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.

George Scangos (L) and Marianne De Backer

Pi­o­neer­ing biotech icon George Scan­gos hands in his re­tire­ment pa­pers — and this time it’s for re­al

George Scangos, one of the all-time great biotech CEOs, says the time has come to turn over the reins one last time.

The 74-year-old biotech legend spent close to three decades in a CEO post. The first was at Exelixis — which is still heavily focused on a drug Scangos advanced in the clinic. The second “retirement” was at Biogen, where he and his team were credited with a big turnaround with the now fading MS blockbuster Tecfidera. And the third comes at Vir, where he traded in his Big Biotech credentials for a marquee founder’s role back on the West Coast, hammering out a Covid-19 alliance with Hal Barron — then R&D chief at GSK — and breaking new ground on infectious diseases with some high-powered venture players.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

FDA re­ports ini­tial 'no sig­nal' for stroke risk with Pfiz­er boost­ers, launch­es con­comi­tant flu shot study

The FDA hasn’t detected any potential safety signals, including for stroke, in people aged 65 years and older who have received Pfizer’s bivalent Covid booster, one senior official told members of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Thursday.

The update comes as the FDA and CDC investigate a “preliminary signal” that may indicate an increased risk of ischemic stroke in older Americans who received Pfizer’s updated shot.

FDA cuts off use for As­traZeneca’s Covid-19 ther­a­py Evusheld

The FDA has stopped use of another drug as a result of the new coronavirus variants. On Thursday, the agency announced that AstraZeneca’s antibody combo Evusheld, which was an important prevention option for many immunocompromised people and others, is no longer authorized.

The FDA said it made its decision based on the fact that Evusheld works on fewer than 10% of circulating variants.

Evusheld was initially given emergency authorization at the end of 2021. However, as Omicron emerged, so did studies that showed Evusheld might not work against the dominant Omicron strain. In October, the FDA warned healthcare providers that Evusheld was useless against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6. It followed that up with another announcement earlier this month that it did not think Evusheld would work against the latest Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5.

Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine (Credit: Jamie Scott Lytle)

A stem cell pi­o­neer sent an ex­per­i­ment in­to space. Pa­tients are the next fron­tier

Last July, Jeanne Loring stood on a dirt road surrounded by Florida swampland and watched as a nearby SpaceX rocket blasted into the sky. The payload included a very personal belonging: cell clusters mimicking parts of her brain.

For more than two decades, Loring has been at the forefront of a stem cell field that always seems on the brink of becoming the next thing in medicine, but has been slow to lift off.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

In a win for Re­gen­eron, No­var­tis' sy­ringe for AMD drug de­clared 'un­patentable'

Regeneron has won a patent case against Swiss pharma giant Novartis over the delivery system for its eye drug Eylea.

The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled that Novartis’ pre-filled syringe for injecting its eye medication Lucentis was “unpatentable” and handed the victory to Regeneron and its AMD drug Eylea.

In the initial complaint in 2020, Novartis alleged to the US International Trade Commission that certain pre-filled syringes for the intravitreal injection, and ultimately Regeneron’s delivery system for Eylea, were infringing on Novartis’ patent. Regeneron filed a petition to review Novartis’ claims in 2021.

'Tis the sea­son: GSK ad­dress­es win­ter virus surges with celebri­ty and in­flu­encer vac­cine aware­ness cam­paigns

GSK is rounding up the usual suspects this winter — flu, respiratory syncytial and even shingles viruses — for multiple marketing efforts all aimed at encouraging vaccinations.

Mom influencers take center stage in its “Flu is a Family Affair” campaign to reach family decision-makers or “chief health officers.” GSK is asking them in the digital campaign to take care of themselves, and take the family along, when they go to the pharmacy or doctor’s office for a flu vaccine.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 157,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bris­tol My­ers claims win with CAR-T ther­a­py Breyanzi in leukemia

Bristol Myers Squibb is looking to expand Breyanzi into more indications — and the pharma’s newest data readout makes progress on that front.

The Big Pharma put out word Thursday that the CAR-T cell therapy met the primary endpoint of complete response rate compared to historical control in a subset of patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) that were refractory to a BTK inhibitor and pretreated with a BCL-2 inhibitor.

FDA takes next step in Tor­rent Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal­s' trou­bled In­dia plant saga, is­sues OAI

The FDA has handed Torrent Pharmaceuticals an official action indicated (OAI) status for a previously inspected manufacturing facility in India.

Torrent Pharma sent a letter to the National Stock Exchange of India earlier this week with word that the manufacturer has received a “communication from the FDA determining the inspection classification as ‘Official Action Indicated’ (OAI)” for one of its sites. An OAI classification from the FDA comes after the agency has completed an inspection and determines if the facility complies with the applicable laws and regulations. Being given an OAI classification means that regulatory or administrative actions will be recommended to Torrent. However, the details on the recommended actions have not been given.

In­vestor 'misalign­men­t' leads to tR­NA biotech's shut­ter­ing

A small biotech looking to carve a lane in the tRNA field has folded, an investor and a co-founder confirmed to Endpoints News.

Similar to Flagship’s Alltrna and other upstarts like Takeda-backed hC Bioscience, the now-shuttered Theonys was attempting to go after transfer RNA, seen as a potential Swiss Army knife in the broader RNA therapeutics space. The idea is that one tRNA drug could be used across a galaxy of disorders and diseases.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 157,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.