#ASH17: How does No­var­tis’ Kym­ri­ah DL­B­CL da­ta stack up head­ing straight to a CAR-T show­down with Gilead?

No­var­tis turned up at ASH with 6-month da­ta for their pi­o­neer­ing CAR-T Kym­ri­ah that puts them on the in­side track to a quick and near-cer­tain ap­proval for a sec­ond in­di­ca­tion to treat DL­B­CL — and straight in­to a com­mer­cial show­down with Gilead/Kite.

Al­ready snagged as the first in­di­ca­tion to be OK’d for Gilead/Kite’s Yescar­ta, No­var­tis’ in­ves­ti­ga­tors nailed down re­mark­ably sim­i­lar ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta at the 6-month mark that close­ly mir­rors their ri­val. But even with the match­ing out­comes on ef­fi­ca­cy, No­var­tis’ team still feels that they have a clear mar­ket­ing edge on the safe­ty front.

Don’t ex­pect an ag­gres­sive Gilead, though, to shy from the mar­ket­ing con­fronta­tion that’s about to loom. Their CAR-T was the first to get out from on DL­B­CL, and the Kite team up­dat­ed their da­ta to­day to re­flect some out­stand­ing ev­i­dence of dura­bil­i­ty, which will en­cour­age every­one de­vel­op­ing CAR-T ther­a­pies. (More on that, be­low.)

The No­var­tis re­searchers tracked a slide in re­sults for the 3-month mark, but start­ed at some­what high­er lev­els than Gilead/Kite that left them side-by-side.

Here’s their com­par­i­son, with the stan­dard caveat that sci­en­tists hate it when an­a­lysts line p da­ta from dif­fer­ent stud­ies.

At six months from in­fu­sion, the ORR for Kym­ri­ah was 37% with a com­plete re­sponse rate of 30%. The me­di­an du­ra­tion of re­sponse was not reached. At three months the in­ter­im over­all re­sponse rate dis­cussed at AS­CO hit 45% among 23 of 51 pa­tients eval­u­at­ed with an im­pres­sive 37% achiev­ing a com­plete re­sponse and 8% achiev­ing a par­tial re­sponse.

For Gilead/Kite: At 6 months, the ORR in dif­fuse large B-cell lym­phoma (DL­B­CL) hit 36%, down three points from month three. The CR rate was 31%, down two points.

“Most of the drop-off are the par­tial re­spon­ders, in CRs there’s a very small drop off,” says David Leb­wohl, an SVP and No­var­tis’ fran­chise glob­al pro­gram chief.

Leb­wohl al­so high­light­ed a 73.5% re­lapse-free rate. The me­di­an PFS rate was not yet es­tab­lished.

Where Lebe­wohl and his col­leagues be­lieve they can draw a more dis­tinct dif­fer­ence with the com­pe­ti­tion is on the safe­ty pro­file. To be sure, Kym­ri­ah wasn’t free of ad­verse events. Close to one in four ex­pe­ri­enced grade 3 or 4 cy­tokine re­lease syn­drome. And 12% had a grade 3 or 4 episode in­volv­ing neu­ro­tox­i­c­i­ty. How­ev­er, no one died and they man­aged the AEs.

No­var­tis is al­so get­ting its hands on the man­u­fac­tur­ing is­sues that pre­vent­ed 11 pa­tients from be­ing treat­ed, with a 97% suc­cess rate for the last 30 pa­tients. That’s cru­cial if No­var­tis ex­pects to suc­cess­ful­ly go up against the Kite time.

Pas­cal Tou­chon

I asked Leb­wohl and Pas­cal Tou­chon, SVP, glob­al head cell and gene, about their vein-to-vein times, the turn­around that marks the amount of time that a man­u­fac­tur­er takes from the time cells are ex­tract­ed from pa­tients to the time it takes to in­fuse them back in.

The biotech, bought out by Gilead for $12 bil­lion, had drilled that down to 17 days, with plans to shave a few more days off.

No­var­tis, though, doesn’t like the “vein-to-vein” stan­dard. With cry­op­reser­va­tion af­ter aphere­sis the big phar­ma prefers to track the time from re­ceipt of cells to their re­turn, giv­ing physi­cians flex­i­bil­i­ty on tim­ing re-in­fu­sion. How that plays with pa­tients anx­ious to be treat­ed, though, has yet to be seen.

Now let’s switch back to Gilead and Yescar­ta.

To eval­u­ate the dura­bil­i­ty of Yescar­ta re­spons­es, their re­search team com­plet­ed an up­dat­ed analy­sis on more than 100 pa­tients in ZU­MA-1 who had been fol­lowed for a min­i­mum of one year. The bot­tom line:

In this up­dat­ed analy­sis, 82 per­cent of pa­tients had re­spond­ed to Yescar­ta, in­clud­ing 58 per­cent of pa­tients who had achieved com­plete re­mis­sion. At a me­di­an of 15.4 months post-in­fu­sion, 42 per­cent of pa­tients re­mained in re­sponse, in­clud­ing 40 per­cent in com­plete re­mis­sion. The me­di­an du­ra­tion of re­sponse was 11.1 months (95 per­cent CI: 3.9 months to not es­timable [NE]); in pa­tients who have achieved a com­plete re­mis­sion, the me­di­an du­ra­tion of re­sponse was not reached (95 per­cent CI: NE). Me­di­an over­all sur­vival had not been reached (95 per­cent CI: 12 months to NE) with an over­all sur­vival rate at 18 months of 52 per­cent (95 per­cent CI: 41 to 62).

That qual­i­fies as an­oth­er ma­jor step for­ward.

Look for an­oth­er vir­tu­al snap de­ci­sion from the FDA for No­var­tis. The agency is hur­ry­ing along fol­lowup in­di­ca­tion de­ci­sions, par­tic­u­lar­ly on their spot­light break­through pro­grams. And Leb­wohl says No­var­tis is ready to roll, once the green light hits.

 

Brent Saunders [Getty Photos]

UP­DAT­ED: Ab­b­Vie seals $63B deal to buy a trou­bled Al­ler­gan — spelling out $1B in R&D cuts

Brent Saunders has found his way out of the current fix he’s in at Allergan $AGN. He’s selling the company to AbbVie for $63 billion in the latest example of the hot M&A market in biopharma.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Turned back at the FDA, Im­muno­Gen is ax­ing 220 staffers, sell­ing pro­grams and hun­ker­ing down for a new PhI­II gam­ble

After being stymied by FDA regulators who were unconvinced by ImmunoGen’s $IMGN desperation shot at an accelerated OK based on a secondary endpoint, the struggling biotech is slashing its workforce, shuttering R&D projects and looking for buyers to pick up some of its experimental cancer assets as it goes back into a new Phase III with the lead drug.

We found out last month that the FDA had batted back their case for an accelerated approval of their antibody-drug conjugate mirvetuximab soravtansine, which had earlier failed a Phase III study for ovarian cancer. Now the other shoe is dropping.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As­traZeneca chal­lenges Roche on front­line SCLC af­ter seiz­ing an in­ter­im win — and Mer­ck may not be far be­hind

The crowded playing field in the PD-1/L1 marketing game is about to get a little more complex.

This morning AstraZeneca reported that its CASPIAN study delivered a hit in an interim readout for their PD-L1 Imfinzi combined with etoposide and platinum-based chemotherapy options for frontline cases of small cell lung cancer, a tough target which has already knocked back Bristol-Myers’ shot in second-line cases. The positive data  — which we won’t see before they roll it out at an upcoming scientific conference — give AstraZeneca excellent odds of a quick vault to challenging Roche’s Tecentriq-chemo combo, approved 3 months ago for frontline SCLC in a landmark advance.

“This is the first trial offering the flexibility of combining immunotherapy with different platinum-based regimens in small cell lung cancer, expanding treatment options,” noted AstraZeneca cancer R&D chief José Baselga in a statement.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bridge­Bio takes crown for biggest biotech IPO of 2019, as fel­low uni­corn Adap­tive rais­es of­fer­ing size and price

Bridge­Bio Phar­ma and Adap­tive Biotech­nolo­gies have not just up­sized IPO of­fer­ings — the pair of uni­corns have al­so raised their of­fer­ing prices above the range, haul­ing in a com­bined $648.5 mil­lion.

Neil Ku­mar’s Bridge­Bio Phar­ma, found­ed in 2015, has a sta­ble of com­pa­nies fo­cused on dis­eases that are dri­ven by de­fects in a sin­gle gene — en­com­pass­ing der­ma­tol­ogy, car­di­ol­o­gy, neu­rol­o­gy, en­docrinol­o­gy, re­nal dis­ease, and oph­thal­mol­o­gy — and can­cers with clear ge­net­ic dri­vers. The start­up mill birthed a pletho­ra of firms such as Ei­dos, Navire, QED Ther­a­peu­tics and Pelle­Pharm, which func­tion as its sub­sidiaries.

Two biotech uni­corns swell pro­posed IPOs, eye­ing a $600M-plus wind­fall

We’ve been wait­ing for the ar­rival of Bridge­Bio’s IPO to top off the wave of new biotech of­fer­ings sweep­ing through Nas­daq at the end of H1. And now we learn that it’s been sub­stan­tial­ly up­sized.

Ini­tial­ly pen­ciled in at a uni­corn-sized $225 mil­lion, the KKR-backed biotech has spiked that to the neigh­bor­hood of $300 mil­lion, look­ing to sell 20 mil­lion shares at $14 to $16 each. That’s an added 5 mil­lion shares, re­ports Re­nais­sance Cap­i­tal, which fig­ures the pro­posed mar­ket val­u­a­tion for Neil Ku­mar’s com­pa­ny at $1.8 bil­lion.

No­var­tis holds back the copy­cat brigade's at­tack on its top drug fran­chise — for now

A fed­er­al judge has put a gener­ic chal­lenge to No­var­tis’ block­buster mul­ti­ple scle­ro­sis drug Gilenya on hold while a patent fight plays out in court.

Judge Leonard P. Stark is­sued a tem­po­rary in­junc­tion ear­li­er this week, forc­ing My­lan, Dr. Red­dy’s Lab­o­ra­to­ries and Au­robindo Phar­ma to shelve their launch plans to al­low the patent fight to pro­ceed. He ruled that al­low­ing the gener­ics in­to the mar­ket now would per­ma­nent­ly slash the price for No­var­tis, even if it pre­vails. 

Novotech CEO Dr. John Moller

Novotech CRO Award­ed Frost & Sul­li­van Best Biotech CRO Asia-Pa­cif­ic 2019

Known in the in­dus­try as the Asia-Pa­cif­ic CRO, Novotech is now lead CRO ser­vices provider for the grow­ing num­ber of in­ter­na­tion­al biotechs se­lect­ing the re­gion for their stud­ies.

Re­flect­ing this Asia-Pa­cif­ic growth, Novotech staff num­bers are up 20% since De­cem­ber 2018 to 600 in-house clin­i­cal re­search peo­ple across a full range of ser­vices, across the re­gion.

Novotech’s ca­pa­bil­i­ties have been rec­og­nized by an­a­lysts like Frost & Sul­li­van, most re­cent­ly with the pres­ti­gious Asia-Pa­cif­ic CRO Biotech of the year award for best prac­tices in clin­i­cal re­search for biotechs for the fifth year. See oth­er awards here.

Af­ter rais­ing $158M, this up­start's founders have star back­ers and plans to break new ground in gene ther­a­py

Back in 2014, Stephanie Tagliatela opted to take an early exit out of her PhD program after working in Mark Bear’s lab at MIT, where she specialized in the synaptic connections between neuronal cells in the brain. She never finished that PhD, but she and fellow MIT student Kartik Ramamoorthi — who was on the founding team at Voyager — came away with some ideas for a gene therapy startup.

Today, fully 5 years later, she and Ramamoorthi are taking the wraps off of a $104 million mega-round designed to take the cumulative work of their preclinical formative stage for Encoded Therapeutics into human studies. They’ve now raised $158 million since starting out in Illumina’s incubator in the Bay Area, and they believe they are firmly on track to do something unique in gene therapy.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA re­jects Ac­er's rare dis­ease drug, asks for new tri­al — shares crater

Ac­er Ther­a­peu­tics’ bid to re­pur­pose celipro­lol — a be­ta-block­er on the mar­ket for hy­per­ten­sion — as a treat­ment for a rare, in­her­it­ed con­nec­tive tis­sue dis­or­der has hit a se­vere set­back. The New­ton, Mass­a­chu­setts-based com­pa­ny on Tues­day said the FDA re­ject­ed the drug and has asked for an­oth­er clin­i­cal tri­al.

The com­pa­ny’s shares $AC­ER cratered near­ly 77% to $4.47 in Tues­day morn­ing trad­ing.