A go-go FDA is open­ing up the fast lane to re­gen­er­a­tive med ap­provals

The FDA on Thurs­day launched a new pol­i­cy frame­work for re­gen­er­a­tive med­i­cine, build­ing off a pre­vi­ous frame­work from 2005, as part of ef­forts to bring new cell, stem cell and tis­sue prod­ucts to pa­tients as ef­fi­cient­ly as pos­si­ble while man­ag­ing the pro­lif­er­a­tion of un­scrupu­lous ac­tors hawk­ing un­proven ther­a­pies.

FDA’s an­nounce­ment in­clud­ed the re­lease of two new draft guid­ance doc­u­ments – one on ways to ex­pe­dite ap­provals for re­gen­er­a­tive med­i­cines for se­ri­ous con­di­tions and one on med­ical de­vices used with re­gen­er­a­tive ther­a­pies – and two fi­nal guid­ance doc­u­ments of­fer­ing clar­i­ty on when cell and tis­sue-based prod­ucts would be ex­cept­ed from the reg­u­la­tions and clar­i­fy­ing how the agency in­ter­prets the reg­u­la­to­ry de­f­i­n­i­tions of “min­i­mal ma­nip­u­la­tion” and “ho­mol­o­gous use.”

“We’re adopt­ing a risk-based and sci­ence-based ap­proach that builds up­on ex­ist­ing reg­u­la­tions to sup­port in­no­v­a­tive prod­uct de­vel­op­ment while clar­i­fy­ing the FDA’s au­thor­i­ties and en­force­ment pri­or­i­ties,” FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb said in a state­ment. “This will pro­tect pa­tients from prod­ucts that pose po­ten­tial sig­nif­i­cant risks, while ac­cel­er­at­ing ac­cess to safe and ef­fec­tive new ther­a­pies.”

But the new guid­ance doc­u­ments were not re­leased along­side any new warn­ing let­ters or en­force­ment ac­tions against a grow­ing mar­ket of un­ap­proved di­rect-to-con­sumer (DTC) stem cell prod­ucts.

Leigh Turn­er, as­so­ciate pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta Cen­ter for Bioethics and co-au­thor of an ar­ti­cle in Cell about DTC stem cell clin­ics, told Fo­cus that FDA still has yet to crack down on these un­scrupu­lous com­pa­nies prof­it­ing off un­proven treat­ments, not­ing the mar­ket is “quite large, quite ac­tive and there’s been a long time with­out mean­ing­ful over­sight.”

Turn­er took is­sue with a pro­vi­sion in the “min­i­mal ma­nip­u­la­tion” and “ho­mol­o­gous use” fi­nal guid­ance that says FDA will use dis­cre­tion in en­force­ment over the next 36 months. “To me, it’s a mat­ter of what is the en­force­ment ac­tiv­i­ty go­ing to be over that time frame. If it’s a 3-year pe­ri­od where FDA won’t do much, that strikes me as a green light for the in­dus­try” sell­ing un­ap­proved prod­ucts.

“If I ran one of these [DTC stem cell] clin­ics in Flori­da or Cal­i­for­nia, I would see to­day’s ac­tion by FDA to mean busi­ness as usu­al,” he added.

An FDA spokesper­son clar­i­fied to Fo­cus via email, “The FDA does not in­tend to ex­er­cise such en­force­ment dis­cre­tion for those HCT/Ps [hu­man cells, tis­sues, and cel­lu­lar and tis­sue-based prod­ucts] that pose a po­ten­tial sig­nif­i­cant safe­ty con­cern. Go­ing for­ward, the FDA will ap­ply a risk-based ap­proach to en­force­ment tak­ing in­to ac­count how prod­ucts are be­ing ad­min­is­tered as well as the dis­eases and con­di­tions for which they are be­ing used.

“Specif­i­cal­ly, un­der lim­it­ed con­di­tions, when a prod­uct re­quires an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al new drug ap­pli­ca­tion (IND) or pre­mar­ket ap­proval (bi­o­log­ics li­cense ap­pli­ca­tions or BLAs), the agency in­tends to fo­cus its en­force­ment ac­tions on prod­ucts that pose high­er risks.  For ex­am­ple, ac­tions re­lat­ed to prod­ucts ad­min­is­tered by high­er-risk routes of ad­min­is­tra­tion (e.g., those ad­min­is­tered by in­tra­venous in­jec­tion or in­fu­sion, aerosol in­hala­tion, in­traoc­u­lar in­jec­tion, or in­jec­tion or in­fu­sion in­to the cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem) will be pri­or­i­tized over those as­so­ci­at­ed with a low­er risk (e.g., those ad­min­is­tered by in­tra­der­mal, sub­cu­ta­neous, or in­tra-ar­tic­u­lar in­jec­tion).”

Back­ground

The 21st Cen­tu­ry Cures Act (Cures Act) cre­at­ed what’s known as the Re­gen­er­a­tive Med­i­cine Ad­vanced Ther­a­py (RMAT) des­ig­na­tion (pre­vi­ous­ly known as the RAT des­ig­na­tion), which can be used to speed the re­view of cell ther­a­pies, ther­a­peu­tic tis­sue en­gi­neer­ing prod­ucts, hu­man cell and tis­sue prod­ucts or any com­bi­na­tion prod­uct us­ing such ther­a­pies or prod­ucts.

Pe­ter Marks, di­rec­tor of FDA’s Cen­ter for Bi­o­log­ics Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search (CBER), said on Tues­day that as of last Fri­day, the agency has re­ceived 34 RMAT des­ig­na­tion re­quests, act­ed on 31 re­quests and grant­ed 11 RMAT des­ig­na­tions. Hu­ma­cyte and Veri­cel are two ex­am­ples of com­pa­nies that have al­ready re­ceived the RMAT des­ig­na­tion.

Ad­van­tages of the RMAT des­ig­na­tion in­clude all the ben­e­fits of the fast track and break­through des­ig­na­tions, in­clud­ing ear­ly in­ter­ac­tions be­tween the agency and spon­sors.

But as op­posed to the break­through des­ig­na­tion, the RMAT des­ig­na­tion does not re­quire ev­i­dence to in­di­cate that the drug may of­fer a sub­stan­tial im­prove­ment over avail­able ther­a­pies, ac­cord­ing to one of the draft guid­ances re­leased Thurs­day.

And like break­through des­ig­na­tions, RMAT des­ig­na­tions do not mean the prod­uct will be ap­proved and do not change the statu­to­ry stan­dards for demon­stra­tion of safe­ty and ef­fec­tive­ness need­ed for ap­proval.

In ad­di­tion to cre­at­ing the RMAT, Sec­tion 3034 of the Cures Act al­so man­dates that FDA is­sue guid­ance clar­i­fy­ing how FDA will eval­u­ate de­vices used in the re­cov­ery, iso­la­tion or de­liv­ery of RMATs, which al­so was re­leased on Thurs­day.

Guid­ance and Ex­am­ples

In spelling out how FDA de­ter­mines what should be con­sid­ered for an RMAT des­ig­na­tion, one of the draft guid­ances notes that CBER in­tends to con­sid­er “the rig­or of da­ta col­lec­tion; the na­ture and mean­ing­ful­ness of the out­comes; the num­ber of pa­tients or sub­jects, and the num­ber of sites, con­tribut­ing to the da­ta; and the sever­i­ty, rar­i­ty, or preva­lence of the con­di­tion.”

The draft of­fers two hy­po­thet­i­cal ex­am­ples of pre­lim­i­nary clin­i­cal ev­i­dence that CBER would con­sid­er suf­fi­cient, what an RMAT re­quest should con­tain and con­sid­er­a­tions in clin­i­cal tri­al de­sign.

The oth­er draft guid­ance spec­i­fies that de­vices in­tend­ed for use with a spe­cif­ic RMAT may be con­sid­ered a com­bi­na­tion prod­uct. It al­so ad­dress­es how FDA in­tends to sim­pli­fy and stream­line its ap­pli­ca­tion of reg­u­la­to­ry re­quire­ments for com­bo de­vices and cell or tis­sue prod­ucts; what, if any, in­tend­ed us­es or spe­cif­ic at­trib­ut­es would re­sult in a de­vice used with a re­gen­er­a­tive ther­a­py that would make it a Class III de­vice; fac­tors to con­sid­er in de­ter­min­ing whether a de­vice may be la­beled for use with a spe­cif­ic RMAT or class of RMATs; when a de­vice may be lim­it­ed to a spe­cif­ic in­tend­ed use; and ap­pli­ca­tion of the least bur­den­some ap­proach to demon­strate how a de­vice may be used with more than one cell type.

Both draft guid­ance doc­u­ments will have 90-day com­ment pe­ri­ods.

The two fi­nal guid­ance doc­u­ments to­geth­er su­per­sede a 2014 draft guid­ance re­lat­ed to adi­pose tis­sue and the one on defin­ing ho­mol­o­gous use and min­i­mal ma­nip­u­la­tion fi­nal­izes a draft from De­cem­ber 2014 on min­i­mal ma­nip­u­la­tion of hu­man cells, tis­sues, and cel­lu­lar and tis­sue-based prod­ucts (HCT/Ps) and an­oth­er draft from Oc­to­ber 2015 on the ho­mol­o­gous use of HCT/Ps.

In one fi­nal­ized guid­ance, FDA says, “Ho­mol­o­gous use means the re­pair, re­con­struc­tion, re­place­ment, or sup­ple­men­ta­tion of a re­cip­i­ent’s cells or tis­sues with an HCT/P that per­forms the same ba­sic func­tion or func­tions in the re­cip­i­ent as in the donor. This cri­te­ri­on re­flects the Agency’s con­clu­sion that there would be in­creased safe­ty and ef­fec­tive­ness con­cerns for HCT/Ps that are in­tend­ed for a non-ho­mol­o­gous use, be­cause there is less ba­sis on which to pre­dict the prod­uct’s be­hav­ior, where­as HCT/Ps for ho­mol­o­gous use can rea­son­ably be ex­pect­ed to func­tion ap­pro­pri­ate­ly.”

FDA al­so de­fines “min­i­mal ma­nip­u­la­tion” as: “1) For struc­tur­al tis­sue, pro­cess­ing that does not al­ter the orig­i­nal rel­e­vant char­ac­ter­is­tics of the tis­sue re­lat­ing to the tis­sue’s util­i­ty for re­con­struc­tion, re­pair, or re­place­ment; 2) For cells or non­struc­tur­al tis­sues, pro­cess­ing that does not al­ter the rel­e­vant bi­o­log­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tics of cells or tis­sues.”

The oth­er guid­ance fi­nal­izes a draft from 2014 and of­fers sev­en ques­tions and an­swers de­scrib­ing which es­tab­lish­ments are not re­quired to com­ply with cer­tain re­quire­ments if they re­move HCT/Ps from an in­di­vid­ual and im­plant them in­to the same in­di­vid­ual dur­ing the same sur­gi­cal pro­ce­dure.

In terms of the ways FDA has adapt­ed its reg­u­la­to­ry mod­el to meet the “rev­o­lu­tion­ary na­ture of the prod­ucts,” Got­tlieb point­ed to the ex­am­ple of “how we’re con­sid­er­ing in­no­v­a­tive tri­al de­signs where­by in­di­vid­ual aca­d­e­m­ic in­ves­ti­ga­tors would fol­low the same man­u­fac­tur­ing pro­to­cols and share com­bined clin­i­cal tri­al da­ta in sup­port of ap­proval from the FDA. This is an in­no­v­a­tive way of mak­ing sure that small in­ves­ti­ga­tors who are work­ing with cells that are be­ing man­u­fac­tured in ways that ren­der them sub­ject to our cur­rent laws and reg­u­la­tions — be­cause the cells are, for ex­am­ple, more than ‘min­i­mal­ly ma­nip­u­lat­ed.’”


First pub­lished here. Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi CEO (Getty Images)

Sanofi CEO Paul Hud­son has $23B burn­ing a hole in his pock­et. And here are some hints on how he plans to spend that

Sanofi has reaped $11.1 billion after selling off a big chunk of its Regeneron stock at $515 a share. And now everyone on the M&A side of the business is focused on how CEO Paul Hudson plans to spend it.

After getting stung in France for some awkward politicking — suggesting the US was in the front of the line for Sanofi’s vaccines given American financial support for their work, versus little help from European powers — Hudson now has the much more popular task of managing a major cash cache to pull off something in the order of a big bolt-on. Or two.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pablo Legorreta, founder and CEO of Royalty Pharma AG, speaks at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Cap­i­tal­iz­ing Pablo: The world’s biggest drug roy­al­ty buy­er is go­ing pub­lic. And the low-key CEO di­vulges a few se­crets along the way

Pablo Legorreta is one of the most influential players in biopharma you likely never heard of.

Over the last 24 years, Legorreta’s Royalty Pharma group has become, by its own reckoning, the biggest buyer of drug royalties in the world. The CEO and founder has bought up a stake in a lengthy list of the world’s biggest drug franchises, spending $18 billion in the process — $2.2 billion last year alone. And he’s become one of the best-paid execs in the industry, reaping $28 million from the cash flow last year while reserving 20% of the cash flow, less expenses, for himself.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The Avance Clinical leadership team: CEO Yvonne Lungershausen, Sandrien Louwaars - Director Business Development Operations, Gabriel Kremmidiotis - Chief Scientific Officer, Ben Edwards - Chief Strategy Officer

How Aus­tralia De­liv­ers Rapid Start-up and 43.5% Re­bate for Ear­ly Phase On­col­o­gy Tri­als

About Avance Clinical

Avance Clinical is an Australian owned Contract Research Organisation that has been providing high-quality clinical research services to the local and international drug development industry for 20 years. They specialise in working with biotech companies to execute Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials to deliver high-quality outcomes fit for global regulatory standards.

As oncology sponsors look internationally to speed-up trials after unprecedented COVID-19 suspensions and delays, Australia, which has led the world in minimizing the pandemic’s impact, stands out as an attractive destination for early phase trials. This in combination with the streamlined regulatory system and the financial benefits including a very favourable exchange rate and the R & D cash rebate makes Australia the perfect location for accelerating biotech clinical programs.

As­traZeneca trum­pets the good da­ta they found for Tagris­so in an ad­ju­vant set­ting for NSCLC — but many of the ex­perts aren’t cheer­ing along

AstraZeneca is rolling out the big guns this evening to provide a salute to their ADAURA data on Tagrisso at ASCO.

Cancer R&D chief José Baselga calls the disease-free survival data for their drug in an adjuvant setting of early stage, epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated NSCLC patients following surgery “momentous.” Roy Herbst, the principal investigator out of Yale, calls it “transformative.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Dan O'Day, Gilead CEO (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Gilead leas­es part­ner rights to TIG­IT, PD-1 in a $2B deal with Ar­cus. Now comes the hard part

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has brokered his way to a PD-1 and lined up a front row seat in the TIGIT arena, inking a deal worth close to $2 billion to align the big biotech closely with Terry Rosen’s Arcus. And $375 million of that comes upfront, with cash for the buy-in plus equity, along with $400 million for R&D and $1.22 billion in reserve to cover opt-in payments and milestones..

Hotly rumored for weeks, the 2 players have formalized a 10-year alliance that starts with rights to the PD-1, zimberelimab. O’Day also has first dibs on TIGIT and 2 other leading programs, agreeing to an opt-in fee ranging from $200 million to $275 million on each. There’s $500 million in potential TIGIT milestones on US regulatory events — likely capped by an approval — if Gilead partners on it and the stars align on the data. And there’s another $150 million opt-in payments for the rest of the Arcus pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bris­tol My­ers Squibb fi­nal­ly gets in the front­line NSCLC game dom­i­nat­ed by Mer­ck, adding a sec­ond Op­di­vo/Yer­voy-based op­tion

Bristol Myers Squibb may be trailing Merck and Roche in the checkpoint race to treat frontline cases of non-small cell lung cancer, but as it does, it makes sure to bring its best feet forward.

Just days after scoring a landmark NSCLC approval for Opdivo and Yervoy alone for PD-L1 positive patients, the company said the FDA has also OK’d using the two agents with a limited course of chemo regardless of the biomarker status.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis jumps in­to Covid-19 vac­cine hunt, as Big Phar­ma and big biotech com­mit to bil­lions of dos­es

After spending most of the pandemic on the sidelines, Novartis is offering its aid in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

AveXis, the Swiss pharma’s gene therapy subsidiary, has agreed to manufacture the vaccine being developed by Massachusetts Eye and Ear and Massachusetts General Hospital. The biotech will begin manufacturing this month, while the vaccine undergoes further preclinical testing. They’ve agreed to provide the vaccine for free for clinical trials beginning in the second half of 2020, but have not disclosed financials for after.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bryan Roberts, Venrock

Ven­rock sur­vey shows grow­ing recog­ni­tion of coro­n­avirus toll, wan­ing con­fi­dence in ar­rival of vac­cines and treat­ments

When Venrock partner Bryan Roberts went to check the results from their annual survey of healthcare leaders, what he found was an imprint of the pandemic’s slow arrival in America.

The venture firm had sent their form out to hundreds of insurance and health tech executives, investors, officials and academics on February 24 and gave them two weeks to fill it out. No Americans had died at that point but the coronavirus had become enough of a global crisis that they included two questions about the virus, including “Total U.S. deaths in 2020 from the novel coronavirus will be:”.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck R&D chief (YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Backed by BAR­DA, Mer­ck jumps in­to Covid-19: buy­ing out a vac­cine, part­ner­ing on an­oth­er and adding an­tivi­ral to the mix

Merck execs are making a triple play in a sudden leap into the R&D campaign against Covid-19. And they have more BARDA cash backing them up on the move.

Tuesday morning the pharma giant simultaneously announced plans to buy an Austrian biotech that has been working on a preclinical vaccine candidate, added a collaboration on another vaccine with the nonprofit IAVI and inked a deal with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on an early-stage antiviral.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.