Al­most half of all new drug ap­provals in 2018 re­lied on one clin­i­cal tri­al

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the FDA made clear that at least two ad­e­quate and well-con­trolled stud­ies were nec­es­sary to es­tab­lish a new drug’s ef­fec­tive­ness, ex­cept in on­ly the rarest of cir­cum­stances.

Then in 1997, the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion Mod­ern­iza­tion Act was passed, and Con­gress clar­i­fied that the FDA may con­sid­er “da­ta from one ad­e­quate and well-con­trolled clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tion and con­fir­ma­to­ry ev­i­dence” to ap­prove a new drug.

But in guid­ance from 1998, the FDA says that its re­liance on on­ly a sin­gle study “will gen­er­al­ly be lim­it­ed to sit­u­a­tions in which a tri­al has demon­strat­ed a clin­i­cal­ly mean­ing­ful ef­fect on mor­tal­i­ty, ir­re­versible mor­bid­i­ty, or pre­ven­tion of a dis­ease with po­ten­tial­ly se­ri­ous out­come and con­fir­ma­tion of the re­sult in a sec­ond tri­al would be prac­ti­cal­ly or eth­i­cal­ly im­pos­si­ble.”

The agency al­so ex­plains the per­sua­sive­ness of us­ing two stud­ies ver­sus one.

“Whether to re­ly on a sin­gle ad­e­quate and well-con­trolled study is in­evitably a mat­ter of judg­ment. A con­clu­sion based on two per­sua­sive stud­ies will al­ways be more se­cure than a con­clu­sion based on a sin­gle, com­pa­ra­bly per­sua­sive study,” the guid­ance notes.

Aaron Kessel­heim, pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine at Har­vard Med­ical School, told Fo­cus: “His­tor­i­cal­ly, the FDA guid­ance seemed to in­di­cate a pref­er­ence for two ad­e­quate and well-con­trolled tri­als since any sin­gle tri­al may be sub­ject to unan­tic­i­pat­ed or un­de­tect­ed sys­tem­at­ic bi­as­es. Of course, in some cas­es, the clin­i­cal need is high enough or the drug’s ef­fi­ca­cy is pow­er­ful enough that a sin­gle tri­al should be suf­fi­cient at least for ini­tial FDA ap­proval.

“But re­liance on a sin­gle tri­al—par­tic­u­lar­ly if that tri­al is sin­gle-arm, un­blind­ed, or eval­u­ates un­val­i­dat­ed sur­ro­gate mea­sures as the end­point—in­creas­es the risk to pa­tients that the drug may not work as well as ex­pect­ed (or, sep­a­rate­ly, may have safe­ty is­sues that out­weigh its ben­e­fits).  It would be use­ful to clear­ly in­form pa­tients when a new drug is ap­proved on the ba­sis of a sin­gle piv­otal tri­al and fol­low those drugs more close­ly af­ter ap­proval, with the idea of for­mal­ly re­vis­it­ing their ben­e­fit-risk bal­ance in the fu­ture. But stud­ies un­for­tu­nate­ly show that post­mar­ket re­quire­ments are of­ten not fol­lowed up com­plete­ly or in a time­ly fash­ion,” Kessel­heim added.

Ap­provals Based on a Sin­gle Tri­al

Ac­cord­ing to a 2014 JA­MA study, be­tween 2005 and 2012, the FDA ap­proved 188 nov­el ther­a­peu­tic agents for 206 in­di­ca­tions, and 74 in­di­ca­tions (36.8%) were ap­proved on the ba­sis of a sin­gle piv­otal tri­al.

Most re­cent­ly, IQVIA re­leased a re­port find­ing that 25 of 59 (42%) nov­el drugs ap­proved in 2018 were ap­proved on the ba­sis of on­ly one tri­al. And one out of eight ap­provals re­lied on­ly on Phase 1 or 2 tri­als, with no Phase 3 tri­als. But as in pre­vi­ous years, a large por­tion of the drugs re­ly­ing on on­ly one tri­al were new or­phan and can­cer drugs.

For in­stance, As­traZeneca’s or­phan drug Lu­mox­i­ti (mox­e­tu­momab pa­su­do­tox-td­fk) was ap­proved in Sep­tem­ber 2018 based on one tri­al of less than 100 pa­tients with a rare, slow-grow­ing blood can­cer. Stem­line Ther­a­peu­tics al­so won ap­proval in De­cem­ber 2018 for El­zon­ris (tagrax­o­fusp-erzx) to treat a rare, rapid­ly pro­gress­ing can­cer of the bone mar­row and blood af­ter con­duct­ing one tri­al of 94 pa­tients in the US.

Oth­er can­cer drugs, mean­while, won ap­proval af­ter larg­er sin­gle tri­als.

Pfiz­er’s Viz­im­pro (da­comi­tinib), for ex­am­ple, was ap­proved in Sep­tem­ber 2018 on the ba­sis of one clin­i­cal tri­al of 452 pa­tients with ad­vanced non-small cell lung can­cer in Asia. Ar­ray Bio­phar­ma’s Braftovi (en­co­rafenib) was ap­proved in June 2018 on ev­i­dence from one clin­i­cal tri­al of 383 pa­tients with BRAF V600 mu­ta­tion-pos­i­tive melanoma that was ad­vanced or could not be re­moved by surgery. The tri­al was con­duct­ed at 162 sites in Eu­rope, North Amer­i­ca and else­where.

And Ad­vanced Ac­cel­er­a­tor Ap­pli­ca­tions’ Lu­tathera (lutetium 177 dotate) was ap­proved based on one tri­al of 229 pa­tients with a spe­cif­ic type of rare tu­mor at 41 sites in Bel­gium, France, Ger­many, Italy, Por­tu­gal, Spain, UK and the US.

But not all the new drugs ap­proved in 2018 based on one clin­i­cal tri­al were can­cer treat­ments. For in­stance, Achao­gen’s Zem­dri (pla­zomicin) was ap­proved in June 2018 as a com­pli­cat­ed uri­nary tract in­fec­tion treat­ment based on one tri­al of 604 pa­tients in Eu­rope, the US and Mex­i­co.

Paratek Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals al­so won ap­proval for its an­tibac­te­r­i­al med­i­cine Nuzyra (omada­cy­cline) in Oc­to­ber 2018 on the ba­sis of a sin­gle tri­al of 774 pa­tients with com­mu­ni­ty ac­quired bac­te­r­i­al pneu­mo­nia at 86 sites in Asia, Eu­rope, Is­rael, Latin Amer­i­ca, South Africa and the US.

But Kessel­heim said he does not think this is a re­cent shift to the use of one piv­otal tri­al, and he did not know if the 42% fig­ure from 2018 “is a sign that the num­ber is creep­ing high­er or just nor­mal year to year fluc­tu­a­tion.”

The IQVIA re­port al­so re­ports a slight uptick in the num­ber of piv­otal tri­als in 2018 be­ing ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als com­pared to pre­vi­ous years and that ac­tive con­trol arms were more com­mon in 2018 than re­cent past years.

The Chang­ing Land­scape of Re­search and De­vel­op­ment


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

Hal Barron and Rick Klausner (GSK, Lyell)

Ex­clu­sive: GSK’s Hal Bar­ron al­lies with Rick Klaus­ner’s $600M cell ther­a­py start­up, look­ing to break new ground blitz­ing sol­id tu­mors

LONDON — Chances are, you’ve heard little or nothing about Rick Klausner’s startup Lyell. But that ends now.

Klausner, the former head of the National Cancer Institute, former executive director for global health at the Gates Foundation, co-founder at Juno and one of the leaders in the booming cell therapy field, has brought together one of the most prominent teams of scientists tackling cell therapy 2.0 — highlighted by a quest to bridge a daunting tech gap that separates some profound advances in blood cancers with solid tumors. And today he’s officially adding Hal Barron and GlaxoSmithKline as a major league collaborator which is pitching in a large portion of the $600 million he’s raised in the past year to make that vision a reality.

“We’ve being staying stealth,” Klausner tells me, then adding with a chuckle: “and going back to stealth after this.”

“Cell therapy has a lot of challenges,” notes Barron, the R&D chief at GSK, ticking off the resistance put up by solid tumors to cell therapies, the vein-to-vein time involved in taking immune cells out of patients, engineering them to attack cancer cells, and getting them back in, and more. “Over the years Rick and I talked about how it would be wonderful to take that on as a mission.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

First place fin­ish: Eli Lil­ly just moved to fran­chise leader with their sec­ond mi­graine drug OK in 1 year

In a rare twist for Eli Lilly’s historically slow-moving R&D group, the pharma giant has seized bragging rights to a first-in-class new drug approval. And all signs point to an aggressive marketing followup as they look to outclass some major franchise rivals hobbled by internal dissension.

The FDA came through with an OK for lasmiditan on Friday evening, branding it as Reyvow and lining it up — once a substance classification comes through from the DEA — for a major market release. The oral drug binds to 5-HT1F receptors and is designed to stop an acute migraine after it starts. That makes it a complementary therapy to their CGRP drug Emgality, which has a statistically significant impact on preventing attacks.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Patrick Mahaffy, Getty Images

Court green-lights Clo­vis case af­ter de­tail­ing ev­i­dence the board ‘ig­nored red flags’ on false safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta

Clovis investors have cleared a major hurdle in their long-running case against the board of directors, with a Delaware court making a rare finding that they had a strong enough case against the board to proceed with the action.

In a detailed ruling at the beginning of the month that’s been getting careful scrutiny at firms specializing in biotech and corporate governance, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the attorneys for the investors had made a careful case that the board — a collection of experts that includes high-profile biotech entrepreneurs, a Harvard professor and well-known investigator as well as Clovis CEO Patrick Mahaffy — repeatedly ignored obvious warnings that Mahaffy’s executive crew was touting inflated, unconfirmed data for their big drug Roci. Serious safety issues were also reportedly overlooked while the company continued a fundraising campaign that brought in more than a half-billion dollars. And that leaves the board open to claims related to their role in the fiasco.

The bottom line:

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Allogene HQ Open House on September 17, 2019 in South San Francisco. (Jeff Rumans, Endpoints News)

The next 10 years: Where is biotech head­ed?

The last 10 years have seen a revolution in drug development. Timelines have shortened, particularly in oncology. Regulators have opened up. Investment has skyrocketed. China became a player. Biotechs have multiplied as gene and cell therapy has exploded — offering major new advances in the way diseases are treated, and sometimes cured.

So where are we headed from here? I journeyed out to San Francisco in September to discuss the answer to that question at Allogene’s open house. If the last 10 years have been an eye-opener, what does the next decade hold in store?

George Scangos / Credit: Cornell University

ARCH, Soft­Bank-backed Vir Biotech­nol­o­gy un­der­whelms with $143 mil­lion IPO

George Scangos went back to Wall Street, and came back 700 million pennies short.

Scangos’ vaunted startup Vir Biotechnology raised $143 million in an IPO they hoped would earn $150 million. Shares were priced at $20, the low-end of the $20-$22 target.

Launched with backing from ARCH Venture’s Robert Nelsen, Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank Vision Fund, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the infectious disease startup was one of a new wave of well-resourced biotechs that emerged with deep enough coffers to pursue a full R&D line rather than slowly build their case by picking off a single lead program.

Ex-Ab­b­Vie part­ner Prin­cip­ia posts en­cour­ag­ing PhII re­sults for its BTK-in­hibitor

Months after their breakup with high-profile partner AbbVie, Principia announced positive preliminary results from the second half of a Phase II trial on their lead drug.

The San Francisco biotech announced data from part B of its Phase II open-label trial testing the BTK inhibitor PRN1008 on patients with pemphigus vulgaris, a rare autoimmune disease affecting the skin and mucous membranes. Of 15 enrolled patients, 6 achieved complete responses and 4 remain on the therapy.

Roche vice-chair: Let's re­pair the dam­age that short-term prof­it dri­ve has done to the plan­et

In his latest push for environmental advocacy, the vice chairman of Roche’s board of directors has told a group of business executives that “short-term profit maximization has destroyed the planet, environmentally and socially.”

Andre Hoffman
Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

In re­ver­sal, NICE backs Rubra­ca af­ter Clo­vis agrees to a price cut

NICE has changed its mind, agreeing to cautiously endorse Clovis Oncology’s Rubraca after the drugmaker agreed to cut its price — about two months after the UK cost-effectiveness agency’s initial rejection.

Rubraca, known chemically as rucaparib, is approved for use in the EU as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who have relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Bill Gates backs Gink­go Biowork­s' $350M raise to fu­el the buzzy syn­thet­ic bi­ol­o­gy 'rev­o­lu­tion'

If you want to understand Ginkgo Bioworks, the name should suffice: Bioworks, a spin off “ironworks,” that old industrial linchpin devoted to leveraging scale as a wellspring for vast new industries capable of remaking society. Ginkgo wants to be the ironworks for the revolution it’s heralded with as much fanfare as they can, playing off of one of the buzziest technologies in biotech.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.