the $20 million , $30

25:04

million checks . So

25:10

I think when you get closer to the clinic , as a function of the amount of money you need to raise

25:13

and what you're going to spend , those VCs will come in . So I think in

25:15

the early days you tend

25:17

to attract smaller VCs . But

25:20

those VCs that are going to help you with an IPO

25:22

or launch a product , or maybe

25:25

eventually you might be sold to a larger

25:27

pharma , but those VCs

25:29

are going to want to

25:31

write the bigger checks . So the closer you're

25:33

to the clinic or in the clinic . That's where

25:35

they tend to invest . Novo

25:38

is a little different . They do seed all

25:40

the way through and they're different in many ways

25:42

, a little different . They do seed all the way through and they're they're different

25:44

in many ways . Um , they're also an evergreen fund , so they don't , um , they don't have limited

25:46

partners , and so they um

25:48

, they're a lot more patient , uh

25:51

, and can be more patient .

25:53

So yeah , um , so tell

25:56

me about that . I guess the those days

25:58

for you , clark , um , I mean

26:00

, you got Novo's , you got , you got Novo

26:02

on board early . Were

26:05

there other fundraising partners

26:08

, players , other efforts on your part

26:10

, or was it sort of like we

26:12

got our big partner ? Let's move forward

26:14

?

26:15

Oh no , no , we talked to a lot of people . You

26:19

talk to a lot of people and I

26:21

think in raising money , the

26:23

first thing is you have to be prepared with your plan and

26:25

ready to go , because if you're out

26:27

there for too long , that becomes

26:29

a reason not to invest , right ? If you've been raising

26:32

money for a year and nobody's moving

26:34

, that becomes that hurts you

26:36

. So I think you have to have everything ready to go . So

26:38

we had our key opinion leaders

26:40

ready to go , our SAB , we

26:43

had our plan , we had our deck together , we'd

26:45

already talked to Kringle , we'd

26:47

spent a lot of time getting everything

26:49

ready and then we went out

26:51

the door . We were fortunate

26:54

that Novo came in early , but

26:56

we had been talking to a lot of other groups

26:59

, such as RA , who also invested in us

27:01

, and we were also fortunate

27:03

because it's a Harvard technology of

27:06

having well

27:09

, at the time they were called were

27:13

they called ? I'm forgetting the name now , but

27:15

they're Mass General . They came in as

27:18

investors as

27:20

well , and so we were very fortunate

27:22

to have them because they obviously

27:24

understood that ecosystem , especially in

27:26

Boston , so they were able to introduce us to a lot

27:28

of investors as well . But no

27:30

, we talked to a lot of people .

27:31

Yeah , yeah , was that like

27:34

90% of your job

27:36

at the time ?

27:38

Yes .

27:39

Raising money .

27:39

That was the biggest part of the job . Yes , raising money was that , was that was

27:41

that was the biggest part of the job , and it's it's

27:44

a , it's , it's an , it's

27:46

a necessary evil . I don't enjoy it . It's

27:49

not fun , it is

27:51

. It is , however , really

27:54

, really valuable if , in

27:56

lots of different ways , one is

27:58

you , your , your , your business

28:00

plan is pressure tested and

28:03

it's tested by very smart people . And

28:05

there are people who are wanting to say no

28:07

. Every VC that you talk to , their

28:09

first thought is how do I just get rid of this

28:12

? And if they can't come up with a

28:14

reason , then they start to get interested and they move

28:16

forward . But we

28:18

learned a lot from talking to VCs . They

28:21

pressure tested and fortunately , our plan was pretty good , but

28:24

they did give us ideas . Every meeting we would

28:26

get something new or think of something new

28:28

. There'd be a question . It was like how do we

28:30

answer that ? So that was very , very helpful . I

28:33

think through the process of talking to VCs

28:35

and how they do their diligence , you

28:37

learn a lot , and so all

28:41

of our investors were very

28:43

, very thorough in their diligence and we enjoyed

28:45

the diligence . It was rigorous , but

28:48

you also learned that they're very smart people

28:50

, and they're people who you want on your side more

28:53

than just the money , but you want the thoughtful

28:55

conversations and then the value they added

28:57

during the process . So I think that's

29:00

very , very helpful . And

29:02

then there's some that you , you walk out of the meeting

29:05

room . It's like I really don't want their money . They're

29:08

not nice people and they don't treat each

29:10

other well Like you can watch how they treat their

29:12

partners . It's like this is the people they

29:14

work with . I don't want to work with how

29:16

they treat people . So it's very , it's

29:18

very , it's very it's . It's a necessary

29:21

evil , but it could be very valuable .

29:23

Yeah , you mentioned that

29:25

. You know , you said it's hard work

29:27

and you said you don't enjoy

29:29

it . You know

29:31

which I can totally relate with

29:33

. I'm like the furthest thing from a business development

29:36

person , like sales , not my gig , Um

29:38

. But how do you , how did you

29:41

personally , uh learn

29:43

it and , even more

29:45

importantly , reconcile

29:48

uh with yourself

29:50

, Like that that this is something that you

29:52

need to do and that you're going to go out there and you're going to do it

29:54

right , Like you've got to get comfortable with it , Despite

29:57

your aversions , you , you've got to , you've got

29:59

to embrace it and you've got to go out there , Otherwise you'll drive

30:01

yourself mad , Right ? So

30:04

I guess , personally , what did you do to reconcile it ? And then

30:06

, you know , you said you , you learned with

30:09

every meeting and improved with every meeting

30:11

, but even even in advance of that , going

30:13

into it , like how , how did you learn how to be a fundraiser

30:15

?

30:18

Well , I think I was . So my education

30:20

started at

30:22

at iTech and I . It

30:25

was my first time at a company where I was

30:27

a consultant , but I had a lot of interactions

30:29

with their board and so I

30:31

saw how investors their investors

30:33

ask questions , what they were concerned

30:36

about , what they were interested in . So I think that was

30:38

my first sort of touch , I

30:40

think at Lux . I

30:42

was one of the co-founders of Lux and

30:44

Dr Uli Grau was our CEO

30:47

and I watched as he approached

30:49

the fundraising . So

30:51

I was with him through that process

30:53

, so I was kind of co-pilot , as

30:55

it were , in that process as

30:57

a COO and so

30:59

I followed that COO

31:05

and so I followed that . And then I was very fortunate that at that time I had Thomas Derberg

31:07

was on our board at Lux and

31:10

he very much became a mentor

31:12

to me and I learned a lot from

31:15

his , from conversations

31:17

through him , how an investor thought and

31:19

what was important to them . I

31:21

think the fact that I don't like the process

31:24

it helps you select

31:27

better projects , because

31:29

you're like I'm going to go out and I'm going to have to

31:32

for the want of a better

31:34

word drink from the fire

31:36

hose and I'm not going to

31:38

enjoy it , so it better be worth

31:40

it . At the other side of this , I

31:42

think you pick projects that you

31:44

you think will , uh , really

31:46

work and that you're excited about , and so I think

31:49

that it kind of it's

31:51

a good litmus test for for

31:53

a good project . It's like , oh , this is gonna suck

31:56

and I'm gonna have to go raise this money , but I

31:58

really believe in this and I really want to

32:00

take this forward , so it's

32:03

awful that way .

32:04

Yeah , and I imagine that would hold some

32:06

weight . Like you

32:08

sit down in a meeting and if you know , if you're fortunate

32:10

enough to be in a meeting with a VC

32:13

group who is tuned in

32:15

to your personality and what

32:17

you're doing there , like why you're there , I

32:20

imagine that has got to hold some

32:22

some weight with them . Versus , you

32:24

know , versus the , the biotech

32:26

BD person , or fundraiser

32:28

, um , who enjoys

32:31

the sport of it , right , like you don't enjoy

32:33

, you don't you know ? I

32:35

almost feel like going into one of these meetings and being like

32:37

listen , guys , I'm not here for the sport of it is probably

32:40

going to set you off on the right foot from the outset

32:42

.

32:43

I think it does . I think we're fortunate

32:45

that we have our

32:48

investors are amazing . I enjoy

32:50

working with them . They're thoughtful

32:52

. I learn things from them . They guide us well

32:55

. Our board meeting we

32:58

take votes at board meetings because you have to

33:00

for meeting minutes and things like that , but

33:02

we've never had to take a board vote

33:04

for anything at Clara so far where

33:07

it's been contentious or people have

33:09

to vote . They're very

33:11

, very smart people and super

33:13

supportive . I

33:21

mean , if you think about when Silicon Valley Bank blew up and all of our money was there , we got calls

33:23

from . It's like we have money . If you need to make payroll , we're here . They were calling

33:25

us on the weekends and just incredibly

33:27

thoughtful and , um , yeah

33:30

, just good people . Yeah , a lot

33:32

of a lot of entrepreneurs have bad stories with

33:34

vcs .

33:35

I I don't have any really yeah

33:37

but I think it's partly that selection

33:39

process yeah

33:41

, you You've mentioned

33:43

you've used the word we

33:45

like in those early days building the company

33:48

fundraising . I want to get

33:50

as sort of an abbreviated

33:52

chronology of the

33:54

we from the outset

33:57

, right . So like it was you and

33:59

these two doctors from Harvard , some

34:01

other folks who were interested , you got

34:03

some VCs on board , started building a board

34:05

. What did the we look like

34:07

then ? The we of ClarisBio , and

34:10

kind of walk us through what the we looks like now

34:12

as you're in the throes of clinical

34:15

activity .

34:18

So we started out it was Ray Z Raisa

34:21

and Sunil and myself initially , and

34:24

then Meredith Fisher at

34:27

Mass General was very helpful

34:29

and

34:32

supportive of us and helping sort of we

34:34

would bounce ideas off of her and she's still

34:36

on our board and an amazing person

34:39

and super thoughtful

34:41

. But that was the

34:43

we at that time . And then , as

34:46

we moved forward , we

34:48

had a legal team and

34:51

so Joe Favors

34:53

is our counsel and again

34:56

, I've worked with him for 15

34:58

years . He's an amazingly smart person

35:01

and very thoughtful

35:03

. But we worked with them . And then , after

35:05

the legal team , our first

35:07

hire was Dr Susan Orr

35:10

. She had done diligence for Alcon on

35:13

Lux Biosciences . So I got to know her through

35:15

that process and we

35:17

just stayed in contact with each other and had great

35:19

respect for her because she was doing

35:21

diligence on the questions

35:23

and the thoughtfulness and

35:26

the integrity was

35:28

very important . So Susan came

35:30

on board Shortly after that . Piotr

35:33

Braila came on as our formulation CMC

35:37

expert and it was funny we

35:39

had mentioned to the VCs that we would

35:41

, or to our investors that we would formulate

35:43

the drug in four months and they were told this all it was funny we had mentioned to the VCs that we would , or to our investors that we would formulate the drug in four months , and they

35:45

were told this all it was impossible , and

35:48

he did it in four months , so

35:50

it was very good . We were lucky , though , we

35:52

have a good protein that's very stable , and

35:56

then from there it

35:59

was during the pandemic , so

36:02

we were all co-located in different

36:04

places , and so

36:06

Susan had worked with Tom Nidalan , who

36:08

was a clinical expert

36:11

in development , so we

36:13

brought her on and then

36:15

so we were a four-person company for

36:17

a while , and then , about a year

36:19

, year and a half ago , we

36:22

decided to bring on somebody who would be our chief

36:24

business officer , and we were very

36:26

fortunate to that

36:28

was through a recruiter

36:31

and met Henry Routh , and he's

36:33

joined , and we're

36:35

very lucky . We get along very , very well . We

36:38

finish each other's sentences . I

36:41

am a recovering micromanager

36:43

, so I'm on the I think

36:45

, step 11 . And

36:47

so I think that's really helpful for me

36:49

that we've been a virtual company

36:52

for the last couple

36:54

of years , so we don't have tons of meetings

36:56

and everybody's very , very

36:58

good at what they do and very senior , so

37:01

we don't monkey with each other's

37:03

work a lot and

37:05

they have a really good culture , very

37:07

like-minded people . So that's very important because

37:09

I think one of the things I've learned as

37:11

a CEO is culture eats strategy

37:14

for lunch . And if you don't have the

37:16

right culture , it doesn't

37:18

matter how brilliant your strategy is . Yeah

37:22

.

37:23

Yeah , yeah , yeah

37:25

. That's selectivity , again selectivity . You

37:27

mentioned sort of selectivity being a

37:29

theme around the VC

37:32

exercise and I imagine

37:34

that comes to bear pretty heavily

37:36

as well when you're building out your , your C-suite

37:39

.

37:40

Definitely , definitely . And again , I think

37:42

it's that network and the people . You know I've

37:45

I've been into companies with Piotr it's

37:47

my first company with Susan , but I've known her for a very

37:49

, very long time . And then our founders

37:52

. You know our scientific co-founders

37:54

, you know Ray's and Sun , this dramatic allusion

37:56

, you know , to changes in

37:59

the

38:09

standard of care and ophthalmic

38:11

indications .

38:13

How important was it to you from

38:16

the outset that you were looking

38:18

at the potential for sort of changing

38:20

the administration paradigm for potentially

38:22

any number of you know ocular

38:25

indications away

38:27

from perinatal administration

38:30

to topical administration

38:32

? Was that like an important consideration for you or

38:35

was is that just like , oh man , this is really . It's

38:37

a , it's a nice to have .

38:40

So I think from from

38:42

an administration . It was funny because when

38:45

I was at iTech , Dr Chambers

38:47

had told Dr

38:50

Chambers at the time was in charge of the FDA and

38:53

then ophthalmology and

38:55

he had said that you shouldn't really go into

38:57

the human eye with a needle more than four times in a

38:59

person's life . And so

39:01

David Geyer definitely

39:04

changed that paradigm and people go in

39:06

every other month to get

39:08

an injection for

39:11

any VEGF or any of those therapies

39:13

for AMD or DME . But

39:15

for us the

39:17

sort of switch in the paradigm is

39:19

that if you think about it , you still

39:21

hear it from companies today that they're

39:23

only interested in the back of the eye and

39:26

the reason they say that it's code . For

39:28

that's where the value is right , because you

39:31

can charge to preserve

39:33

and actually improve vision at the back

39:36

of the eye . You can charge a significant

39:38

amount of money for that therapy and

39:41

that also sort of wrapped

39:43

up in the intended fact that they're biologics

39:46

In

39:48

the front of the eye . The business

39:50

model has always been volume

39:54

, so the most successful drugs in

39:56

the front of the eye are usually , you know , dry eye

39:58

has been where you see the billion-dollar

40:00

molecules and

40:02

that's what's driven that , I think

40:04

, with the launch of Oxervate , which

40:08

is NGF for an orphan disease

40:10

, that paradigm has shifted

40:12

from proteins in the back of the eye to

40:14

proteins in the front of the eye and people

40:16

see value there and they're

40:19

also , I think , recognizing that there

40:21

are a lot of other indications

40:23

in the front of the eye that have been

40:25

underserved . So usually the front

40:27

of the eye is antihistamines , steroids

40:30

, dry eye . You know cyclosporine

40:32

for the front of the eye and

40:35

I think bringing

40:37

biologics to the front of the eye is

40:40

very exciting and we see several

40:42

indications that we're very interested

40:44

in . That we think would really

40:47

help patients .

40:48

Yeah , you mentioned

40:50

Oxervate and we

40:52

talked about this the last time we spoke , so I'm hoping

40:54

we can spend a little bit of time talking about drawing some

40:56

, you know , sort of contrasting

40:58

what you're working on versus the

41:00

approach there Is

41:03

. That is

41:07

the approach there .

41:09

Oxervate is used to treat NK correct .

41:16

That's its indication and it's the first biologic to be approved

41:19

for use in a topical front of the eye condition ? Would that be considered the standard

41:21

of care right now ?

41:23

I think it's rapidly growing to become the standard

41:25

of care . I think if you think

41:28

about the treatment of patients with

41:30

NK , the first stage is always

41:32

to look at are you treating that

41:34

patient with any other topical

41:36

drug or even systemic

41:38

drug that could damage

41:41

the front of the eye , so a typical

41:43

drug with a preservative

41:45

in it ? You definitely take a patient

41:47

off of that . Then you move into

41:50

therapies that are not proven in

41:53

large clinical trials . So you could do serum

41:56

, you could do platelet-derived factors

41:59

you could look at . Insulin

42:01

is sometimes used . And

42:04

then you go to the sort of more surgical

42:06

like a tessera

42:09

fee , where you sew a portion of the eye closed

42:11

so that the lid covers the wound

42:13

and protects it and hopefully helps

42:15

heal it . And then

42:18

the other thing is amniotic membrane

42:20

, so you can put an amniotic membrane on the surface

42:22

of the eye . So those are sort

42:24

of the gamish of things that were used

42:26

prior and I think OxyVeid

42:28

, because of its efficacy

42:30

, has

42:33

come to be the standard of care in neurotrophic

42:35

keratitis .

42:36

Yeah , efficacy . However

42:39

, the

42:41

I guess DIY

42:44

formulation of

42:46

the therapy struck me the last

42:48

time we spoke . Maybe

42:50

it didn't strike me as much as

42:52

what you just mentioned sewing part of the

42:54

eyelid shut to cover the wound . That sounds sort

42:57

of barbarian . Maybe effective , I

42:59

don't know , but it sounds like we

43:01

could move away from that if science allows . It

43:03

sounds like we could move away from that if science

43:06

allows . But

43:15

in the case of Oxervate , I believe you told me

43:17

it was like a multi , like in the teens step process for the patient

43:19

to self-administer this drug and that just sounded untenable

43:21

to me , particularly in a patient population that is largely elderly , I

43:23

would assume .

43:25

Correct . Yes , the average age

43:27

of the patient in neurotrophic keratitis

43:29

is roughly around 65 years of age

43:32

, and I think so

43:34

we were blessed with a

43:36

very stable molecule . Ngf

43:40

is neurotrophic growth factor , which

43:42

is the active ingredient in oxirvate is

43:45

relatively unstable and

43:48

so the drug has to be formulated by the

43:50

patient , and

43:52

that has a . It's

43:55

inconvenient for the patient , it's inconvenient

43:57

for the

44:00

prescriber , because they have to teach the patient

44:02

or their caregiver how to formulate the drug

44:04

and then from there

44:07

it also limits the use of

44:09

the drug . So we've had conversations in our

44:11

market research where physicians

44:13

have said if my patient's not an A-type personality

44:16

, or they're not their caregiver's not an A-type

44:18

personality , I won't even prescribe

44:20

the drug , because I know that they won't

44:22

follow through with the compounding

44:24

of the drug on a daily basis . So

44:27

I think that's an important differentiator

44:29

for us . We have our

44:31

drugs delivered in single-use containers

44:34

and preservative-free

44:36

, and right

44:39

now we know that we will be able to deliver

44:41

it to the patient refrigerated

44:44

, but then from there the patient

44:46

has three months at room temperature in

44:49

which they can use the drug , so there will be no formulation

44:51

. That's important

44:54

because it's convenient for the patient , but I

44:56

think it will also expand the number of patients

44:58

who can use the drug . And

45:00

then I think the other aspect of

45:02

the drug that we're very excited about our drug is

45:05

that it seems to be very safe . We

45:09

obviously don't know the

45:13

absolute data from our trial because we're masked

45:15

so we don't know who's on drug

45:17

and vehicle . But if we look at the overall

45:20

side effect profile , we're seeing that

45:22

profile is very consistent with

45:24

the vehicle arm in the Dompe

45:28

study . So we're very happy . It's

45:31

a great safety profile and I think that's very

45:33

, very helpful . Ngf

45:35

itself is a pro-inflammatory

45:38

molecule and so the patients

45:40

do exhibit pain upon

45:42

installation and so

45:45

we don't see that . So I think that's going

45:47

to be another benefit . But I think the coolest

45:50

thing about our drug is we do see that Swiss

45:52

Army knife . So I think if

45:54

we see , we not only see

45:56

a potential for the

45:58

treatment of neurotrophic keratitis and

46:01

the resolution of the

46:03

wound , which is the primary endpoint , but

46:05

there may be other aspects of the

46:07

drug where we see reductions in

46:09

scarring which would

46:11

end up in improvements in vision for the patients

46:14

. We

46:27

may also see improvement in sensation with the drug because we do grow nerves . So there's a lot

46:30

of reason to believe we bring more to the patients with this disease and then other diseases

46:32

as well .

46:35

Yeah , yeah , I mean , it all sounds like upside

46:37

.

46:39

We have to prove it though . We have to prove it Right

46:41

, right .

46:42

Yeah , you got to prove it . You got to . Yeah , of course

46:45

, as far as proving it goes , I

46:47

mean , if you prognosticate

46:50

for a moment on , you know , I

46:52

mean part of your job is to obviate

46:54

, to see what could be

46:56

coming around the bend to thwart your progress

46:59

that perhaps you know was

47:01

unexpected . I

47:04

think that's what obviate meansba , means right , expect , somehow foreseeing

47:06

the , the unexpected and being ready

47:08

to deal with it . Maybe loose

47:10

definition , um , what

47:13

, what do you ? I mean , can you , can you

47:15

pinpoint anything

47:17

that that could

47:19

stand in the way ? Like that you're

47:21

that , you're concerned about

47:25

I .

47:26

I wake up every night thinking about these things . I'm

47:28

sorry , I'm sorry , no , no

47:31

, no , no , no , it's , it's , it's , it's , it's the

47:33

other part of the job . I , I think . For

47:35

me , I think , the the being

47:38

being we're second to

47:41

this disease , we

47:43

rely on what's

47:45

gone before us for powering

47:48

the trials , and

47:52

so we're conservative people . So we've

47:54

chosen the

47:56

vehicle arm . In the two trials

47:58

that Oxervate did , that did the

48:00

best . So they saw complete healing at week eight at roughly 30%

48:02

in the vehicle arm . So we're using that as our baseline in the best . So they saw complete

48:04

healing at week eight at roughly 30% in the vehicle arm . So we're

48:06

using that as our baseline in

48:09

the trial . So if that's different , in

48:11

their second trial it was around

48:14

19% . So if

48:16

it's different but it could be different in 40%

48:18

, you know , we could see 40% healing . That's

48:21

a concern . So that to

48:23

me is the major concern

48:26

. I think I believe our drug will

48:28

work . From the animal studies

48:30

, from

48:33

the work that's been done before

48:35

, I think it will work . It's

48:37

an endogenous protein that we make to

48:41

perform this function in other parts of our

48:43

body and the eye as well . It's produced

48:45

in the eye . It's produced in the eye , it's produced in the lacrimal

48:48

glands , it's

48:50

produced in the cornea , and

48:52

so it's there . It's there for a reason

48:54

. We're just providing more of it . So it

48:56

should work . But for me that's the

48:58

main concern what our vehicle arm is going to do . Vehicle

49:01

arm is going to do .

49:04

So , speaking of the production of HGF , how is

49:06

it produced and manufactured

49:08

? At Kringle , I'm assuming

49:11

.

49:12

Yes , so our partner in Japan , kringle

49:14

, manufactures the drug . They use

49:16

Chocell's traditional biological

49:20

manufacturing and together

49:23

we're developing a new process at Catalan

49:25

to

49:28

scale to a much larger yield than

49:31

currently Kringle has and

49:34

that process is going very well . So we're

49:36

very happy and we'll be introducing that

49:38

API from that in a further

49:42

as we move forward into the clinic .

49:44

Yeah , the

49:48

effort at Catalan does also show

49:51

cell Correct .

49:52

It's using their GPEX lightning show

49:55

cell and it's a much more modern

49:57

process and a more

50:00

advanced cell .

50:04

So as far as clinical

50:06

supply right now , you're content

50:08

with your clinical supply right now . But that move

50:10

is it to advance into

50:13

broader clinical studies or is it anticipation

50:15

of serving a larger patient

50:17

population ? What sort of precipitated the need

50:19

to turn to Catalan and look

50:22

at scaling that up ?

50:25

I think several things . One is

50:27

we're advancing to commercialization

50:30

. So

50:33

I think , looking at that perspective from a commercial perspective and having a more robust

50:35

process I think the

50:38

process that Kringle has is very

50:40

robust . When

50:43

we get the certificates of

50:45

the COAs from Kringle

50:47

and we test the drug as we have to , it

50:50

always hits the numbers right on the spot

50:52

. The Japanese manufacturers of

50:54

drugs do a very , very good job , so

50:56

there's never been a question of that . But

50:58

I think as we move into commercial

51:00

, we're going to need more drug and

51:03

it's always good to have two sources . So

51:05

those are the two main reasons .

51:07

Yeah , yeah , okay

51:10

. So give us a clinical update

51:13

when are we right now in terms of clinical

51:15

activity and then maybe

51:17

not to bait you into a forward-looking

51:20

statement , but what might be coming next

51:22

in terms of clinical activity for

51:24

CLARIS ?

51:34

So we have completely enrolled our current trial and we will have a readout in the

51:36

latter part of July . So that's very exciting , nerve-wracking

51:39

but exciting at the same time . And

51:41

then from there we have initiated

51:44

two open label

51:46

trials . One

51:49

is in a reversal of scar . So

51:52

in the animal work we were excited

51:54

by the ability

51:56

to look at preformed scars

51:58

and see if we can reverse them . And

52:00

we've been able to show that in two animal

52:02

models that I've mentioned . And

52:04

so we're very excited to

52:06

see if we can do that in

52:09

the human model , as it were . And

52:11

so we've enrolled five

52:13

patients to date in open-label trials

52:16

and we're seeing

52:18

some interesting effects . So we're

52:21

very , very happy with that . That

52:23

would be a completely new indication . There's currently

52:25

no therapy approved for the reversal of

52:27

scars , and so that would

52:29

be it's terra incognita from

52:32

a regulatory perspective , so

52:34

that'll be , but it's

52:36

a great area to actually go in and

52:38

remove scars from people that

52:41

have that in their central

52:43

vision . I think it would be a huge benefit

52:45

.

52:46

Yeah , just curious

52:48

, just to stay there real quick before we move on

52:50

to the other indication . When

52:52

you talk about the reversal of scar

52:54

tissue , healing scar tissue , you

52:57

know , does that open

52:59

up like am I thinking of this correctly or too

53:01

simply ? Like that opens up an

53:03

entire , like it

53:05

could be I'm

53:07

not sure how to phrase the question Like

53:10

scarring can be caused by any

53:12

manner of things right , disease , infection

53:15

, trauma . So

53:17

are all those on the table when we talk

53:19

about scarring ?

53:22

Almost all of them . I think initially

53:24

we're looking at the initial

53:26

patients , that we're looking at largely

53:28

microbial keratitis or

53:31

microbial infection , but

53:33

we will include viral and we

53:35

will include I think we have already included

53:37

one mechanical injury patient as well . So

53:39

I think , yeah , you're absolutely right , all of those

53:42

things on the table , we

53:44

would be successful in all of them . I don't know , but

53:46

we're going to look at as many as we can

53:49

. And

53:52

the other indication is limbal

53:54

stem cell deficiency . We

53:57

have enrolled in our trial

53:59

, in our neurotrophic keratitis trial

54:01

. About

54:04

20% of our patients have limbal

54:06

stem cell deficiency and

54:09

we've seen some . Obviously we

54:11

don't know if they're on drug or vehicle , but

54:13

for somebody to have an improvement in that area

54:16

is rare , and so we're

54:18

starting to see that as well in

54:20

some of our patients , and

54:23

so that's given us the

54:26

impetus to move forward and look at

54:28

that as a separate disease . So

54:31

we'll begin enrolling patients

54:34

this week actually who

54:37

have that lymphocytes cell deficiency

54:39

, and that's a brand

54:41

new indication that we're very , very excited

54:44

about , because there is no pharmaceutical treatment for

54:46

those patients . Most

54:48

patients actually have to be treated with a

54:51

transplant , a stem cell transplant , the

54:53

current therapy .

54:55

Yeah , that's

54:57

pretty fascinating work . What

55:00

haven't I asked you , Clark that is

55:02

central to the story that I should

55:04

have asked you if I were

55:06

better at my job .

55:09

I think you've done an incredible job of asking

55:12

really , really good questions and I thank you for that

55:14

. I appreciate that , yeah .

55:17

What's next for you ? I

55:19

mean , like I mentioned from the outset , you've been plugged

55:22

into this space for going on 20

55:24

years . There's

55:26

a lot of work to be done at Claris . I'm

55:29

not going to ask you to tell us where you're going next , but

55:31

I'm assuming you're going to plug in at Claris

55:33

and remain committed to the task

55:35

for now . But

55:37

any imminent plans for what Clark

55:40

does next , whether at

55:42

Claris , or otherwise .

55:45

I think for me right now , claris

55:48

is everything and

55:50

we're very much focused

55:52

on the next stage . So we're preparing

55:55

for the next trials and we've manufactured

55:57

drug for that . We've been

55:59

fortunate enough to speak to a lot of interested

56:02

venture groups

56:04

that would join our Series B and we're

56:06

planning to

56:09

move the company forward into an IPO

56:11

. So I think that all of those things

56:13

are main focused

56:16

, I think , for me personally . I think

56:18

the joy of being

56:21

in this space is that if you

56:23

do a good job , um and and

56:25

by that I don't mean necessarily if

56:27

you were the drug doesn't always work

56:29

. Sometimes it does and sometimes

56:31

it doesn't , but as long as you gave

56:33

it the best chance and you , you get

56:36

a result that everybody can sit around and say

56:38

, yeah , this is the truth . What we found

56:40

is the truth that I think you're fortunate

56:42

enough to do it again and again and you

56:44

get that opportunity .

56:45

So yeah Well

56:48

, very good , I uh I appreciate the time that you've

56:50

spent with us . Very thoughtful conversation

56:52

, uh , our initial conversation

56:54

was so . That's what inspired me to want to have you on

56:57

the on the podcast . I just enjoy the

56:59

uh , the transparency , the

57:01

humility , uh behind your approach

57:03

and your personality and I I'm glad you came

57:05

on to spend some time with us , clark .

57:08

Oh , thank you . Thank you very much , I appreciate

57:10

it .

57:11

We'll do it again . We'll you know . You've got you've got

57:13

a readout coming up in July . You got a lot of

57:15

exciting stuff coming down down the pike , so we'll

57:17

stay in touch and we'll have you back on when

57:20

there's , when there's more to report on . Thank

57:26

you very much . I look forward to that . All right , so that's Claris Bio founding

57:29

CEO , Clarke Atwell . I'm Matt Pillar . You just listened

57:31

to the Business of Biotech . Listen and

57:33

subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts

57:35

. Sign up for our Business of Biotech newsletter

57:37

at bioprocessonlinecom

57:39

. Backslash . B-o-b . Drop

57:42

us a line with your guest and topical

57:44

suggestions . Be sure to get in touch and

57:46

let us know which episodes you're picking and

57:48

which you're panning . And , in the meantime

57:50

, and as always , thanks for listening

57:52

.