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.

Norbert Bischofberger. Kronos

Backed by some of the biggest names in biotech, Nor­bert Bischof­berg­er gets his megaround for plat­form tech out of MIT

A little over a year ago when I reported on Norbert Bischofberger’s jump from the CSO job at giant Gilead to a tiny upstart called Kronos, I noted that with his connections in biotech finance, that $18 million launch round he was starting off with could just as easily have been $100 million or more.

With his first anniversary now behind him, Bischofberger has that mega-round in the bank.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Francesco De Rubertis

Medicxi is rolling out its biggest fund ever to back Eu­rope's top 'sci­en­tists with strange ideas'

Francesco De Rubertis built Medicxi to be the kind of biotech venture player he would have liked to have known back when he was a full time scientist.

“When I was a scientist 20 years ago I would have loved Medicxi,’ the co-founder tells me. It’s the kind of place run by and for investigators, what the Medicxi partner calls “scientists with strange ideas — a platform for the drug hunter and scientific entrepreneur. That’s what I wanted when I was a scientist.”

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter a decade, Vi­iV CSO John Pot­tage says it's time to step down — and he's hand­ing the job to long­time col­league Kim Smith

ViiV Healthcare has always been something unique in the global drug industry.

Owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer — with GSK in the lead as majority owner — it was created 10 years ago in a time of deep turmoil for the field as something independent of the pharma giants, but with access to lots of infrastructural support on demand. While R&D at the mother ship inside GSK was souring, a razor-focused ViiV provided a rare bright spot, challenging Gilead on a lucrative front in delivering new combinations that require fewer therapies with a more easily tolerated regimen.

They kept a massive number of people alive who would otherwise have been facing a death sentence. And they made money.

And throughout, John Pottage has been the chief scientific and chief medical officer.

Until now.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chas­ing Roche's ag­ing block­buster fran­chise, Am­gen/Al­ler­gan roll out Avastin, Her­ceptin knock­offs at dis­count

Let the long battle for biosimilars in the cancer space begin.

Amgen has launched its Avastin and Herceptin copycats — licensed from the predecessors of Allergan — almost two years after the FDA had stamped its approval on Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb) and three months after the Kanjinti OK (trastuzumab-anns). While the biotech had been fielding biosimilars in Europe, this marks their first foray in the US — and the first oncology biosimilars in the country.

Seer adds ex-FDA chief Mark Mc­Clel­lan to the board; Her­cules Cap­i­tal makes it of­fi­cial for new CEO Scott Bluestein

→ On the same day it announced a $17.5 million Series C, life sciences and health data company Seer unveiled that it had lured former FDA commissioner and ex-CMS administrator Mark McClellan on to its board. “Mark’s deep understanding of the health care ecosystem and visionary insights on policy reform will be crucial in informing our thinking as we work to bring our liquid biopsy and life sciences products to market,” said Seer chief and founder Omid Farokhzad in a statement.

Daniel O'Day

No­var­tis hands off 3 pre­clin­i­cal pro­grams to the an­tivi­ral R&D mas­ters at Gilead

Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day’s new task hunting up a CSO for the company isn’t stopping the industry’s dominant antiviral player from doing pipeline deals.

The big biotech today snapped up 3 preclinical antiviral programs from pharma giant Novartis, with drugs promising to treat human rhinovirus, influenza and herpes viruses. We don’t know what the upfront is, but the back end has $291 million in milestones baked in.

Vas Narasimhan, AP Images

On a hot streak, No­var­tis ex­ecs run the odds on their two most im­por­tant PhI­II read­outs. Which is 0.01% more like­ly to suc­ceed?

Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan is living in the sweet spot right now.

The numbers are running a bit better than expected, the pipeline — which he assembled as development chief — is performing and the stock popped more than 4% on Thursday as the executive team ran through their assessment of Q2 performance.

Year-to-date the stock is up 28%, so the investors will be beaming. Anyone looking for chinks in their armor — and there are plenty giving it a shot — right now focus on payer acceptance of their $2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, where it’s early days. And CAR-T continues to underperform, but Novartis doesn’t appear to be suffering from it.

So what could go wrong?

Actually, not much. But Tim Anderson at Wolfe pressed Narasimhan and his development chief John Tsai to pick which of two looming Phase III readouts with blockbuster implication had the better odds of success.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

On a glob­al romp, Boehringer BD team picks up its third R&D al­liance for Ju­ly — this time fo­cused on IPF with $50M up­front

Boehringer Ingelheim’s BD team is on a global deal spree. The German pharma company just wrapped its third deal in 3 weeks, going back to Korea for its latest pipeline pact — this time focused on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

They’re handing over $50 million to get their hands on BBT-877, an ATX inhibitor from Korea’s Bridge Biotherapeutics that was on display at a science conference in Dallas recently. There’s not a whole lot of data to evaluate the prospects here.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Servi­er scoots out of an­oth­er col­lab­o­ra­tion with Macro­Gen­ics, writ­ing off their $40M

Servier is walking out on a partnership with MacroGenics $MGNX — for the second time.

After the market closed on Wednesday MacroGenics put out word that Servier is severing a deal — inked close to 7 years ago — to collaborate on the development of flotetuzumab and other Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting (DART) drugs in its pipeline.

MacroGenics CEO Scott Koenig shrugged off the departure of Servier, which paid $20 million to kick off the alliance and $20 million to option flotetuzumab — putting a heavily back-ended $1 billion-plus in additional biobuck money on the table for the anti-CD123/CD3 bispecific and its companion therapies.