Com­pared to avoid­ance, Aim­mune's peanut al­ler­gy treat­ment an im­prove­ment over DB­V's prod­uct — ICER

Peanut al­ler­gy treat­ments from spar­ring drug­mak­ers — Aim­mune and DBV Tech­nolo­gies — are in­cre­men­tal­ly ben­e­fi­cial, but their long-term cost-ef­fec­tive­ness will be de­ter­mined by the price at which they are even­tu­al­ly mar­ket­ed, ICER said in a draft re­port pub­lished on Tues­day, which con­clud­ed us­ing as­sumed prices that the lat­ter’s prod­uct, Vi­askin Peanut, was far less of an im­prove­ment over peanut avoid­ance, com­pared to AR101.

Akin to NICE in the UK, ICER is an in­de­pen­dent body that an­a­lyzes the cost-ef­fec­tive­ness of drugs and oth­er med­ical ser­vices in the Unit­ed States. Un­like NICE, though, ICER is not gov­ern­ment-af­fil­i­at­ed, but its de­ter­mi­na­tions are in­creas­ing­ly be­com­ing in­flu­en­tial with pay­ers.

For now, peanut al­ler­gies are man­aged by avoid­ance, but the threat of ac­ci­den­tal ex­po­sure can­not be nul­li­fied. Aim­mune’s AR101 and DBV’s Vi­askin Peanut are set to be the pi­o­neer­ing peanut al­ler­gy treat­ments ap­proved by the FDA, but there is “sig­nif­i­cant un­cer­tain­ty about the long-term risks and ben­e­fits” for both ther­a­pies, as each has been stud­ied in place­bo-con­trolled one-year clin­i­cal tri­als, ICER said, not­ing that da­ta from the ex­ten­sion tri­als are sparse.

An FDA ap­proval de­ci­sion for AR101 is ex­pect­ed in Jan­u­ary 2020, while DBV is ex­pect­ed to sub­mit its mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion lat­er in 2019. The so far un­tapped mar­ket is ex­pect­ed to grow to $4.5 bil­lion in 2027 glob­al­ly, ac­cord­ing to Glob­al­Da­ta.

Aim­mune $AIMT ef­fec­tive­ly leapfrogged DBV $DB­VT when the lat­ter re­scind­ed an ap­pli­ca­tion to mar­ket Vi­askin Peanut patch last year in re­sponse to FDA con­cerns about the state of man­u­fac­tur­ing and qual­i­ty con­trol da­ta sub­mit­ted.

Since nei­ther ther­a­py has been ap­proved yet, ICER con­duct­ed its analy­ses us­ing price as­sump­tions, based on an­a­lyst mod­els, which project AR101 will cost be­tween $5,000 and $10,000 for the first six months of use, and $300 to $400 per month af­ter and that Vi­askin Peanut will cost more than $6,000 for a year’s sup­ply.

Based on these es­ti­mates, ICER as­sumed a place­hold­er cost for AR101 at $350 per month ($6,595 for months 1-6 in­clud­ing clin­i­cal vis­its for dose es­ca­la­tion; $4,200 per year there­after). For Vi­askin Peanut, the in­sti­tute as­sumed a place­hold­er cost of $6,500 per year. That works out to AR101 cost­ing $84,000 over a life­time, and Vi­askin Peanut cost­ing $56,000 over a life­times, ICER said.

“Rel­a­tive to our AR101 pric­ing as­sump­tions based on our con­ver­sa­tions with Aim­mune, we had con­ser­v­a­tive­ly as­sumed the low­er end of the com­pa­ny’s com­mu­ni­cat­ed pric­ing range of $5,000 for the up-dos­ing phase and $5,000 per year there­after ($415/month) – so $7,500 for the first year. All-in, the first year costs ICER us­es for its analy­sis are high­er by about 16%,” Stifel’s Derek Archi­la wrote in a note.

For Vi­askin Peanut, ICER’s as­sumed an­nu­al cost of ther­a­py is 20% high­er than Stifel’s $5,000 as­sump­tion, he added.

ICER based its cost-ef­fec­tive­ness cal­cu­la­tions on qual­i­ty-ad­just­ed-life-years (QALYs), a mea­sure of the state of health of a per­son or group in which the ben­e­fits — in terms of length of life — are ad­just­ed to re­flect the qual­i­ty of life.

Treat­ment with AR101 re­sult­ed in 0.63 in­cre­men­tal QALYs, while treat­ment with Vi­askin Peanut came up rel­a­tive­ly short, re­sult­ing in 0.22 in­cre­men­tal QALYs — when com­pared to no im­munother­a­py treat­ment over a life­time, ICER’s analy­sis sug­gest­ed.

“These ben­e­fits are due to im­proved sub­jec­tive qual­i­ty of life de­spite the rel­a­tive rar­i­ty with which se­ri­ous events oc­cur. The ul­ti­mate val­ue of these prod­ucts will be de­ter­mined by the prices that are set by the man­u­fac­tur­ers and their long-term ef­fec­tive­ness,” ICER con­clud­ed.

While in­for­ma­tive, the re­port is not con­clu­sive, part­ly be­cause a one-year time­frame may not re­flect the en­tire ben­e­fit of a ther­a­py that pro­vides in­creas­ing ef­fi­ca­cy over time such as AR101 or Vi­askin peanut, and no qual­i­ty of life da­ta (good or bad) was fac­tored in­to this analy­sis, Archi­la said.

ICER did ac­knowl­edge that one of the lim­i­ta­tions of its analy­sis is that it as­sumed the util­i­ty of the two peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­pies on the ba­sis of ex­ist­ing da­ta on food al­ler­gies, but not specif­i­cal­ly the peanut al­ler­gy pa­tient pop­u­la­tion, due to “the pauci­ty of pref­er­ence-weight­ed health-re­lat­ed qual­i­ty of life es­ti­mates in food al­ler­gy pa­tients and their care­givers.”

ICER’s as­sess­ment is “pre­ma­ture” and the in­sti­tute’s frame­work does not take in­to ac­count the bur­den care­givers car­ry, in terms of mak­ing ther­a­peu­tic de­ci­sions or mak­ing out-of-pock­et costs for treat­ment, a DBV spokesper­son wrote in an email to End­points News.

“We dis­agree with ICER on many as­pects of its over­all method­ol­o­gy, as well as the tim­ing of this re­port. Be­cause the ICER mod­el re­lies on health eco­nom­ic mea­sure­ments…for which there are no pub­lished da­ta/ev­i­dence for peanut-al­ler­gic pa­tients [as there are no ap­proved FDA-ap­proved treat­ments], we be­lieve the draft re­port find­ings were dri­ven by in­ac­cu­rate clin­i­cal out­comes and cost in­puts…We be­lieve the lack of FDA-ap­proved ther­a­peu­tic op­tions for peanut al­ler­gy and as­so­ci­at­ed ab­sence of health state util­i­ty and long-term treat­ment da­ta, com­bined with pa­tient het­ero­gene­ity, pre­cludes an ac­cu­rate and re­li­able cost-ef­fec­tive­ness as­sess­ment, in­clud­ing by ICER.”

End­points has al­so con­tact­ed Aim­mune for com­ment.


Im­age: Shut­ter­stock

A new chap­ter in the de­cen­tral­ized clin­i­cal tri­al ap­proach

Despite the promised decentralized trial revolution, we haven’t yet moved the needle in a significant way, although we are seeing far bolder commitments to this as we continue to experience the pandemic restrictions for some time to come. The vision of grandeur is one thing, but operationalizing and execution are another and recognising that change, particularly mid-flight on studies, is worthy of thorough evaluation and consideration in order to achieve success. Here we will discuss one of the critical building blocks of a Decentralized and Remote Trial strategy: TeleConsent; more than paper under glass, it is a paradigm change and key digital enabler.

Su­per-se­cre­tive an­ti-ag­ing biotech Cal­i­co tees up the first vis­i­ble clin­i­cal tri­al of an ex­per­i­men­tal drug. And it’s for can­cer?

Over the past 7 years, Calico has been so much more than your average, run-of-the-mill secretive biotech players. It’s a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, to repurpose an old Winston Churchill line dating from the time he confronted the Iron Curtain surrounding Stalin’s thoughts.

Launched by industry legend Art Levinson of Genentech fame, with the infinitely deep pockets of Google for support, one of the few big headlines the anti-aging biotech has sparked focused on a major alliance with AbbVie — a giant outfit that conversely likes to show off its drug prospects whenever it can. Together, they’ve been focused on diseases that limit life span — quite an arc of ailments.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

RBC's Bri­an Abra­hams holds a mock ad­comm on Bio­gen's iffy ad­u­canum­ab da­ta — and most of these ex­perts don't see a path to an ap­proval

As catalysts go, few loom larger than the aducanumab adcomm slated for Nov. 6.

With its big franchise under assault, Biogen is betting the ranch that its mixed late-stage Alzheimer’s data can squeak past the experts and regulators and get onto the market. And the topic — after a decade of Alzheimer’s R&D disasters in what still represents the El Dorado of drug markets — remains in the center ring of discussions around late-stage pipeline prospects.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Joe Biden (Carolyn Kaster, AP Images)

What about the Ger­man ne­go­ti­a­tion mod­el? Biden steers drug pric­ing de­bate to a show­down

From an ill-fated proposal to ban rebates for pharmacy benefit managers to an executive order demanding a “most-favored-nation price” for Medicare, if nothing else President Donald Trump has introduced Americans to a flurry of ideas to rein in pharma, an industry he once accused of “getting away with murder.” And now we’re getting the first glimpse of what a Joe Biden presidency might mean for prescription drug pricing.

Covid-19 roundup: Pars­ing Bourla, a top an­a­lyst sees im­proved chances for Pfiz­er vac­cine; Fau­ci: No sur­prise that Trump was hit by Covid-19

With a medley of adverse events hobbling the late-stage development of vaccines and drugs, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s latest — extended — timeline for the mRNA approach they’re working on with BioNTech is giving some top analysts added confidence that the pharma giant can come up with the regulatory goods next month.

Parsing Bourla’s language in his comments last week, SVB Leerink’s Geoffrey Porges notes that Bourla’s decision to say they “may” be able to nail down the positive efficacy of their vaccine in a matter of days — a big change from his earlier certainty — may also indicate a delay on that to early November.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

IN8bio CEO William Ho (IN8bio)

Bring­ing their ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied gam­ma delta T cells to Nas­daq, IN8bio files for $86M IPO

The biotech IPO parade continues marching forward as 2020 turns toward the fourth quarter.

IN8bio, a New York-based company focused on genetically modified gamma delta T cell therapies, filed to go public Friday seeking an $86 million raise. The company has two clinical-stage candidates being studied in glioblastoma and leukemia, respectively.

By any stretch of the imagination, 2020 has already been a huge year for biotech, and nowhere does it appear more obvious than the vast amounts of companies hitting the public market.

News brief­ing: Ab­b­Vie and Roche's Ven­clex­ta scores an­oth­er FDA OK; Im­muno­Gen nabs Chi­na deal with $40M cash

AbbVie and Roche’s Venclexta has gotten a new FDA thumbs up.

The pair announced Monday that regulators have approved the drug in combination with azacitidine or low-dose cytarabine for newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults who are 75 or older or those who can’t undergo intensive chemotherapy. This follows the drug’s accelerated approval in 2018 and positive data from two Phase III confirmatory trials.

James Sabry (Roche)

Roche's James Sabry inks his sec­ond AI deal in back-to-back pacts — this time part­ner­ing Genen­tech with Stan­ford spin­out Gen­e­sis Ther­a­peu­tics

Less than a week after Roche joined forces with Dyno Therapeutics to develop gene therapies using artificial intelligence, its giant subsidiary Genentech is hopping on the AI bandwagon with a different player.

Genentech has inked a deal with Stanford spinout Genesis Therapeutics to harness its AI power for drug development and discovery. Genesis is getting an upfront payment and milestones, but the companies are keeping the details under wraps for now. The Burlingame, CA-based biotech also stands to earn future royalties on any approved Genentech drugs that come from the deal.

En­do pays $658M in a fur­ther bet on col­la­gen-based med­i­cines, buy­ing out long­time bio­phar­ma part­ner

A little less than two years after Endo Pharmaceuticals’ deal to purchase Somerset Therapeutics fell through, the Irish drugmaker is returning to the well with a much bigger acquisition.

Endo has agreed to buy BioSpecifics Technologies for a whopping $658 million, the two companies announced Monday, in the culmination of a research agreement signed all the way back in 2004. Endo will purchase all of BioSpecifics’ outstanding stock for about $540 million, valuing the company at $88.50 per share — a 45% premium on the $61.02 share price at which the company closed on Friday.