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.

Brian Kaspar. AveXis via Twitter

AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder fires back at No­var­tis CEO Vas Narasimhan, 'cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly de­nies any wrong­do­ing'

Brian Kaspar’s head was among the first to roll at Novartis after company execs became aware of the fact that manipulated data had been included in its application for Zolgensma, now the world’s most expensive therapy.

But in his first public response, the scientific founder at AveXis — acquired by Novartis for $8.7 billion — is firing back. And he says that not only was he not involved in any wrongdoing, he’s ready to defend his name as needed.

I reached out to Brian Kaspar after Novartis put out word that he and his brother Allen had been axed in mid-May, two months after the company became aware of the allegations related to manipulated data. His response came back through his attorneys.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: An em­bold­ened As­traZeneca splurges $95M on a pri­or­i­ty re­view vouch­er. Where do they need the FDA to hus­tle up?

AstraZeneca is in a hurry.

We learned this morning that the pharma giant — not known as a big spender, until recently — forked over $95 million to get its hands on a priority review voucher from Sobi, otherwise known as Swedish Orphan Biovitrum.

That marks another step down on price for a PRV, which allows the holder to slash 4 months off of any FDA review time.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Martin Shkreli [via Getty]

Pris­on­er #87850-053 does not get to add drug de­vel­op­er to his list of cred­its

Just days after Retrophin shed its last ties to founder Martin Shkreli, the biotech is reporting that the lead drug he co-invented flopped in a pivotal trial. Fosmetpantotenate flunked both the primary and key secondary endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial for a rare disease called pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration, or PKAN.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

We­bi­nar: Re­al World End­points — the brave new world com­ing in build­ing fran­chise ther­a­pies

Several biopharma companies have been working on expanding drug labels through the use of real world endpoints, combing through the data to find evidence of a drug’s efficacy for particular indications. But we’ve just begun. Real World Evidence is becoming an important part of every clinical development plan, in the soup-through-nuts approach used in building franchises.

I’ve recruited a panel of 3 top experts in the field — the first in a series of premium webinars — to look at the practical realities governing what can be done today, and where this is headed over the next few years, at the prodding of the FDA.

ZHEN SU — Merck Serono’s Senior Vice President and Global Head of Oncology
ELLIOTT LEVY — Amgen’s Senior Vice President of Global Development
CHRIS BOSHOFF — Pfizer Oncology’s Chief Development Officer

A premium subscription to Endpoints News is required to attend this webinar. Please upgrade to either an Insider or Enterprise plan for access. Already have Endpoints Premium? Please sign-in below. You can contact our Subscriptions team at with any issues.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Am­gen, Al­ler­gan biosim­i­lar of Roche's block­buster Rit­ux­an clears an­oth­er US piv­otal study 

Novartis $NVS may have given up, but Amgen $AMGN and Allergan $AGN are plowing ahead with their knockoff of Roche’s blockbuster biologic Rituxan in the United States.

Their copycat, ABP 798, was found to have a clinically equivalent impact as Rituxan — meeting the main goal of the study involving CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. This is the second trial supporting the profile of the biosimilar. In January, it came through with positive PK results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BeiGene and Mus­tang nail down spe­cial FDA sta­tus for top drugs; Roche bags added cov­er­age for Hem­li­bra

→ BeiGene $BGNE is getting a boost in its drive to field a rival to Imbruvica. The FDA has offered an accelerated review to zanubrutinib, a BTK inhibitor that has posted positive results for mantle cell lymphoma. The PDUFA date lands on February 27, 2020. The drug scored breakthrough status at the beginning of the year.

→ BeiGene isn’t the only biopharma company to gain special regulatory status today. Mustang Bio $MBIO and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital announced that MB-107, a lentiviral gene therapy for the treatment of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, also known as bubble boy disease, has been granted Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy status.

Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion re­vives bid to get drug list prices on TV ads

The Trump administration is not giving up just yet. On Wednesday, the HHS filed an appeal against a judge’s decision in July to overturn a ruling obligating drug manufacturers to disclose the list price of their therapies in television adverts — hours before it was stipulated to go into effect.

In May, the HHS published a final ruling requiring drugmakers to divulge the wholesale acquisition cost— of a 30-day supply of the drug — in tv ads in a bid to enhance price transparency in the United States. The pharmaceutical industry has vehemently opposed the rule, asserting that list prices are not what a typical patient in the United States pays for treatment — that number is typically determined by the type of (or lack thereof) insurance coverage, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. Although there is truth to that claim, the move was considered symbolic in the Trump administration’s healthcare agenda to hold drugmakers accountable in a climate where skyrocketing drug prices have incensed Americans on both sides of the aisle.

Bob Smith, Pfizer

Pfiz­er is mak­ing a $500M state­ment to­day: Here’s how you be­come a lead play­er in the boom­ing gene ther­a­py sec­tor

Three years ago, Pfizer anted up $150 million in cash to buy Bamboo Therapeutics in Chapel Hill, NC as it cautiously stuck a toe in the small gene therapy pool of research and development.

Company execs followed up a year later with a $100 million expansion of the manufacturing operations they picked up in that deal for the UNC spinout, which came with $495 million in milestones.

And now they’re really going for it.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Video: Putting the AI in R&D — with Badhri Srini­vasan, Tony Wood, Rosana Kapeller, Hugo Ceule­mans, Saurabh Sa­ha and Shoibal Dat­ta

During BIO this year, I had a chance to moderate a panel among some of the top tech experts in biopharma on their real-world use of artificial intelligence in R&D. There’s been a lot said about the potential of AI, but I wanted to explore more about what some of the larger players are actually doing with this technology today, and how they see it advancing in the future. It was a fascinating exchange, which you can see here. The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity. — John Carroll