Former Acorda CEO Ron Cohen joins Parkinson's cell therapy startup Oryon

About a decade ago, brain drug maker Acorda Therapeutics had a banner year. Its multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra generated nearly $550 million in sales in 2017, accounting for more than 90% of the company's net revenue. However, the good times did not last.

By the end of 2018, a U.S. court ruled that the key patent protecting Ampyra from generic competition was invalid, and sales plummeted. Acorda pinned its hopes on Inbrija, a new Parkinson's disease drug administered via a special inhaler, to make up for the loss, but just months after Inbrija's launch, its rollout was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the pandemic eased, Inbrija began to regain momentum, but it was too late. By 2024, Acorda had run out of money, still owing bondholders hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that needed to be repaid by the end of the year. According to former CEO Ron Cohen, the company asked for an extension on its debt repayment and was told: "First see if you can find a buyer."

Acorda eventually found a buyer in Merz Therapeutics and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2024. Cohen said this was a tax-efficient way to transfer assets to Merz. The sale process was completed in July of that year.

After Acorda was liquidated, Cohen began looking for his next professional move and ultimately landed at Oryon Cell Therapies. The startup emerged from stealth mode this Monday (original date) with $42 million in funding. Oryon aims to treat Parkinson's disease through an "autologous" process, which involves extracting and reprogramming patients' own cells to perform specific functions—specifically, creating neurons that can restore dopamine production and improve motor control.

BioPharma Dive interviewed Cohen about the lessons learned from Acorda's experience and why Oryon stands out among the many developers of Parkinson's cell therapies.

This interview has been edited for brevity and style.

Interview transcript

BIOPHARMA DIVE: In today's biotech ecosystem, finding interesting science isn't hard. What specifically attracted you to join Oryon?

RON COHEN:Diseases that affect the brain and spinal cord have a unique kind of horror. They not only cause physical disability but also erode your sense of self and personality. That is particularly tragic to me. So, I am committed to alleviating such diseases, and I derive great meaning from it.

I was looking for a technology that moved me, with data that were credible and convincing. I preferred to join a company that was already funded. I've seen many seed-stage companies, and that's fine, but I've been there and paid the price. If I can apply my experience to a team that already has funding, technology, and proof-of-concept data, I can be most effective. That's what I found at Oryon.

I also appreciate their autologous approach. Only one other company is directly pursuing the same strategy; everyone else is using donor cells. Of course, donor cells have manufacturing advantages because you don't need to prepare fresh cells for each patient.

On the other hand, autologous therapy avoids the need for immunosuppression in the first year and the risk of long-term low-level immune responses. Of course, these are assumptions and might turn out to be fine, but that's my consideration.

There are several other companies developing Parkinson's cell therapies right now. How do you see Oryon differentiating itself from them?

I did a lot of due diligence in this field and studied the different players. What attracted me to Oryon first was its human data, and the data are credible. Although not yet placebo-controlled, they are at least internally controlled. The first patients treated with Oryon's therapy were evaluated unilaterally, so you can compare imaging on one side of the brain versus the other, and effects on one side of the body versus the other.

Aspen Neuroscience is another autologous company and looks good too. They use neural progenitor cells, deriving stem cells from the patient's own skin. I've had a skin biopsy, and I don't want another one—I'm being a bit facetious.

They take cells, induce them to become neural progenitors... then at some stage decide to differentiate and trust that at least some of the cells will become the desired dopaminergic neurons.

Based on years of drug development experience, my inclination is: the more you know about the implant—the dose and characteristics—the better you can calibrate the outcome. With Oryon's approach, I know exactly how many cells are being given, and I like that.

At least two companies—Aspen and Bayer's subsidiary Bluerock—appear to be significantly further along in development. How do you view your own timeline?

There are five or six companies working on this, and some are ahead. What makes me willing to bet on Oryon? Actually, two aspects of their data appeal to me.

One is the unilateral testing. I compared data from one side versus the other and found the logic sound: the implanted side controls the contralateral body and showed the greatest change; the other side also improved, which is consistent with expectations.

The second is imaging studies. The imaging results align with the functional results. Not all patients responded identically, which is good—if they had, I would be suspicious, because that wouldn't reflect biology.

Weighing it all, I believe Oryon has a reasonable chance of being best-in-class. We still have a long way to go. In biotech, you never have all the information when making decisions, but this was enough for me to decide.

You see autologous cells as Oryon's advantage. If the company were focused on donor cells, would you still have found it interesting?

That's a retrospective judgment, for what it's worth. I think I would have looked at Aspen and thought autologous has advantages, while donor cells have manufacturing advantages. That's not trivial—manufacturing these cells is expensive, and patient-by-patient production can't achieve the economies of scale that allogeneic can.

Frankly, if allogeneic therapies show similar results over years of follow-up and are safe even with immunosuppression, then allogeneic manufacturing is cheaper and might win on price and reimbursement.

But I'm betting that, due to various immunological concerns, autologous cells will indeed confer benefits. In my due diligence, I consulted doctors, friends, and colleagues in the field who understand Parkinson's disease. I asked them: "What do you think?" Not one said they wouldn't want to avoid immunosuppression.

Parkinson's has limited treatment options, but cell therapy is demanding for patients. How do you view the demand for such drugs?

Honestly, I don't know.

I've done informal surveys among my network. I have 250 Parkinson's doctors in my database, with whom I've interacted over the past decade. Based on what I've heard, they are extremely receptive to these therapies.

Even though the company isn't public yet, through word of mouth among neurologists, neurosurgeons, and academia, we've already had hundreds of people reach out asking if they can participate in the trial. I'm not surprised, because this disease is terrible—you can quote me on that.

Do you think the market can accommodate multiple cell therapy products?

Whatever the disease, there's usually room for multiple products. There are over a million Parkinson's patients in the U.S., with tens of thousands of new cases each year just in the U.S. Europe has similar or higher numbers, and Asia is even larger. So the potential demand is enormous.

If the data show an advantage for Oryon's approach, that would be a bonus. It's not yet determined; we'll know in a few years.

If there's an advantage, we can enter the market as a fast follower and promote those advantages. If not, Oryon's opportunity will shrink, but the market will still be substantial.

Which lessons from your Acorda experience are helpful in leading Oryon?

I learned a lot about the Parkinson's market and how doctors think. Indeed, physicians in this indication tend to be slower to adopt new drugs. One reason is that they are conservative because they deal with older, frailer patients. Compared to multiple sclerosis doctors, who treat patients in their 20s and have a different attitude—they're more willing to try new things.

Also, the insurance system doesn't help, because any new branded therapy is more expensive than generics, and patients face insurance hurdles, step therapy, and prior authorization.

My sense is that Parkinson's doctors will respond more positively to these therapies because they're not just another symptomatic drug—they're biologically turning back the clock, at least for motor symptoms.

Late-stage studies are typically expensive. How long do you expect Oryon's funding to last before you need to raise again?

For enrolling and completing the Phase 1/2 study, we should have all patients enrolled by the end of 2026, complete most follow-up by mid-2027, discuss Phase 3 with the FDA, and then start Phase 3 in late 2027 or the first half of 2028.

I won't commit to a specific fundraising timeline, but based on experience, I'm always raising—even when I'm not raising, I'm preparing.

Once the core team is in place, addressing key clinical, regulatory, manufacturing, and development issues, and compressing timelines and improving cost efficiency, I'll start talking to investors to pave the way for the next round.

When the time for the next round comes, I won't just be starting—I'll have already begun months in advance.