As­traZeneca says it is prun­ing staff at Med­Im­mune, its bi­o­log­ics R&D cen­ter

 

As­traZeneca’s big U.S. sub­sidiary Med­Im­mune, with 2200 em­ploy­ees, is prun­ing its work­force as it adds a greater em­pha­sis on its on­col­o­gy R&D work–but it’s not spec­i­fy­ing just many staffers are in­volved.

Here’s the state­ment:

In April, As­traZeneca an­nounced the sharp­en­ing of our fo­cus on our main ther­a­py ar­eas to pri­or­i­tize our pipeline and im­prove ef­fi­cien­cy and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty across the or­ga­ni­za­tion.  This will see the com­pa­ny al­lo­cate ad­di­tion­al in­vest­ment to core ar­eas, par­tic­u­lar­ly on­col­o­gy. This is a nat­ur­al pro­gres­sion of our strat­e­gy and re­flects in­creased pipeline pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, as well as the evolv­ing shape of the over­all com­pa­ny port­fo­lio with a grow­ing pro­por­tion of spe­cial­ty-care med­i­cines.

Our pipeline has be­come ar­guably one of the best in the in­dus­try—Med­Im­mune’s Phase II pipeline suc­cess rate is al­most dou­ble the in­dus­try av­er­age. Bi­o­log­ics rep­re­sent 50 per­cent of the over­all As­traZeneca pipeline and in­cludes 17 Phase III bi­o­log­ics tri­als cur­rent­ly un­der­way and 19 Phase II tri­als.

Giv­en this back­drop, we’re sharp­en­ing the fo­cus on the main ther­a­py ar­eas, pri­or­i­tiz­ing the pipeline, and dri­ving greater pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and ef­fi­cien­cy across the or­ga­ni­za­tion. As a nor­mal course of busi­ness, we have shift­ed some re­sources and have had min­i­mal staffing re­duc­tions, while hir­ing for crit­i­cal roles in key ar­eas such as on­col­o­gy.

Derek Lowe at In the Pipeline – a reg­u­lar source of in­for­ma­tion about pend­ing lay­offs — re­port­ed ear­li­er to­day about hear­ing chat­ter about the cuts.

These on­go­ing R&D cuts have be­come a stan­dard fea­ture in Big Phar­ma R&D cir­cles, as Mer­ck demon­strat­ed just a few days ago. Even af­ter top-to-bot­tom over­hauls, which As­traZeneca ini­ti­at­ed sev­er­al years ago dur­ing a seem­ing­ly un­end­ing re­or­ga­ni­za­tion ef­fort, the big out­fits of­ten go back to tai­lor staff and fa­cil­i­ties to fit a new fo­cus or con­cen­trate re­searchers in the biggest hubs. Or they have to cut back in the wake of poor pro­duc­tiv­i­ty or de­clin­ing rev­enue, which drove big changes at GSK and Bio­gen re­cent­ly.

The lat­est move comes as As­traZeneca fights a last-ditch bat­tle against gener­ic com­pe­ti­tion in the U.S. mar­ket to Crestor, which pro­vid­ed $5 bil­lion of its $23 bil­lion in 2015 rev­enue.

As­traZeneca bought Med­Im­mune 9 years ago for $15.6 bil­lion. Ini­tial­ly, the ac­qui­si­tion proved to be a dis­ap­point­ment, spurring con­sid­er­able com­plaints that the phar­ma gi­ant had paid too much. But in re­cent years, since Pas­cal So­ri­ot took over as CEO of As­traZeneca, the group has made some big strides in on­col­o­gy R&D un­der Bahi­ja Jal­lal, who runs Med­Im­mune.

So­ri­ot des­ig­nat­ed Med­Im­mune as the com­pa­ny’s cen­ter for bi­o­log­ics re­search in the re­or­ga­ni­za­tion that fol­lowed his ar­rival at the helm.

As­traZeneca scored a big ap­proval for Tagris­so (AZD-9291) re­cent­ly and is hope­ful that its check­point in­hibitor can carve out a sig­nif­i­cant piece of a fast-grow­ing mar­ket. But it’s al­so ex­pe­ri­enced set­backs along the way, like its de­ci­sion to of­fload bro­dalum­ab at a dis­count price and the re­cent re­jec­tion of ZS-9, a drug it bought for $2.7 bil­lion af­ter Phase III.

 

FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn at the White House (AP Images)

Un­der fire, FDA to is­sue stricter guid­ance for Covid-19 vac­cine EUA this week — re­port

The FDA has been insisting for months that a Covid-19 vaccine had to be at least 50% effective – a measure of transparency meant to shore public trust in the agency and in a vaccine that had been brought forward at record speed and record political pressure. But now, with concerns of a Trump-driven authorization arriving before the election, the agency may be raising the bar.

The FDA is set to release new guidance that would raise safety and efficacy requirements for a vaccine EUA above earlier guidance and above the criteria used for convalescent plasma or hydroxychloroquine, The Washington Post reported. Experts say this significantly lowers the odds of an approval before the election on November 3, which Trump has promised despite vocal concerns from public health officials.

Secretary of health and human services Alex Azar speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House (Photo: AFP)

Trump’s HHS claims ab­solute au­thor­i­ty over the FDA, clear­ing path to a vac­cine EUA

The top career staff at the FDA has vowed not to let politics overrule science when looking at vaccine data this fall. But Alex Azar, who happens to be their boss’s boss, apparently won’t even give them a chance to stand in the way.

In a new memorandum issued Tuesday last week, the HHS chief stripped the FDA and other health agencies under his purview of their rule making ability, asserting all such power “is reserved to the Secretary.” Sheila Kaplan of the New York Times first obtained and reported the details of the September 15 bulletin.

Samit Hirawat (Bristol Myers Squibb)

Af­ter bruis­ing re­jec­tion, blue­bird and Bris­tol My­ers Squibb land ide-cel pri­or­i­ty re­view. But will it mat­ter for the CVR?

With the clock all but up, the FDA accepted and handed priority review to Bristol Myers Squibb and bluebird bio’s BCMA CAR-T, keeping a narrow window open for Celgene investors to still cash in on the $9 CVR from the $63 billion Celgene merger.

The acceptance comes five months after the two companies weres slammed with a surprise refuse-to-file that threatened to foreclose the CVR entirely. Today’s acceptance sets the FDA decision date for March 27, 2021 – or precisely 4 days before the CVR deadline of March 31. Given the breakthrough designation and strong pivotal data — 81.5% response rate, 35.2% complete response rate — priority review was largely expected.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Blueprint CEO Jeff Albers (file photo)

Blue­print plots re­turn to FDA with new Ay­vak­it da­ta in rare con­di­tion — and the an­a­lysts cheer

Over a decade after launch, Blueprint Medicines nabbed the first approval for their first drug earlier this year. Now, as they move forward with a Roche-partnered global launch, they’re touting data that could push them into more patients.

The Jeff Albers-led Cambridge biotech released their full pivotal data for Ayvakit in patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis. In one 53-person study, they showed that 76% of patients responded to the drug, 36% had complete responses and that on average their responses lasted for just over 3 years. A smaller, 32-patient study had a 75% response rate and most were still responding after 10.4 months, the last follow-up.

Anthony Coyle (Repertoire)

Flag­ship's merged biotech Reper­toire nets ex-Pfiz­er CSO An­tho­ny Coyle as R&D chief

Flagship is building a big-name C-suite at its new, $220 million merged biotech.

Repertoire Immune Medicines, which already boasts former Bioverativ chief John Cox as its CEO, announced yesterday that Anthony Coyle, the former Pfizer CSO and the founding CEO of Pandion, will join as their head of R&D.

“As we progress clinical trials for our multi-clonal T cell candidates in immuno-oncology, Tony’s deep expertise in cellular immunology and novel therapeutic development will help us achieve our vision of creating a new class of transformative medicines for patients,” Cox said in a statement.

#ES­MO20: Push­ing in­to front­line, Mer­ck and Bris­tol My­ers duke it out with new slate of GI can­cer da­ta

Having worked in parallel for years to move their respective PD-1 inhibitors up to the first-line treatment of gastrointestinal cancers, Merck and Bristol Myers Squibb finally have the data at ESMO for a showdown.

Comparing KEYNOTE-590 and CheckMate-649, of course, comes with the usual caveats. But a side-by-side look at the overall survival numbers also offer some perspective on a new frontier for the reigning checkpoint rivals, both of whom are claiming to have achieved a first.

Can a mag­net­ic cell ther­a­py re­place corneal trans­plan­ta­tion? As eight-year jour­ney leads to the clin­ic, two broth­ers un­veil bold vi­sion

Jeff Goldberg was getting acquainted with a brand new way to do corneal transplants when an even newer, even bolder idea hit him.

It was almost 10 years ago, and Goldberg was in his first faculty position at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami. Scientists had developed a new way to do cornea transplants where instead of sewing a whole donor cornea — a decades-old practice — they were just engrafting the inner layer of cells.

News brief­ing: Tiny Vac­cinex's drug flops in PhII Hunt­ing­ton's tri­al, stock craters; Siol­ta nabs $30M Se­ries B to de­vel­op mi­cro­bio­me drug

Siolta Therapeutics, a microbiome company targeting allergic diseases, raked in a $30 million Series B to develop its lead candidate, STMC-103H. The drug, which has been FDA fast-tracked, is headed for proof-of-concept trials, according to the company. Its various indications include allergic asthma, food allergies, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and allergy prevention.

The news comes just after the California-based biotech added a prominent biopharma veteran as an advisor: 20-year Gilead CEO John Martin. The biotech also gained Richard Shames as CMO, who came by way of Protagonist Therapeutics.

Embattled CDC director Robert Redfield (AP Images)

Covid-19 roundup: CDC ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee de­lays pri­or­i­ty dis­tri­b­u­tion vote; EU re­port­ed­ly in­dem­ni­fy­ing vac­cine mak­ers

A federal committee that advises the CDC was expected to hold a vote Tuesday on a plan regarding the distribution for initial doses of approved Covid-19 vaccines. But that vote has been scrapped.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, won’t be voting until the committee members learn more about which vaccines become available first, the Wall Street Journal reported. The vote could potentially wait until a specific vaccine is authorized before recommending how to dole out the first doses.