Amicus CEO lobbied FDA to reverse FDA’s rejection of migalastat, claiming a delay of up to 7 years

Handwritten Note from John Crowley to Scott Gottlieb.


Five days after Scott Gottlieb was sworn in as head of the FDA last May, Amicus $FOLD CEO John Crowley was personally lobbying him to reverse a stinging rejection of migalastat, his new drug for rare cases of Fabry disease.

CEO John Crowley

He overnighted a letter — obtained by the Project on Government Oversight — to Gottlieb explaining that the company had determined that it would take an extraordinary 5 to 7 years to complete a Phase III study of gastrointestinal symptoms that the agency had determined would be required before it could consider offering a green light for marketing. That would not be feasible in a reasonable amount of time, he said. And he reviewed new data that had been shared with CDER director Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s Julie Beitz and others at her request.

The letter came with a handwritten note from Crowley evidently following a personal conversation with Gottlieb, a high profile figure in the biotech world.

“Congratulations, again!” he wrote. “As discussed, the hopes and well being of so many living with rare, devastating diseases rests now with your great leadership and wisdom. Thanks for your attention to the attached.”

In his formal letter, Crowley repeated two questions that had been pitched to Woodcock. Did the agency agree a new Phase III would not be needed? Would the agency review a new NDA?

Summed up Crowley: “We are committed to move most expeditiously to submit the NDA once we have clarity on the above.”

Scott Gottlieb

The answer to his questions from the agency was a stunning yes, one of three key reversals that the FDA made in the weeks and months after Gottlieb took the helm of the FDA. Like Amicus, Eli Lilly successfully appealed the unexpected rejection of baricitinib, which is now back under review. Then a few weeks ago TherapeuticsMD — rejected a day ahead of Gottlieb’s confirmation — was also handed a stay of execution.

As the FDA reversed itself on migalastat July 11, sending its share price soaring, Leerink’s Joseph Schwartz noted:

We also cannot rule out the political influence of a new administration (and its inclination toward approving medicines for deadly afflictions) having an influence in today’s announcement.

The sudden changes in stance at the agency raise serious questions. In executing these three reversals after Gottlieb was sworn in, has the agency lowered the bar on its data demands for new meds? And what role did Woodcock — the controversial champion of eteplirsen who stared down fierce internal opposition to approve Sarepta’s drug on sparse data — as well as Gottlieb play in pushing for the agency’s changing stance on these drugs?

I’ve asked the FDA for clarification on this before, but never got any formal response at the time. The agency, though, is also bound by strict rules restricting what it can say about any one company. Gottlieb, however, is not restricted from discussing the agency’s changing approach to drug reviews in general, as he has demonstrated many times in recent months.

Friday afternoon, acting assistant commissioner Jennifer Rodriguez contacted me to say that Gottlieb was unaware of the letter. Her comment:

Dr. Gottlieb was not involved in this matter and further, he was not aware of this letter. Product-specific correspondence that is sent to Dr. Gottlieb by external parties is referred to the relevant centers as a matter of routine procedure. Further, decisions on whether to accept to file an application or grant a drug application priority review (or any of the other pathways for drug review) is based on specific criteria applied to the product’s data and determined by appropriate FDA career staff. To confirm, Dr. Gottlieb was not involved in decisions related to this product review.

I followed up to ask if Woodcock, a powerful FDA official who Crowley says he had met with, felt Crowley’s pitch about an infeasible delay of 5 to 7 years was considered a credible reason for a reversal, and if so, why. All my original questions stand unanswered.

Rodriguez’s followup:

Dr. Gottlieb was not involved in this matter and was not involved in discussions about this product-specific decision.

With respect to your other questions, the FDA generally cannot discuss the status of a pending application. The FDA is able to provide information on approved drug product applications. Information on an application that has yet to receive an approval or was denied approval generally is not releasable.

I didn’t hear back on whether Gottlieb knew what Crowley may have referred to in saying “as discussed” in his warm personal note.

In making a point, Crowley’s assertion that it would take up to 7 years to complete the required Phase III also begs questioning. That process was widely expected to take about 3 years, fairly standard for this kind of a move.

In the company’s detailed response to the rejection, Amicus said it would have the data in 2019.

Amicus is working with FDA to finalize the clinical protocol and plans to initiate enrollment in 2017, with data expected in 2019

Did Crowley push that number up to see if it would help persuade regulators — particularly Gottlieb or Woodcock — to change their minds? And wouldn’t he have to tell investors, if that was the case?

We pitched those questions to Crowley through his media contact, and he didn’t provide a direct response. Instead, we got this:

Our engagement with the FDA, as with other regulatory bodies around the world, has been focused on the science and data we have advanced through a decade of clinical research in Fabry disease, as well as our understanding of the significant patient needs we have learned from the Fabry community. Our NDA submission includes a robust data package including the two largest Fabry pivotal studies ever conducted – which supported approvals in the EU, Switzerland, Israel, Canada and Australia.

Over a series of discussions with the FDA throughout the first half of this year, we had the opportunity to share: 1) new data; 2) new analyses of existing data; 3) longer-term data from our extension studies; 4) the experience of patients on commercial Galafold in Europe (especially those transitioning from ERTs); and, 5) as requested by FDA, patient perspectives on the unmet need in Fabry disease and the lack of treatment options in the U.S.  All of this culminated in the confirmation from FDA that we could submit the NDA, which we did on December 13.

As CEO of Amicus, I am dedicated to advocating in the best interest of patients.  We stand firmly behind our engagement with FDA, and remain committed to advancing migalastat through the regulatory process as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, Amicus pushed through its new NDA for migalastat yesterday.

William Pao (L) and Hans Clevers

Pfizer raids Roche executive committee for new drug development chief — and Schwan plucks his replacement from the board

Pfizer has found its new chief of drug development, and they’ve dispatched a raiding party to Basel to pluck him off the executive committee at Roche.

William Pao, who took over as head of pRED after John Reed exited to take the R&D chief post at Sanofi in 2018, is headed to the executive committee at Pfizer now, where he’ll report to Albert Bourla in New York. And he has a big remit that includes “inflammation and immunology, internal medicine, hospital, oncology and rare disease, as well as regulatory affairs in support of Pfizer’s R&D pipeline and portfolio of marketed therapies.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 131,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UPenn sues Genentech over patent infringement with four cancer drugs

The University of Pennsylvania is suing Roche’s Genentech again, this time seeking an unidentified amount of damages for infringing on a Penn patent that’s linked to four of the California biotech’s cancer treatments and which has helped bring in billions in sales over the years.

The patent in question from 2009 — known as the ‘588 patent — relates to therapies for treating ErbB protein-mediated cancer tumors, which relate to Genentech’s cancer drugs Herceptin, Herceptin Hylecta, Perjeta, and Phesgo.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 131,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Joe McCann, Point Biopharma CEO

Point unveils new Indy site to shore up supply chain in fight against prostate cancer

With a new manufacturing facility and a candidate for prostate cancer in clinical trials, Point Biopharma is moving fast to bring its radioligand operations online. Now, it will get some help from the US Department of Energy.

Point will receive actinium-225 from the DOE’s Isotope Program to support its early-stage pipeline and in-house manufacturing of lutetium-177, a radioactive medicine that binds itself to tumor cells. The help will allow Point to stay on track to launch in 2023 and will supplement the company’s supply chain from TerraPower, NorthStar Medical and Ionetix. All of these partnerships will help bolster the company’s internal production, the company said.

GSK grabs $1.25B cash and a cut of Gilead's megablockbuster Biktarvy sales as HIV rivals settle patent suit

Three years after ViiV Healthcare, the HIV specialist majority owned by GlaxoSmithKline, first sued Gilead over alleged patent infringement on one of its top drugs, the two companies have settled the case.

Gilead will pay ViiV $1.25 billion in cash — while agreeing to set aside a 3% royalty on all US sales of Biktarvy until October 2027.

A megablockbuster triplet therapy given as a daily pill, Biktarvy brought in $6.09 billion from the US alone in 2020. By 2027, Jefferies analysts estimate that cumulative US sales would reach about $50 billion — translating to about $2 billion in total royalties for ViiV.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 131,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

That partial hold on Gilead's $5B cancer drug? It's worse than we were initially told

Gilead’s trouble with its $5 billion drug magrolimab is considerably worse than it disclosed in a press release last week.

Originally, the big biotech alerted investors that they had to slam the brakes on enrolling patients in a slate of clinical trials that combined the CD47 drug magrolimab with azacitidine (Vidaza). That came after the agency flagged an “apparent imbalance” in the suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions between study arms.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 131,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rick Gonzalez, CEO of AbbVie (AP Images)

AbbVie's Gonzalez: Skyrizi and Rinvoq to become Humira 2.0 — while adding an indication for atopic dermatitis

While AbbVie’s Humira still holds the crown for the best-selling non-Covid drug last year, the Big Pharma has its eyes on Humira’s potential successor. Scratch that, successors.

AbbVie CEO Rick Gonzalez told investors and analysts on the pharma’s Q4 call this morning that AbbVie expects to add several new indications to Skyrizi and Rinvoq’s “list of approved uses” over the next few months. For Skyrizi, they got the FDA’s OK a few weeks ago to use the drug for psoriatic arthritis — and they’re also looking for the thumbs up from the agency on Crohn’s disease.

Vas Narasimhan, AP Images

Vas Narasimhan reveals a disappointing outlook for Novartis' generics unit, while laying out the pharma's M&A strategy

As Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan figures out exactly what he wants to do with Sandoz, the company revealed in its Q4 report that US sales for the generics unit are expected to continue on a downhill slide in the new year — potentially putting a damper on the prospects of a buyout.

Narasimhan says he’ll wrap up his strategic review of Sandoz and make a decision by the end of the year at the latest. Meanwhile, he laid out the company’s M&A strategy going into 2022, as public stocks tumble and all signs point to a Big Pharma M&A hunt this year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 131,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

PhRMA goes on the offensive, attacking the WHO and putting the EU, UK, Australia and others on notice

Each year, industry groups like PhRMA offer their views on which countries around the globe might be harming biopharma innovation as a result of their intellectual property protections or lack thereof, which can contribute to a report produced by the White House’s trade representative on the global state of IP.

This year’s 273 pages worth of comments from PhRMA not only take issue with the Biden administration’s pledge to support an IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines at the WTO, but also raise concerns about the WHO and other countries on the priority watch list, like Canada, and the industry group has requested that the US trade representative add Australia, Taiwan, the EU, UK, Egypt and Israel to its “watch list.”

Organon's social media posts will draw attention to its new campaign to encourage companies to give women a day off to take care of her health.

Organon launches day-off campaign to encourage business leaders to prioritize women's health

Organon wants to get women out of the office and focused on their own health — for one day at least. The Merck women’s health spinoff is rallying to encourage companies to give women a paid day off on March 8, which is International Women’s Day, and it’s starting with its own 9,500 employees.

In a Wall Street Journal full-page ad Wednesday, Organon CEO Kevin Ali wrote an open letter to business leaders asking them to join the effort and help female employees focus on their health.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 131,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.