As FDA looks to speed re­views even more, 2 pol­i­cy ex­perts want to re­strict the price of drugs that win an ac­cel­er­at­ed OK

Even af­ter the FDA added reg­u­la­to­ry path­ways for drug de­vel­op­ers to win ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals for new drugs, the po­lit­i­cal pres­sure in Wash­ing­ton to speed up drug re­views con­tin­ues to grow.

In tes­ti­mo­ny be­fore a House sub­com­mit­tee yes­ter­day, FDA com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb as­sured law­mak­ers that bio­mark­ers, new tech­nolo­gies and more ef­fi­cient tri­al de­signs made it pos­si­ble to short­en the reg­u­la­to­ry process as he vowed to urge all the FDA to repli­cate the fast pace of the agency’s on­col­o­gy di­vi­sion, which has re­con­fig­ured can­cer drug de­vel­op­ment pro­grams over the past 3 years.

But should drugs ap­proved ear­ly with on­ly part of the da­ta that was once re­quired for an OK be able to fetch the full re­tail price that man­u­fac­tur­ers ex­pect to­day?

Two health pol­i­cy ex­perts say no.

Aaron Kessel­heim
Walid Gel­lad

In an op-ed for The New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine, Walid Gel­lad from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pitts­burgh and Har­vard’s Aaron Kessel­heim ar­gue that any bio­phar­ma com­pa­ny that wins an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval should be sub­ject to cer­tain price re­stric­tions. And they’ve of­fered a few ex­am­ples of how that could work. You could, for ex­am­ple:

— Re­quire drug mak­ers to of­fer pub­lic pay­ers a set dis­count on drugs that get an ear­ly OK ahead of con­fir­ma­to­ry stud­ies. Med­ic­aid could get a statu­to­ry price re­duc­tion on top of the dis­counts it al­ready qual­i­fies for.

— Hold a por­tion of the rev­enue from these drugs in es­crow, un­til they prove they work as as­sumed based on the pre­lim­i­nary da­ta. Drug mak­ers can win it on a pos­i­tive Phase III, or lose it all as the cash is used to re­im­burse pay­ers.

— To avoid any gam­ing of this sys­tem, hik­ing the whole­sale price to make sure sell­ers make what they want from the dis­count­ed fig­ure, man­u­fac­tur­ers could be forced to switch to a cost-plus sys­tem, with set mar­gins.

The au­thors al­so call for a new sys­tem where de­vel­op­ers are held ac­count­able to see­ing their late-stage tri­als through on sched­ule. A sys­tem of re­wards and penal­ties can be put in place for com­pa­nies as they set out to achieve spe­cif­ic mile­stones in their stud­ies. And no more long run­ways, they say. New tri­als should start with­in months of an ac­cel­er­at­ed OK. And these con­fir­ma­to­ry stud­ies should be ex­pect­ed to wrap in a rea­son­able amount of time, not ex­tend for years in­to the fu­ture.

We be­lieve there should be plans in place to be­gin con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als with­in 3 months af­ter ap­proval, with track­ing of tri­al progress through Clin­i­cal­Tri­als.gov. Though the rar­i­ty of the dis­ease and oth­er fac­tors might rea­son­ably af­fect tri­al ac­cru­al times, there should al­so be mean­ing­ful reper­cus­sions for miss­ing mile­stones such as hav­ing a pro­to­col in place or hit­ting re­cruit­ment tar­gets, cul­mi­nat­ing in with­draw­al of the drug if the tri­al is un­nec­es­sar­i­ly de­layed for an ex­tend­ed pe­ri­od. The FDA can, un­der cur­rent law, as­sess fi­nan­cial penal­ties or with­draw an ac­cel­er­at­ed-ap­proval drug from the mar­ket if the man­u­fac­tur­er fails to con­duct its con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al or fails to do so with “due dili­gence,” a bench­mark that the FDA can fur­ther clar­i­fy with stake­hold­er in­put.

Even more con­tro­ver­sial­ly, they sug­gest that an eco­nom­ic im­pact study should be used to eval­u­ate these drugs af­ter one or two years on the mar­ket, to see if the val­ue of a drug giv­en an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval is lost to the fi­nan­cial tur­moil it can cause.

As far as the in­dus­try is con­cerned, there isn’t any­thing here that would slip un­der the radar. It would all be fought tooth and nail. Ag­gres­sive gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tions re­strict­ing prices and gov­ern­ing tri­als is anath­e­ma to bio­phar­ma, which much prefers vol­un­tary re­straint in the US. But as the de­bate over drug prices con­tin­ues to boil in Wash­ing­ton DC, it’s an­oth­er set of “so­lu­tions” like­ly to trig­ger fresh de­bate at a time ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals may just be get­ting start­ed.

Tar­get­ing a Po­ten­tial Vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of Cer­tain Can­cers with DNA Dam­age Re­sponse

Every individual’s DNA is unique, and because of this, every patient responds differently to disease and treatment. It is astonishing how four tiny building blocks of our DNA – A, T, C, G – dictate our health, disease, and how we age.

The tricky thing about DNA is that it is constantly exposed to damage by sources such as ultraviolet light, certain chemicals, toxins, and even natural biochemical processes inside our cells.¹ If ignored, DNA damage will accumulate in replicating cells, giving rise to mutations that can lead to premature aging, cancer, and other diseases.

Fol­low biotechs go­ing pub­lic with the End­points News IPO Track­er

The Endpoints News team is continuing to track IPO filings for 2021, and we’ve designed a new tracker page for the effort.

Check it out here: Biopharma IPOs 2021 from Endpoints News

You’ll be able to find all the biotechs that have filed and priced so far this year, sortable by quarter and listed by newest first. As of the time of publishing on Feb. 25, there have already been 16 biotechs debuting on Nasdaq so far this year, with an additional four having filed their S-1 paperwork.

S&P ex­pects steady ero­sion in Big Phar­ma's cred­it pro­file in 2021 as new M&A deals roll in — but don't un­der­es­ti­mate their un­der­ly­ing strength

S&P Global has taken a look at the dominant forces shaping the pharma market and come to the conclusion that there will be more downgrades than upgrades in 2021 — the 8th straight year of steady decline.

But it’s not all bad news. Some things are looking up, and there’s still plenty of money to be made in an industry that enjoys a 30% to 40% profit margin, once you factor in steep R&D expenses.

Ken Frazier, Merck CEO (Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Mer­ck takes a swing at the IL-2 puz­zle­box with a $1.85B play for buzzy Pan­dion and its au­toim­mune hope­fuls

When Roger Perlmutter bid farewell to Merck late last year, the drugmaker perhaps best known now for sales giant Keytruda signaled its intent to take a swing at early-stage novelty with the appointment of discovery head Dean Li. Now, Merck is signing a decent-sized check to bring an IL-2 moonshot into the fold.

Merck will shell out roughly $1.85 billion for Pandion Pharmaceuticals, a biotech hoping to gin up regulatory T cells (Tregs) to treat a range of autoimmune disorders, the drugmaker said Thursday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Steve Cutler, Icon CEO (Icon)

In the biggest CRO takeover in years, Icon doles out $12B for PRA Health Sci­ences to fo­cus on de­cen­tral­ized clin­i­cal work

Contract research M&A had a healthy run in recent years before recently petering out. But with the market ripe for a big buyout and the Covid-19 pandemic emphasizing the importance of decentralized trials, Wednesday saw a tectonic shift in the CRO world.

Icon, the Dublin-based CRO, will acquire PRA Health Sciences for $12 billion in a move that will shake up the highest rungs of a fragmented market. The merger would combine the 5th- and 6th-largest CROs by 2020 revenue, according to Icon, and the merger will set the newco up to be the second-largest global CRO behind only IQVIA.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tom Barnes (Orna)

The mR­NA era is here. MPM be­lieves the fu­ture be­longs to oR­NA — and Big Phar­ma wants a seat at the ta­ble

If the ultra-fast clinical development of Covid-19 vaccines opened the world’s eyes to the promises of messenger RNA, the subsequent delays in supply offered a crash course on the ultra-complex process of producing them. Even before the formulation and fill-finish steps, mRNA is the precious end product from an arduous journey involving enzyme-aided transcription, modification and purification.

For Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Gilead’s Kite and Astellas, it’s time to rethink the way therapeutic RNA is engineered.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks, Moderna CMO (AP Photo/Rodrique Ngowi, via still image from video)

CMO Tal Zaks bids Mod­er­na a sur­prise adieu as biotech projects $18.4B in rev­enue, plots post-Covid ex­pan­sion

How do you exit a company after six years in style? Developing one of the most lucrative and life-saving products in pharma history is probably not the worst way to go.

Tal Zaks, Moderna’s CMO since 2015, will leave the mRNA biotech in September, the biotech disclosed in their annual report this morning. The company has already retained the recruitment firm Russell Reynolds to find a replacement.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Glax­o­SmithK­line re­thinks strat­e­gy for Covid-19 an­ti­body — not the Vir ones — af­ter tri­al flop. Is there hope in high-risk pa­tients?

In the search for a better Covid-19 therapeutic, GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have partnered up on two antibodies they hope have a chance. GSK is also testing its own in-house antibody, and early results may have shut the door on its widespread use.

A combination of GSK’s monoclonal antibody otilimab plus standard of care couldn’t best standard of care alone in preventing death and respiratory failure in hospitalized Covid-19 patients after 28 days, according to data from the Phase IIa OSCAR study unveiled Thursday.

Photo: Shutterstock

Bio­phar­ma's suc­cess rate in bring­ing drugs to mar­ket has long been abysmal. Can new tools help rewrite that trou­bled past?

In 2011, a team of researchers at British drugmaker AstraZeneca had a problem they were looking to solve.

For years, drug discovery and development were a wasteland for innovation. Novel drugs largely fell into one of two categories — monoclonal antibodies and small molecules — and new therapeutic modalities were hard to come by. After a rush of promising approvals in the late 1990s — including then-Biogen’s CD20 targeting antibody breakthrough Rituxan — the field stagnated and attrition rates stayed sky-high. What exactly is the industry doing wrong? AstraZeneca asked itself.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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