Bio­phar­ma ex­ecs give Scott Got­tlieb’s nom­i­na­tion for FDA com­mish (al­most) a stand­ing O in End­points poll

A big ma­jor­i­ty of bio­phar­ma ex­ec­u­tives over­all are clear­ly en­thu­si­as­tic about Pres­i­dent Trump’s de­ci­sion to nom­i­nate Scott Got­tlieb as the next FDA com­mis­sion­er.

In our snap poll over the week­end Got­tlieb picked up 87% sup­port among the 580 qual­i­fied sub­scribers who vot­ed on the de­ci­sion, with 504 ap­prov­ing the choice against 76 who large­ly hat­ed it.

Keep in mind, so far the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion has earned a sol­id neg­a­tive rat­ing in the drug de­vel­op­ment busi­ness as ex­ecs in over­whelm­ing­ly De­mo­c­ra­t­ic re­gions reg­is­tered their dis­dain for his trav­el ban, re­ject­ed the no­tion of gut­ting reg­u­la­tions and ex­pressed fears that a new ap­proach on H-1B visas could make it much hard­er to re­cruit top tal­ent from be­yond US bor­ders. Got­tlieb, though, looks like a breath of fresh air in an in­dus­try that’s been feel­ing bad­ly choked in Wash­ing­ton, DC for the past two months.

“Ab­solute­ly!” cheered Al­ny­lam CEO John Maraganore when he was asked whether he ap­proved of the nom­i­na­tion. “First good thing Trump has done.”

The full spec­trum of pro-Got­tlieb sen­ti­ment ran the gamut from what could be de­scribed as the best of a bad lot to a big thumb’s up for a physi­cian who has ex­pe­ri­ence at the FDA and a deep un­der­stand­ing of the de­vel­op­ment and re­view process, which he will now push in­to high gear.

You could prac­ti­cal­ly hear the sigh of re­lief that fol­lowed deep-seat­ed fears that Trump might choose a Lib­er­tar­i­an like Jim O’Neill, who has sound­ed ready to drop the bar on new ap­provals about as low as it can get.

“I think it is a re­lief that Got­tlieb is ex­pe­ri­enced in reg­u­la­to­ry mat­ters and at the FDA, un­der­stands that a strong FDA is the best way to get med­i­cines to pa­tients and al­so sup­ports us­ing the best new sci­ence to im­prove the FDA’s ap­proval process,” said Basil Dahiy­at, the CEO of an­ti­body en­gi­neer­ing com­pa­ny Xen­cor. “Ra­tio­nal and rig­or­ous physi­cians and doc­tors who want to try new ideas are what in­dus­try needs at the FDA. Ap­point­ing some­body who wants to make the FDA bet­ter, rather than im­pose to­tal­ly un­found­ed ide­ol­o­gy to gut good reg­u­la­tion like some of the oth­er can­di­dates float­ed, is promis­ing.  Strange days in­deed that the al­ter­na­tive was even re­al­ly con­sid­ered.”

“Un­der­stands agency and in­dus­try needs,” not­ed one re­sponse. “The one ra­tio­nal choice amongst the can­di­dates men­tioned.”

A few oth­er com­ments from the pro-Got­tlieb side:

“He seems like a rea­son­able can­di­date, will­ing to lis­ten, and I see his ties to in­dus­try as a ben­e­fit, in terms of his un­der­stand­ing of the busi­ness.”

“He’s ex­pe­ri­enced and will bring a thought­ful ap­proach to the com­plex chal­lenges of run­ning FDA. This is not a job for a light­weight.”

Steve Holtz­man, the CEO of Deci­bel Ther­a­peu­tics, put it this way:

“While I am in many, many ways ide­o­log­i­cal­ly at the oth­er end of the spec­trum from Scott, I sup­port his ap­point­ment. He be­lieves in sci­ence-based reg­u­la­tion–ad­dress­ing BOTH ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty–and em­braces sci­en­tif­ic ad­vances that can, with good jus­ti­fi­ca­tion and with­out im­per­il­ing pa­tients, make clin­i­cal tri­als more ef­fi­cient. I al­so think that con­cerns about con­flict of in­ter­est, be­cause of his work with the bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try, are ill-found­ed. The blan­ket ap­pli­ca­tion of this type of log­ic leads to calls to ex­clude from FDA Ad­vi­so­ry Pan­els those most qual­i­fied be­cause those same in­di­vid­u­als, for the very same rea­son of their ex­per­tise, are sought by in­dus­try as ad­vi­sors. –While no doubt true that many will sell their souls and rep­u­ta­tions for a buck, it is al­so the case that such an ac­cu­sa­tion, made against a spe­cif­ic in­di­vid­ual with­out any ev­i­dence, can tell us more about the ac­cuser than the ac­cused.”

An­oth­er sim­ply said: “Pro-in­dus­try” in giv­ing a thumb’s up.

But you could find the ex­act same re­mark re­peat­ed among the 13% of our sub­scribers who end­ed up shak­ing their heads over the nom­i­na­tion.

“Too wed to in­dus­try,” not­ed one neg­a­tive re­sponse to Got­tlieb.

That in­dus­try ex­pe­ri­ence that Got­tlieb has that so many found re­as­sur­ing looked like a se­ri­ous con­flict of in­ter­est to the ‘no’ vot­ers. And be­sides, in some eyes Trump – who clear­ly alarmed the in­dus­try with vows to dereg­u­late drug de­vel­op­ment — can’t do any­thing right.

“Too close with the in­dus­try & wants to re­duce or elim­i­nate the reg­u­la­tions that have worked to keep the US safe.”

“His ar­dor for dereg­u­la­tion could be harm­ful to con­sumers and ul­ti­mate­ly the in­dus­try. Pro­pos­al to cen­tral­ize re­view de­ci­sions could re­sult in fur­ther politi­ciz­ing ap­proval de­ci­sions.”

“Un­qual­i­fied,” said an­oth­er.

”Will in­sti­tute dan­ger­ous pol­i­cy and be be­hold­en to Trump.”

Got­tlieb hasn’t been shy about mak­ing con­crete sug­ges­tions for a new and im­proved FDA. As I’ve writ­ten, he’s backed a more fo­cused ap­proach on rare dis­ease drugs, pub­lish­ing com­plete re­sponse let­ters of re­jec­tion and quick­ly mov­ing com­plex gener­ics to the mar­ket, among oth­er things.

Now he has to start de­liv­er­ing on those promis­es — or run the risk of se­vere­ly dis­ap­point­ing an in­dus­try whose clear sup­port may have well been the de­cid­ing fac­tor be­hind his nom­i­na­tion.

 

Here’s just a few more com­ments from sub­scribers …

 

Yes

Ac­cel­er­a­tion and sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of the process and re­quire­ments for ap­proval of biosim­i­lars is des­per­ate­ly need­ed. Pub­li­ca­tion of CR let­ters is over­due. In­creased use of sur­ro­gate end­points is a po­ten­tial con­cern de­pend­ing on how low the bar would be set. Sur­ro­gate end­points should be agreed up­on pri­or to ini­ti­a­tion of stud­ies.


While I am in ide­o­log­i­cal­ly at the oth­er end of the spec­trum from Scott, I sup­port his ap­point­ment. He be­lieves in sci­ence-based reg­u­la­tion–ad­dress­ing BOTH ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty–and em­braces sci­en­tif­ic ad­vances that can, with good jus­ti­fi­ca­tion and with­out im­per­il­ing pa­tients, make clin­i­cal tri­als more ef­fi­cient. I al­so think that con­cerns about con­flict of in­ter­est, be­cause of his work with the bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try, are ill-found­ed. The blan­ket ap­pli­ca­tion of this type of log­ic leads to calls to ex­clude from FDA Ad­vi­so­ry Pan­els those most qual­i­fied be­cause those same in­di­vid­u­als, for the very same rea­son of their ex­per­tise, are sought by in­dus­try as ad­vi­sors. While no doubt true that many will sell their souls and rep­u­ta­tions for a buck, it is al­so the case that such an ac­cu­sa­tion, made against a spe­cif­ic in­di­vid­ual with­out any ev­i­dence, can tell us more about the ac­cuser than the ac­cused.


Ex­cel­lent bal­ance of med­ical ex­per­tise, pri­or ex­pe­ri­ence and po­lit­i­cal deft­ness. Scott will force great change in cul­ture, or­ga­ni­za­tion, phi­los­o­phy and lead­er­ship at FDA. He will bring an es­pe­cial­ly pa­tient-cen­tric fo­cus to the FDA. We are par­tic­u­lar­ly ex­cit­ed about his be­lief in the need for a sep­a­rate re­view di­vi­sion for rare dis­eases at FDA. Great day for sci­ence, med­i­cine and for pa­tients. Not so great a day for FDAers who yearn for rigid, in­flex­i­ble and non-21st Cen­tu­ry drug de­vel­op­ment.


Doesn’t want to dis­man­tle agency he’s lead­ing.


He has the nec­es­sary ex­pe­ri­ence and deep un­der­stand­ing of both the agency and the in­dus­try. The changes he has been ad­vo­cat­ing in his pub­lished writ­ings have broad sup­port and were in­deed the type of bu­reau­crat­ic hur­dles that need­ed to be sim­pli­fied for the greater pub­lic good.


Calm per­sona. Reg­u­la­to­ry and med­ical back­ground. Has shown an un­der­stand­ing of da­ta.


Amer­i­cans don’t re­al­ize it but the pho­bia that the FDA and NIH staff have about in­dus­try in­puts and co­op­er­a­tions hurts the process of mov­ing re­search ad­vances to med­i­cines. For ex­am­ple, drug dis­cov­ery and clin­i­cal tri­als bio­mark­ers re­quires much bet­ter in­dus­try-NIH/FDA co­op­er­a­tions. (Cur­rent­ly, these are han­dled by the FNIH, con­sor­tia, PCORI and the IMI). Leg­is­la­tion that would al­low more pool­ing of NIH/FDA/in­dus­try funds is re­quired. A new Bio­mark­er Con­sor­tium that can move quick­ly would be good for med­i­cine, the pub­lic, and in­dus­try.

No

He be­lieves in de-em­pha­siz­ing safe­ty in fa­vor of med­ical in­no­va­tion. Both are im­por­tant, but with re­cent safe­ty set­backs as in the case of Juno, I fear that the safe­ty bar may be set a lit­tle low.


On a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple, it is al­ways bet­ter to have a watch­dog with as much neu­tral­i­ty and sep­a­ra­tion as pos­si­ble. You don’t want your watch­dog to be your best friend. They’re there to push back and bring the best out of you. Giv­en the choic­es we had, thank good­ness Scott was se­lect­ed, but that shouldn’t dis­tract us from the fact that when our friends be­come our over­sight, we erode the over­sight that does the in­sti­tu­tion jus­tice. The last­ing costs of non-neu­tral in­sid­er checks has been seen time and again through his­to­ry and across for­eign gov­ern­ments where a re­volv­ing door feeds cor­rup­tion and self-serv­ing bu­reau­cra­cies. Scott’s a great guy. He fun­da­men­tal­ly cares about pa­tients. He loves the in­dus­try and the FDA with pas­sion. But he should hum­ble him­self to his bias and re­cuse him­self. On­ly thir­ty years ago, the in­dus­try was clam­or­ing about ba­sic FDA rules and now the in­dus­try re­al­izes its im­por­tance. Thir­ty years from now, hope­ful­ly it’ll be fur­ther clear how im­por­tant it is to make sure what­ev­er checks come, we don’t write them our­selves.


Bet­ter than the al­ter­na­tives but still too dereg­u­la­to­ry.

Deborah Dunsire. Lundbeck

UP­DAT­ED: Deb­o­rah Dun­sire is pay­ing $2B for a chance to leap di­rect­ly in­to a block­buster show­down with a few of the world's biggest phar­ma gi­ants

A year after taking the reins as CEO of Lundbeck, Deborah Dunsire is making a bold bid to beef up the Danish biotech’s portfolio of drugs in what will likely be a direct leap into an intense rivalry with a group of giants now carving up a growing market for new migraine drugs.

Bright and early European time Monday morning the company announced that it will pay up to about $2 billion to buy Alder, a little biotech that is far along the path in developing a quarterly IV formulation of a CGRP drug aimed at cutting back the number of crippling migraines patients experience each month. In a followup call, Dunsire also noted that the company will likely need 200 to 250 reps for this marketing task on both sides of the Atlantic. And analysts were quick to note that the dealmaking at Lundbeck isn’t done, with another $2 billion to $3 billion available for more deals to beef up the pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tower Bridge in London [Shutterstock]

#UK­BIO19: Join GSK’s Hal Bar­ron and a group of top biotech ex­ecs for our 2nd an­nu­al biotech sum­mit in Lon­don

Over the past 10 years I’ve made a point of getting to know the Golden Triangle and the special role the UK biopharma industry plays there in drug development. The concentration of world class research institutes, some of the most accomplished scientists I’ve ever seen at work and a rising tide of global investment cash leaves an impression that there’s much, much more to come as biotech hubs are birthed and nurtured.

Ac­celeron drops a de­vel­op­ment pro­gram as #2 drug fails to spark func­tion­al ben­e­fits in pa­tients with a rare neu­ro­mus­cu­lar ail­ment

Acceleron is scrapping a muscular dystrophy development program underway for its number 2 drug in the pipeline after pouring over some failed mid-stage secondary data.

Gone is the ACE-083 project in patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. Their drug hit the primary endpoint on building muscle but flopped on key secondaries for functional improvements in patients, which execs felt was vital to the drug’s success.

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Scott Gottlieb, AP Images

Scott Got­tlieb has a new board po­si­tion to add to the re­sume — and this one is fo­cused on a fa­vorite sub­ject

Scott Gottlieb has another position to add to his lengthy roster of boards and advisory roles in the wake of his departure from the helm of the FDA.

He’ll be joining the advisory board of FasterCures, a think tank which former junk bond king Michael Milken set up to help drive more drugs to the market, looking to accelerate drug R&D. That’s a subject close to the heart of Gottlieb, who blazed a trail at the FDA focused on hustling up the process. That helped endear him to the industry, making him one of the most popular commissioners in FDA history.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Karyopharm lines up $150 mil­lion cash in­jec­tion to back con­tro­ver­sial drug launch

Karyopharm has entered into a royalty agreement worth up to $150 million to back the launch of their multiple myeloma drug — recently approved by the FDA over the objections of a majority of the agency’s outside experts.

The deal with HealthCare Royalty Partners, worth $75 million now and $75 million once certain regulatory and commercial milestones have been reached, will fund the commercialization of Karyopharm’s oral SINE compound Xpovio (selinexor) for patients with multiple myeloma who have already had at least four prior therapies. The money will help Karyopharm as it markets its newly approved drug and pushes through clinical trials testing the drug on refractory multiple myeloma patients with one to three therapies and patients with treatment-resistant diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. It will give Karyopharm a cushion through mid-2021.

Af­ter a run of CT­LA-4 com­bo fail­ures, sci­en­tists spot­light a way to make it work — in se­lect pa­tients

CTLA-4/PD-(L)1 combinations have been one of the El Dorados of oncology, its promise forever behind that next hill but apparently unattainable after a series of pivotal clinical failures. But researchers at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the Technical University of Munich think they may know how to fix what’s wrong and boost the drive to next-gen cancer combos.

In a preclinical animal research program, researchers found that within a cell, checkpoints rely on a specific molecule — RNA-sensing molecule RIG-I — to work. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it has already been identified as a target for boosting immune responses and was subject to at least one Phase I/II trial. Pfizer in December allied itself with Kineta with $15 million upfront and $505 million in potential milestones to develop RIG-I immunotherapies, and three years ago Merck purchased German upstart Rigontec for $137 million upfront and over $400 million in potential milestones for the same purpose.

Pur­due Phar­ma files for bank­rupt­cy as first step in $10B opi­oid set­tle­ment

It’s settled. Purdue Pharma has filed for bankruptcy as part of a deal that would see the OxyContin maker hand over $10 billion in cash and other contributions to mitigate the opioid crisis — without acknowledging any wrongdoing in the protracted epidemic that’s resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The announcement came two weeks after news of a proposed settlement surfaced and largely confirm what’s already been reported.

Lisa M. DeAngelis, MSKCC

MSK picks brain can­cer ex­pert Lisa DeAn­ge­lis as its next CMO — fol­low­ing José Basel­ga’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­it

It’s official. Memorial Sloan Kettering has picked a brain cancer expert as its new physician-in-chief and CMO, replacing José Baselga, who left under a cloud after being singled out by The New York Times and ProPublica for failing to properly air his lucrative industry ties.

His replacement, who now will be in charge of MSK’s cutting-edge research work as well as the cancer care delivered by hundreds of practitioners, is Lisa M. DeAngelis. DeAngelis had been chair of the neurology department and co-founder of MSK’s brain tumor center and was moved in to the acting CMO role in the wake of Baselga’s departure.