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.

BiTE® Plat­form and the Evo­lu­tion To­ward Off-The-Shelf Im­muno-On­col­o­gy Ap­proach­es

Despite rapid advances in the field of immuno-oncology that have transformed the cancer treatment landscape, many cancer patients are still left behind.1,2 Not every person has access to innovative therapies designed specifically to treat his or her disease. Many currently available immuno-oncology-based approaches and chemotherapies have brought long-term benefits to some patients — but many patients still need other therapeutic options.3

RA Cap­i­tal, Hill­house join $310M rush to back Ever­est's climb to com­mer­cial heights in Chi­na

Money has never been an issue for Everest Medicines. With an essentially open tab from their founders at C-Bridge Capital, the biotech has gone two and a half years racking up drug after drug, bringing in top exec after top exec, and issuing clinical update after update.

But now other investors want in — and they’re betting big.

Everest is closing its Series C at $310 million. The first $50 million comes from the Jiashan National Economic and Technological Development Zone; the remaining C-2 tranche was led by Janchor Partners, with RA Capital Management and Hillhouse Capital as co-leaders. Decheng Capital, GT Fund, Janus Henderson Investors, Rock Springs Capital, Octagon Investments all joined.

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.

President Donald Trump (left) and Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed (Alex Brandon, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: White House names fi­nal­ists for Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed — with 5 ex­pect­ed names and one no­table omis­sion

A month after word first broke of the Trump Administration’s plan to rapidly accelerate the development and production of a Covid-19 vaccine, the White House has selected the five vaccine candidates they consider most likely to succeed, The New York Times reported.

Most of the names in the plan, known as Operation Warp Speed, will come as little surprise to those who have watched the last four months of vaccine developments: Moderna, which was the first vaccine to reach humans and is now the furthest along of any US effort; J&J, which has not gone into trials but received around $500 million in funding from BARDA earlier this year; the joint AstraZeneca-Oxford venture which was granted $1.2 billion from BARDA two weeks ago; Pfizer, which has been working with the mRNA biotech BioNTech; and Merck, which just entered the race and expects to put their two vaccine candidates into humans later this year.

David Meline (file photo)

Mod­er­na’s new CFO took a cut in salary to jump to the mR­NA rev­o­lu­tion­ary. But then there’s the rest of the com­pen­sa­tion pack­age

David Meline took a little off the top of his salary when he jumped from the CFO post at giant Amgen to become the numbers czar at the upstart vaccines revolutionary Moderna. But the SEC filing that goes with a major hire also illustrates how it puts him in line for a fortune — provided the biotech player makes good as a promising game changer.

To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with the base salary: $600,000. Or the up-to 50% annual cash bonus — an industry standard — that comes with it. True, the 62-year-old earned $999,000 at Amgen in 2019, but it’s the stock options that really count in the current market bliss for all things biopharma. And there Meline did well.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

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.

Por­tion of Neil Wood­ford’s re­main­ing in­vest­ments, in­clud­ing Nanopore, sold off for $284 mil­lion

It’s been precisely one year and one day since Neil Woodford froze his once-vaunted fund, and while a global pandemic has recently shielded him from the torrent of headlines, the fallout continues.

Today, the California-based patent licensing firm Acacia Research acquired the fund’s shares for 19 healthcare and biotech companies for $284 million.  Those companies include shares for public and private companies and count some of Woodford’s most prominent bio-bets, such as Theravance Biopharma, Oxford Nanopore and Mereo Biopharma, according to Sky News, which first reported the sale. It won’t include shares for BenevelontAI, the machine learning biotech once valued at $2 billion.

GSK presents case to ex­pand use of its lu­pus drug in pa­tients with kid­ney dis­ease, but the field is evolv­ing. How long will the mo­nop­oly last?

In 2011, GlaxoSmithKline’s Benlysta became the first biologic to win approval for lupus patients. Nine years on, the British drugmaker has unveiled detailed positive results from a study testing the drug in lupus patients with associated kidney disease — a post-marketing requirement from the initial FDA approval.

Lupus is a drug developer’s nightmare. In the last six decades, there has been just one FDA approval (Benlysta), with the field resembling a graveyard in recent years with a string of failures including UCB and Biogen’s late-stage flop, as well as defeats in Xencor and Sanofi’s programs. One of the main reasons the success has eluded researchers is because lupus, akin to cancer, is not just one disease — it really is a disease of many diseases, noted Al Roy, executive director of Lupus Clinical Investigators Network, an initiative of New York-based Lupus Research Alliance that claims it is the world’s leading private funder of lupus research, in an interview.

UP­DAT­ED: Es­ti­mat­ing a US price tag of $5K per course, remde­sivir is set to make bil­lions for Gilead, says key an­a­lyst

Data on remdesivir — the first drug shown to benefit Covid-19 patients in a randomized, controlled trial setting — may be murky, but its maker Gilead could reap billions from the sales of the failed Ebola therapy, according to an estimate by a prominent Wall Street analyst. However, the forecast, which is based on a $5,000-per-course US price tag, triggered the ire of one top drug price expert.