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.

Is a pow­er­house Mer­ck team prepar­ing to leap past Roche — and leave Gilead and Bris­tol My­ers be­hind — in the race to TIG­IT dom­i­na­tion?

Roche caused quite a stir at ASCO with its first look at some positive — but not so impressive — data for their combination of Tecentriq with their anti-TIGIT drug tiragolumab. But some analysts believe that Merck is positioned to make a bid — soon — for the lead in the race to a second-wave combo immuno-oncology approach with its own ambitious early-stage program tied to a dominant Keytruda.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Fangliang Zhang, AP Images

UP­DAT­ED: Leg­end fetch­es $424 mil­lion, emerges as biggest win­ner yet in pan­dem­ic IPO boom as shares soar

Amid a flurry of splashy pandemic IPOs, a J&J-partnered Chinese biotech has emerged with one of the largest public raises in biotech history.

Legend Biotech, the Nanjing-based CAR-T developer, has raised $424 million on NASDAQ. The biotech had originally filed for a still-hefty $350 million, based on a range of $18-$20, but managed to fetch $23 per share, allowing them to well-eclipse the massive raises from companies like Allogene, Juno, Galapagos, though they’ll still fall a few dollars short of Moderna’s record-setting $600 million raise from 2018.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As it hap­pened: A bid­ding war for an an­tibi­ot­ic mak­er in a mar­ket that has rav­aged its peers

In a bewildering twist to the long-suffering market for antibiotics — there has actually been a bidding war for an antibiotic company: Tetraphase.

It all started back in March, when the maker of Xerava (an FDA approved therapy for complicated intra-abdominal infections) said it had received an offer from AcelRx for an all-stock deal valued at $14.4 million.

The offer was well-timed. Xerava was approved in 2018, four years after Tetraphase posted its first batch of pivotal trial data, and sales were nowhere near where they needed to be in order for the company to keep its head above water.

Drug man­u­fac­tur­ing gi­ant Lon­za taps Roche/phar­ma ‘rein­ven­tion’ vet as its new CEO

Lonza chairman Albert Baehny took his time headhunting a new CEO for the company, making it absolutely clear he wanted a Big Pharma or biotech CEO with a good long track record in the business for the top spot. In the end, he went with the gold standard, turning to Roche’s ranks to recruit Pierre-Alain Ruffieux for the job.

Ruffieux, a member of the pharma leadership team at Roche, spent close to 5 years at the company. But like a small army of manufacturing execs, he gained much of his experience at the other Big Pharma in Basel, remaining at Novartis for 12 years before expanding his horizons.

Covid-19 roundup: Ab­b­Vie jumps in­to Covid-19 an­ti­body hunt; As­traZeneca shoots for 2B dos­es of Ox­ford vac­cine — with $750M from CEPI, Gavi

Another Big Pharma is entering the Covid-19 antibody hunt.

AbbVie has announced a collaboration with the Netherlands’ Utrecht University and Erasmus Medical Center and the Chinese-Dutch biotech Harbour Biomed to develop a neutralizing antibody that can treat Covid-19. The antibody, called 47D11, was discovered by AbbVie’s three partners, and AbbVie will support early preclinical work, while preparing for later preclinical and clinical development. Researchers described the antibody in Nature Communications last month.

Pfiz­er’s Doug Gior­dano has $500M — and some ad­vice — to of­fer a cer­tain breed of 'break­through' biotech

So let’s say you’re running a cutting-edge, clinical-stage biotech, probably public, but not necessarily so, which could see some big advantages teaming up with some marquee researchers, picking up say $50 million to $75 million dollars in a non-threatening minority equity investment that could take you to the next level.

Doug Giordano might have some thoughts on how that could work out.

The SVP of business development at the pharma giant has helped forge a new fund called the Pfizer Breakthrough Growth Initiative. And he has $500 million of Pfizer’s money to put behind 7 to 10 — or so — biotech stocks that fit that general description.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bris­tol My­ers is clean­ing up the post-Cel­gene merg­er pipeline, and they’re sweep­ing out an ex­per­i­men­tal check­point in the process

Back during the lead up to the $74 billion buyout of Celgene, the big biotech’s leadership did a little housecleaning with a major pact it had forged with Jounce. Out went the $2.6 billion deal and a collaboration on ICOS and PD-1.

Celgene, though, also added a $530 million deal — $50 million up front — to get the worldwide rights to JTX-8064, a drug that targets the LILRB2 receptor on macrophages.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA de­lays de­ci­sion on No­var­tis’ po­ten­tial block­buster MS drug, wip­ing away pri­or­i­ty re­view

So much for a speedy review.

In February, Novartis announced that an application for their much-touted multiple sclerosis drug ofatumumab had been accepted and, with the drug company cashing in on one of their priority review vouchers, the agency was due for a decision by June.

But with June less than 48 hours old, Novartis announced the agency has extended their review, pushing back the timeline for approval or rejection to September. The Swiss pharma filed the application in December, meaning their new schedule will be nearly in line with the standard 10-month window period had they not used the priority voucher.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mer­ck wins a third FDA nod for an­tibi­ot­ic; Mereo tack­les TIG­IT with $70M raise in hand

Merck — one of the last big pharma bastions in the beleaguered field of antibiotic drug development — on Friday said the FDA had signed off on using its combination drug, Recarbrio, with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. The drug could come handy for use in hospitalized patients who are afflicted with Covid-19, who carry a higher risk of contracting secondary bacterial infections. Once SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind Covid-19, infects the airways, it engages the immune system, giving other pathogens free rein to pillage and plunder as they please — the issue is particularly pertinent in patients on ventilators, which in any case are breeding grounds for infectious bacteria.