Dear Pres­i­dent Trump: Don’t de­stroy the FDA we know and re­spect

On Tues­day, a group of Big Phar­ma ex­ecs from Mer­ck, J&J, Am­gen, Eli Lil­ly and Cel­gene gath­ered to pay court to Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump at the White House. Trump didn’t dis­ap­point ei­ther his ad­mir­ers or his crit­ics, launch­ing in­to a full throat­ed ha­rangue on high drug prices while vow­ing to the col­lec­tion of CEOs that he was about to erase a large num­ber of the reg­u­la­tions on drug de­vel­op­ment to speed the ar­rival of a new gen­er­a­tion of drugs at a low­er cost.

He promised a rev­o­lu­tion at the FDA.

“We’re go­ing to be cut­ting reg­u­la­tions at a lev­el peo­ple have nev­er seen be­fore,” Trump said. Peo­ple can still be pro­tect­ed, he said, “but in­stead of 9,000 pages it can be 100 pages. And you don’t have to dou­ble up and quadru­ple up. We have com­pa­nies that have more peo­ple work­ing on reg­u­la­tions than they have work­ing at the com­pa­ny.”

The CEOs in at­ten­dance nod­ded in com­pli­ance, voic­ing their sup­port for the move — while like­ly be­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly keen on tax re­form that would boost prof­its and al­low them to repa­tri­ate bil­lions in cash.

But his com­ments didn’t play so well with biotech ex­ecs. I asked for some feed­back from drug de­vel­op­ers I know, and the re­sponse was an un­equiv­o­cal ‘no thanks.’

From their per­spec­tive, the FDA has al­ready made ma­jor changes that al­low for faster drug de­vel­op­ment. If Trump is talk­ing about shred­ding agency stan­dards and green-light­ing fast-and-dirty ap­provals for drugs with no clear proof of ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty, he’s threat­en­ing every de­vel­op­er with in­tegri­ty.

In Trump’s brave new world, pay­ers will be prompt­ed to throw up even high­er walls against new drugs with scant da­ta back­ing them up.

But here’s what they had to say, in their own words.


Michael Gilman, se­r­i­al biotech en­tre­pre­neur:

I will try not to de­volve to a full-on rant here, but in my view it’s nuts to as­cribe a ma­te­r­i­al por­tion of the time and cost of drug de­vel­op­ment to FDA “reg­u­la­tions.” Yes, there are plen­ty of those, but they are large­ly in the ser­vice of pro­tect­ing the safe­ty of pa­tients and clin­i­cal tri­al sub­jects. What makes drug de­vel­op­ment long and ex­pen­sive is the need to prove, be­yond sta­tis­ti­cal doubt, that your damn drug works. That’s not on the FDA — that’s on the un­der­ly­ing bi­ol­o­gy of the dis­eases we’re try­ing to crack. Low­er­ing the bar for proof is invit­ing both cat­a­stro­phe for pa­tients and even more wast­ed mon­ey in a sys­tem that is forced to pay for drugs that don’t work — and may even in­flict harm.

Crazy shit every­where you turn.


John Maraganore, CEO Al­ny­lam:

We need to main­tain stan­dards for both safe­ty AND ef­fi­ca­cy, and work with the FDA to iden­ti­fy nov­el path­ways and clin­i­cal tri­al de­signs that can speed in­no­v­a­tive med­i­cines to pa­tients. We’ve been do­ing this with FDA over the last decade with FDA­SIA, 21st Cen­tu­ry Cures, and PDU­FA VI. This will con­tin­ue in the fu­ture as we learn how to in­te­grate the pa­tient voice, re­al world ev­i­dence, and “big da­ta” in­to the drug de­vel­op­ment process. But the bot­tom line is that pa­tients and physi­cians need to know that the med­i­cines they take are safe AND ef­fec­tive. And these days, pay­ers al­so need to have ev­i­dence for a drug’s ef­fi­ca­cy and val­ue for re­im­burse­ment.


Steve Holtz­man, CEO, Deci­bel:

Most (at least the good ones) biotech ex­ec­u­tives val­ue a strong, sci­ence-based FDA; hence, I don’t think you will see any sup­port for cuts in FDA reg­u­la­tion.  Most of the CEO’s I know were pret­ty ap­palled by the Sarep­ta ap­proval as, giv­en the da­ta, it seemed to be ap­proval of a very ex­pen­sive, safe place­bo that rais­es pa­tients’ hope in­ap­pro­pri­ate­ly.  Is there some red tape to­day? Sure.  Is it out­weighed by the vi­tal func­tion played by the Agency to safe­guard the health and well-be­ing of the pop­u­lace?  You bet.

Cut­ting FDA staffing dras­ti­cal­ly would be prob­lem­at­ic as it will slow down the (thor­ough) re­view of po­ten­tial­ly im­por­tant new med­i­cines.  I stress the word “thor­ough” in the fore­go­ing sen­tence.  If the Ad­min­is­tra­tion cuts staffing, and then turns up the pres­sure to ap­prove drugs more quick­ly, that will be tan­ta­mount to a com­pro­mise of the sci­en­tif­ic na­ture of the reg­u­la­tion.  It will drift to­ward the stat­ed goal of some in the Ad­min­is­tra­tion to lim­it­ing re­views to mat­ters of safe­ty while leav­ing to the mar­ket the eval­u­a­tion of ef­fi­ca­cy.  Again, most biotech ex­ecs do not fa­vor this ap­proach (see Sarep­ta, above).  Al­so, Right to Try, is not sup­port­ed by the in­dus­try.  It pos­es a threat to con­duct­ing well con­trolled reg­is­tra­tional tri­als.


Bassil Dahiy­at, CEO of Xen­cor:

Steve said it beau­ti­ful­ly and I agree com­plete­ly.  I’d ar­gue that a strong, sci­ence-based FDA helped cre­ate the biotech­nol­o­gy in­dus­try by cre­at­ing a way for doc­tors, and fi­nan­cial mar­kets, to know if a med­i­cine ac­tu­al­ly worked (ef­fi­ca­cy too!) and was worth try­ing or in­vest­ing in.  And now for pay­ers to know if it is worth pay­ing for.  In­di­vid­ual doc­tors and pa­tients will have no way of de­duc­ing from the mi­cro­cosm of their own ex­pe­ri­ence how a new drug im­pacts a dis­ease; very very few sit­u­a­tions are as eas­i­ly in­ter­pret­ed as “you take an an­tibi­ot­ic and your ear in­fec­tion goes away in a cou­ple days.” And we don’t want to mar­ket things that don’t work.

The FDA seems very en­gaged with all of the new ini­tia­tives that are be­ing tried to­day.  Want to help biotech in­no­va­tion, small com­pa­nies and cre­ate more new med­i­cines by re­duc­ing reg­u­la­to­ry bur­dens?  Fund the agency more, hire more re­view­ers and let the FDA pay high­ly skilled sci­ence and med­ical re­view­ers com­pet­i­tive­ly to the mar­kets for their la­bor.


Je­re­my Levin, CEO, Ovid:

I would on­ly add:

First­ly, that over the last sev­er­al years there has been mas­sive changes in the per­for­mance of the FDA and the re­la­tion­ship with them has dra­mat­i­cal­ly im­proved.  They are the part­ners to our in­dus­try and be­have as such to in­sure the safe­ty AND the ef­fi­ca­cy of de­vices and med­i­cines.  In part the rea­son why Amer­i­ca has lead­er­ship in de­vel­op­ing med­i­cines is not just that we have great sci­en­tists, clin­i­cians, fi­nanc­ing and an in­fra­struc­ture to sup­port and en­cour­age in­no­va­tion, it is al­so be­cause we have the best reg­u­la­to­ry process in the world.  Work­ing with it we will move in­creas­ing­ly to es­tab­lish how to lay the foun­da­tion for what val­ue a drug brings.

Sec­ond­ly, with­out rig­or­ous sci­en­tif­ic and med­ical proof to es­tab­lish that a drug is both Safe and Ef­fec­tive, we risk tak­ing a step back in­to a time when peo­ple sold col­ored wa­ter for can­cer treat­ments and pa­tients be­came the un­wit­ting tools of un­scrupu­lous mar­ke­teers.  Pro­pos­als that walk us back to that time, are counter to in­no­va­tion and lead­er­ship in the world of med­i­cine.  They are not just bad for sci­ence and clin­i­cal med­i­cine and dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, they risk be­ing un­eth­i­cal and bad for busi­ness and the in­dus­try.


Ron Co­hen, CEO of Acor­da:

I would add on­ly that there as in­deed been im­mense progress in FDA ef­fi­cien­cy and ap­provals of new med­i­cines over the past 5 years, and we ex­pect fur­ther progress to be made based on such leg­is­la­tion as the bi­par­ti­san 21st Cen­tu­ry Cures Act. There is al­so a clear move now to­ward re­im­burse­ment for med­i­cines based on out­comes and the val­ue that these out­comes rep­re­sent, which the in­dus­try sup­ports and would like to see fur­ther en­abled by ju­di­cious re­lax­ing of cer­tain reg­u­la­tions that in­hib­it such agree­ments be­tween bio­phar­ma and pay­ers.  In ad­di­tion to the is­sues raised by the oth­ers on this thread, low­er­ing the stan­dards for de­ter­min­ing safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy will lead to enor­mous chal­lenges in get­ting drugs re­im­bursed, as pay­ers will have  less da­ta on which to base de­ter­mi­na­tions of out­comes and val­ue. Pa­tients there­fore will be at risk of hav­ing less ac­cess to need­ed med­i­cines.


Bernard Munos

Bernard Munos, Founder of In­no­Think Cen­ter for Re­search in Bio­med­ical In­no­va­tion:

I am afraid that this talk of FDA dereg­u­la­tion is an­oth­er as­sault of ide­ol­o­gy over ev­i­dence. The re­search (done by Hen­ry Grabows­ki and his team at Duke many years ago) is clear: in­no­va­tion is best served by ex­act­ing reg­u­la­to­ry stan­dards. Coun­tries with the high­est stan­dards (US, UK) have fos­tered the most com­pet­i­tive and in­no­v­a­tive bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies. When they ap­prove drugs, they of­ten be­come glob­al brands that dom­i­nate their ther­a­peu­tic cat­e­gories be­cause they are su­pe­ri­or. In con­trast, coun­tries with per­mis­sive regimes (France, Japan) ap­prove more drugs – Trump’s goal – that may get trac­tion in their do­mes­tic mar­kets, but sel­dom sell much out­side be­cause they are mediocre (save for the oc­ca­sion­al ex­cep­tions). In­no­va­tors know that in their guts, and have spo­ken out loud­ly against plans to de­base FDA (e.g., Len Schleifer). Any­one can come up with safe snake oil, but, if that be­comes our reg­u­la­to­ry stan­dard, that’s what we’re go­ing to get. Will it cre­ate a vi­brant in­dus­try? No, it will oblit­er­ate it.

If the pres­i­dent wants to cut costs and speed drug to mar­kets – laud­able goals – cut­ting cor­ners on safe­ty and/or ef­fi­ca­cy stud­ies is not the way to do it. In­stead, he should look at cheap­er/faster ways the col­lect the da­ta need­ed to demon­strate safe­ty/ef­fi­ca­cy. As it hap­pens, new tech­nolo­gies are emerg­ing that do just that (e.g., biosen­sors, apps), and the US has a lead in them. C And FDA has al­so been quick to em­brace them and ap­prove clin­i­cal tri­als that use them. If any­thing, it is the con­ser­v­a­tive phar­ma com­pa­nies which have been drag­ging their feet (or more pre­cise­ly the com­pli­ance and reg­u­la­to­ry groups in these com­pa­nies, which are loath to use “un­proven” reg­u­la­to­ry path­ways.) There is al­so usu­al­ly enough mon­ey to keep do­ing things the tra­di­tion­al way, so why take a “risk”? If the pres­i­dent wants to help, he could prod the in­dus­try to get on with tech­nol­o­gy that can sig­nif­i­cant­ly cut costs. It spends over $100 bil­lion a year in col­lect­ing clin­i­cal da­ta in hos­pi­tals, slow­ly, in the old-fash­ioned way. Any dent we can make in that spend­ing could be quite mean­ing­ful.

Brian Kaspar. AveXis via Twitter

AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder fires back at No­var­tis CEO Vas Narasimhan, 'cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly de­nies any wrong­do­ing'

Brian Kaspar’s head was among the first to roll at Novartis after company execs became aware of the fact that manipulated data had been included in its application for Zolgensma, now the world’s most expensive therapy.

But in his first public response, the scientific founder at AveXis — acquired by Novartis for $8.7 billion — is firing back. And he says that not only was he not involved in any wrongdoing, he’s ready to defend his name as needed.

I reached out to Brian Kaspar after Novartis put out word that he and his brother Allen had been axed in mid-May, two months after the company became aware of the allegations related to manipulated data. His response came back through his attorneys.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: An em­bold­ened As­traZeneca splurges $95M on a pri­or­i­ty re­view vouch­er. Where do they need the FDA to hus­tle up?

AstraZeneca is in a hurry.

We learned this morning that the pharma giant — not known as a big spender, until recently — forked over $95 million to get its hands on a priority review voucher from Sobi, otherwise known as Swedish Orphan Biovitrum.

That marks another step down on price for a PRV, which allows the holder to slash 4 months off of any FDA review time.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Martin Shkreli [via Getty]

Pris­on­er #87850-053 does not get to add drug de­vel­op­er to his list of cred­its

Just days after Retrophin shed its last ties to founder Martin Shkreli, the biotech is reporting that the lead drug he co-invented flopped in a pivotal trial. Fosmetpantotenate flunked both the primary and key secondary endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial for a rare disease called pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration, or PKAN.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

We­bi­nar: Re­al World End­points — the brave new world com­ing in build­ing fran­chise ther­a­pies

Several biopharma companies have been working on expanding drug labels through the use of real world endpoints, combing through the data to find evidence of a drug’s efficacy for particular indications. But we’ve just begun. Real World Evidence is becoming an important part of every clinical development plan, in the soup-through-nuts approach used in building franchises.

I’ve recruited a panel of 3 top experts in the field — the first in a series of premium webinars — to look at the practical realities governing what can be done today, and where this is headed over the next few years, at the prodding of the FDA.

ZHEN SU — Merck Serono’s Senior Vice President and Global Head of Oncology
ELLIOTT LEVY — Amgen’s Senior Vice President of Global Development
CHRIS BOSHOFF — Pfizer Oncology’s Chief Development Officer

A premium subscription to Endpoints News is required to attend this webinar. Please upgrade to either an Insider or Enterprise plan for access. Already have Endpoints Premium? Please sign-in below. You can contact our Subscriptions team at help@endpointsnews.com with any issues.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Am­gen, Al­ler­gan biosim­i­lar of Roche's block­buster Rit­ux­an clears an­oth­er US piv­otal study 

Novartis $NVS may have given up, but Amgen $AMGN and Allergan $AGN are plowing ahead with their knockoff of Roche’s blockbuster biologic Rituxan in the United States.

Their copycat, ABP 798, was found to have a clinically equivalent impact as Rituxan — meeting the main goal of the study involving CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. This is the second trial supporting the profile of the biosimilar. In January, it came through with positive PK results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BeiGene and Mus­tang nail down spe­cial FDA sta­tus for top drugs; Roche bags added cov­er­age for Hem­li­bra

→ BeiGene $BGNE is getting a boost in its drive to field a rival to Imbruvica. The FDA has offered an accelerated review to zanubrutinib, a BTK inhibitor that has posted positive results for mantle cell lymphoma. The PDUFA date lands on February 27, 2020. The drug scored breakthrough status at the beginning of the year.

→ BeiGene isn’t the only biopharma company to gain special regulatory status today. Mustang Bio $MBIO and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital announced that MB-107, a lentiviral gene therapy for the treatment of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, also known as bubble boy disease, has been granted Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy status.

Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion re­vives bid to get drug list prices on TV ads

The Trump administration is not giving up just yet. On Wednesday, the HHS filed an appeal against a judge’s decision in July to overturn a ruling obligating drug manufacturers to disclose the list price of their therapies in television adverts — hours before it was stipulated to go into effect.

In May, the HHS published a final ruling requiring drugmakers to divulge the wholesale acquisition cost— of a 30-day supply of the drug — in tv ads in a bid to enhance price transparency in the United States. The pharmaceutical industry has vehemently opposed the rule, asserting that list prices are not what a typical patient in the United States pays for treatment — that number is typically determined by the type of (or lack thereof) insurance coverage, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. Although there is truth to that claim, the move was considered symbolic in the Trump administration’s healthcare agenda to hold drugmakers accountable in a climate where skyrocketing drug prices have incensed Americans on both sides of the aisle.

Ver­sant-backed Chi­nook gets a $65M launch round for its dis­cov­ery quest in a resur­gent kid­ney field

Versant is once again stepping off the beaten track in biotech to see if they can blaze a trail of their own in a field that has looked too thorny to many investors for years.

The venture group and their partners at Apple Tree are bringing their latest creation out of stealth mode today. Born in Versant’s Inception Sciences’ Chinook Therapeutics is betting that its preclinical take on kidney disease can get an early lead among the companies starting up in the field.

Sir An­drew Dil­lon, NICE's first — and on­ly — chief ex­ec­u­tive to step down next year

Using a laptop borrowed from his former employer, South London’s St George’s Hospital, Sir Andrew Dillon set about establishing NICE — launched by the then health secretary Frank Dobson — in 1999.  On Thursday, the UK cost-effectiveness watchdog said its first and only chief executive — Dillon — is stepping down in March 2020.

Back in the day, decisions about which drugs and interventions were funded by the National Health Service (NHS) were made at the local level, but this ‘postcode prescribing’ system was fraught with skewed healthcare deployment making the structure unsustainable. A national system was deemed necessary — and NICE was formed to bridge that gap.