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.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.

As dis­as­ter struck, Ab­b­Vie’s Rick Gon­za­lez swooped in on Al­ler­gan with an of­fer Brent Saun­ders couldn’t say no to

Early March was a no good, awful, terrible time for Allergan CEO Brent Saunders. His big lead drug had imploded in a Phase III disaster and activists were after his hide — or at least his chairman’s title — as the stock price continued a steady droop that had eviscerated share value for investors.

But it was a perfect time for AbbVie CEO Rick Gonzalez to pick up the phone and ask Saunders if he’d like to consider a “strategic” deal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CEO Pascal Soriot via Getty Images

As­traZeneca's jug­ger­naut PARP play­er Lyn­parza scoops up an­oth­er dom­i­nant win in PhI­II as the FDA adds a 'break­through' for Calquence

AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group under José Baselga keeps churning out hits.

Wednesday morning the pharma giant and their partners at Merck parted the curtains on a successful readout for their Phase III PAOLA-1 study, demonstrating statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for women with ovarian cancer in a first-line maintenance setting who added their PARP Lynparza to Avastin. This is their second late-stage success in ovarian cancer, which will help stave off rivals like GSK.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.