Aca­d­e­mics and re­searchers raise con­cerns with FDA’s plan for ‘in­te­grat­ed re­views’

More than 50 aca­d­e­mics and re­searchers from Har­vard, Yale, Johns Hop­kins and oth­er uni­ver­si­ties around the world are call­ing on the FDA to not re­place its orig­i­nal re­views of med­ical prod­ucts with an “in­te­grat­ed re­view” be­cause of the valu­able in­for­ma­tion that would be lost.

The re­searchers claimed that such a shift would de­prive them of in­for­ma­tion and da­ta on the clin­i­cal stud­ies and tri­als sub­mit­ted to the FDA, in­for­ma­tion on the post­mar­ket­ing re­quire­ments, and re­view­er con­cerns with an ap­pli­ca­tion that might not be in­clud­ed in a sum­ma­ry doc­u­ment like the in­te­grat­ed re­view, among oth­er im­por­tant de­tails.

“The FDA should not re­place in­di­vid­ual re­views with an in­te­grat­ed re­view. Rather, an ad­di­tion­al doc­u­ment that sum­ma­rizes the in­di­vid­ual re­views can be pub­lished, as FDA has al­ready been do­ing in pub­lish­ing ‘Sum­ma­ry Re­view’ doc­u­ments,” the re­searchers wrote.

Sim­i­lar­ly, non­prof­it Pub­lic Cit­i­zen said it “strong­ly ob­jects” to the FDA’s pro­pos­al, which was first ex­plained in a June Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter no­tice. “This ill-con­ceived pro­pos­al would, at the least, be a ma­jor step back­wards in agency trans­paren­cy with re­spect to the da­ta that the agency re­lies on when ap­prov­ing new drugs or bi­o­log­ics and the agency’s as­sess­ment of these da­ta,” Pub­lic Cit­i­zen said.

Health tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­ny Flat­iron Health al­so not­ed that some of the sec­tions in the orig­i­nal doc­u­ment ap­pear to be miss­ing in the new in­te­grat­ed sum­ma­ry. “We al­so note that the new doc­u­ment is con­sid­er­ably short­er than the orig­i­nal, which sug­gests that some po­ten­tial­ly use­ful con­tent may be lost in the new for­mat. We urge FDA to en­sure that high­ly valu­able in­sight in­to re­view­ers’ think­ing is re­tained in the new in­te­grat­ed re­view for­mat. We are par­tic­u­lar­ly in­ter­est­ed in en­sur­ing that any ‘con­sul­ta­tive’ re­views from ex­perts out­side the core re­view team are in­clud­ed in the in­te­grat­ed sum­ma­ry re­view or oth­er­wise ac­ces­si­ble,” the com­pa­ny said.

In­dus­try group BIO, how­ev­er, said the new in­te­grat­ed tem­plate is an im­prove­ment over what the agency of­fers now, but al­so cau­tioned the FDA “to strict­ly lim­it dele­tions to the in­for­ma­tion re­peat­ed across re­view doc­u­ments rather than in­for­ma­tion that FDA deems to not be im­por­tant to ex­ter­nal en­ti­ties.”

BIO of­fered the ex­am­ple of the FDA re­cent­ly trim­ming the con­tent of pub­licly post­ed ac­tion pack­ages, which led to the elim­i­na­tion of “a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber” of meet­ing min­utes. In­dus­try group PhRMA al­so said it is im­por­tant for the FDA to en­sure that the com­bi­na­tion of the in­te­grat­ed re­view doc­u­ment and its ap­pen­dices “is no less com­pre­hen­sive than the ex­ist­ing doc­u­men­ta­tion that is post­ed on Drugs@FDA.”

BIO added: “These doc­u­ments for non-mile­stone de­vel­op­ment phase meet­ings, mid­cy­cle com­mu­ni­ca­tions, and late-cy­cle meet­ings are im­por­tant for stake­hold­ers’ un­der­stand­ing of the evo­lu­tion of the FDA’s think­ing dur­ing the de­vel­op­ment pro­gram and through­out the Agency’s re­view of an ap­pli­ca­tion. Like­wise, ad­min­is­tra­tive and cor­re­spon­dence doc­u­ments should con­tin­ue to be made avail­able.”

On the top­ic of the FDA con­tin­u­ing to re­lease spon­sors’ clin­i­cal study re­ports (CSRs), which the agency is con­sid­er­ing end­ing, the aca­d­e­mics and re­searchers al­so dis­agreed with BIO on what to do.

The aca­d­e­mics and re­searchers of­fered their sup­port for the FDA to con­tin­ue its ef­forts to re­lease CSRs, even though on­ly one has been re­leased so far. But BIO and PhRMA said that the re­lease of CSRs should not be pur­sued by the agency.

BIO al­so called on the FDA to work with the Eu­ro­pean Med­i­cines Agency and Health Cana­da to bet­ter align its trans­paren­cy ef­forts.

Com­ments


RAPS: First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Con­quer­ing a silent killer: HDV and Eiger Bio­Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals

Hepatitis delta, also known as hepatitis D, is a liver infection caused by the hepatitis delta virus (HDV) that results in the most severe form of human viral hepatitis for which there is no approved therapy.

HDV is a single-stranded, circular RNA virus that requires the envelope protein (HBsAg) of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) for its own assembly. As a result, hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection occurs only as a co-infection in individuals infected with HBV. However, HDV/HBV co-infections lead to more serious liver disease than HBV infection alone. HDV is associated with faster progression to liver fibrosis (progressing to cirrhosis in about 80% of individuals in 5-10 years), increased risk of liver cancer, and early decompensated cirrhosis and liver failure.
HDV is the most severe form of viral hepatitis with no approved treatment.
Approved nucleos(t)ide treatments for HBV only suppress HBV DNA, do not appreciably impact HBsAg and have no impact on HDV. Investigational agents in development for HBV target multiple new mechanisms. Aspirations are high, but a functional cure for HBV has not been achieved nor is one anticipated in the forseeable future. Without clearance of HBsAg, anti-HBV investigational treatments are not expected to impact the deadly course of HDV infection anytime soon.

Am­gen chops 172 more staffers in R&D, op­er­a­tions and sales amid neu­ro­science ex­it, rev­enue down­turn

Neuroscience wasn’t the only unit that’s being hit by a reorganization underway at Amgen. As well as axing 149 employees in its Cambridge office, the company has disclosed that 172 others nationwide, including some from its Thousand Oaks, CA headquarters, are being let go.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ahead of strate­gic up­date, new Sanofi CEO mulls op­tions for con­sumer health­care arm — re­ports

Big pharma has made moves to sharpen its focus on developing new medicines, while slow-growing consumer health divisions fall by the wayside. Looks like another large drugmaker is considering a similar move. On Thursday, reports citing sources indicated that Sanofi is reportedly mulling a joint venture, sale, or a public listing of its consumer health arm.

The French group is in discussions for options that could value the division at $30 billion, Bloomberg and Reuters reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The triple crown in biotech: An all-or-noth­ing bet on an FDA ap­proval of 3 drugs over 16 months starts to­day

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $74 billion Celgene deal closed as expected Wednesday evening. And now a new clock has begun to tick down for Celgene shareholders who came away from the deal with CVRs — contingent value rights — worth $9 or nothing. Those CVRs start trading today as $BMYRT.

The new deadline they have is the end of March 2021, a little more than 16 months from now, when Bristol-Myers will need to gain approvals on 3 late-stage drugs it’s picking up in the buyout: Ozanimod and liso-cel (JCAR017) are due up at the end of 2020, with bb2121 deadlined at the end of Q1 in 2021.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Genap­sys fi­nal­ly un­veils vaunt­ed se­quencer, but can it dent Il­lu­mi­na?

Hesaam Esfandyarpour holds what looks like a mini-cooler up to the computer screen in his California office.

Esfandyarpour is in his late-30s, with crows feet creeping up against a youthful face. He wears a gray polo and the device in his hand — with its hard plastic-looking shell, blue-and-white pattern, and a white plastic paddle resembling a handle jutting out the front — might contain diced strawberries and peanut-butter sandwiches to meet mom and the kids at a SoCal park. Instead, Esfandyarpour tells me it’s going to change medicine and biopharma research.

Brii Bio backs in­fec­tious dis­ease start­up while ink­ing deal for its lead TB drug, dou­bling down on an­tibi­otics

Almost two years after leaving GSK to launch Brii Bio with a whopping $260 million in funding, Zhi Hong is seeing the trans-Pacific infectious disease specialist he set out to build take shape.

“Our pipeline is coming together,” he told Endpoints News, with 12 partnered assets plus some internal programs.

As its latest partner, AN2 Therapeutics, comes into the limelight for the first time with a $12 million seed round, so is Brii’s plans in the antibiotics space. Brii has obtained China rights to AN2’s antibacterial targeting mycobacterium tuberculosis for multi-drug resistant TB, which it says is in the clinical stage.

UP­DAT­ED: Make that 2 ap­proved RNAi drugs at Al­ny­lam af­ter the FDA of­fers a speedy OK on ul­tra-rare dis­ease drug

Seventeen years into the game, Alnylam’s pivot into commercial operations is picking up speed.
The bellwether biotech $ALNY has nabbed their second FDA OK for an RNAi drug, this time for givosiran, the only therapy now approved for acute hepatic porphyria. This second approval came months ahead of the February deadline — even after winning priority review following their ‘breakthrough’ title earlier.
AHP is an extremely rare disease, with some 3,000 patients in Europe and the US, not all diagnosed, and analysts have projected peak revenue of $600 million to $700 million a year. The drug will be sold as Givlaari.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Ricks. Eli Lilly

Eli Lil­ly touts $400M man­u­fac­tur­ing ex­pan­sion, 100 new jobs to much fan­fare in In­di­anapo­lis — even though it's been chop­ping staff

Eli Lilly is pouring in $400 million to beef up manufacturing facilities at its home base of Indianapolis. The investment, which was lauded by the city’s mayor, is expected to create 100 new jobs.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis, Bay­er, Long­wood back ge­nomics start­up to speed search for im­munother­a­py tar­gets

Nearly a century passed between the first proto-immunotherapy attempts in cancer — crude and obscure but nonetheless with some scientific basis — and Jim Allison’s first T cell paper. Thirty-plus years flipped between the discovery of CTLA-4 as an off-switch and the approval of Yervoy. Twenty-two rolled between PD-1’s isolation and Opdiva and Keytruda. 

Longwood co-founder Lea Hachigian is betting she can hasten that. It’s a bet on newly established single-cell genomic analysis tech and the ability to crunch endless troves of data at a rate few others can, and investors including Leaps by Bayer and Novartis Venture Fund just put $39 million behind it. They call it Immunitas.