Di­min­ish­ing the FDA’s pow­er was my in­tent: Right-to-try au­thor scolds Scott Got­tlieb as agency im­ple­ments new law

In a bizarre twist for the new­ly signed “right-to-try” law, the FDA — cut out of the process of sign­ing off on cer­tain us­es of ex­per­i­men­tal drugs for ter­mi­nal­ly ill pa­tients by that law — now has to fig­ure out how to im­ple­ment it. And al­ready, the bill’s main au­thor is un­hap­py with com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb in the af­ter­math and has point­ed­ly made his feel­ings known in a let­ter.

“This law in­tends to di­min­ish the FDA’s pow­er over peo­ple’s lives, not in­crease it,” Sen­a­tor Ron John­son, Re­pub­li­can from Wis­con­sin, wrote to Got­tlieb yes­ter­day, dis­pleased over tweets and state­ments the com­mis­sion­er has made re­cent­ly around im­ple­men­ta­tion of the law. The state­ment is re­mark­able be­cause the is­sue has long been framed by “right-to-try” sup­port­ers as a win for ter­mi­nal­ly ill pa­tients and not an end-around to weak­en the FDA.

As we have re­port­ed, “right-to-try” is a land­mark win for the lib­er­tar­i­an Gold­wa­ter In­sti­tute and its po­lit­i­cal al­lies.

The FDA says it will re­view and di­rect­ly re­ply to Sen­a­tor John­son’s let­ter.

Be­fore the sen­a­tor’s let­ter was pub­lished yes­ter­day, the agency said in an emailed state­ment that it “is con­ven­ing an in­ter­nal group to as­sess how to ef­fec­tive­ly and ef­fi­cient­ly im­ple­ment the new law. We will re­port on our im­ple­men­ta­tion steps reg­u­lar­ly.”

In an email to FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search (CDER) staff yes­ter­day, CDER Di­rec­tor Janet Wood­cock said: “We are re­view­ing the leg­is­la­tion and will work to im­ple­ment it in a man­ner con­sis­tent with Con­gres­sion­al in­tent and with FDA’s pub­lic health mis­sion. We re­al­ize that you may re­ceive ques­tions about this process. We will be work­ing ex­pe­di­tious­ly to de­vel­op fur­ther in­for­ma­tion on how to re­spond to such in­quiries. How­ev­er, we be­lieve that spon­sors are in the best po­si­tion to pro­vide in­for­ma­tion on the de­vel­op­ment sta­tus of their prod­ucts (which is crit­i­cal to de­ter­min­ing whether a drug or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­uct is el­i­gi­ble for use un­der Right to Try) and whether a spon­sor in­tends to make an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct avail­able un­der Right to Try.”

Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump signed in­to law the Trick­ett Wendler, Frank Mongiel­lo, Jor­dan McLinn, and Matthew Bel­li­na Right to Try Act of 2017 (Right to Try Act) Wednes­day to amend the Fed­er­al Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ic Act.

Wood­cock said the law “is in­tend­ed to in­crease ac­cess to cer­tain un­ap­proved, in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al treat­ments (drugs or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts) for pa­tients di­ag­nosed with life-threat­en­ing dis­eases or con­di­tions who have ex­haust­ed ap­proved treat­ment op­tions and who are un­able to par­tic­i­pate in a clin­i­cal tri­al in­volv­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug, as cer­ti­fied by a physi­cian.‎”

She al­so ex­plained what el­i­gi­ble pa­tients and treat­ments are for ‘right-to-try’:

An el­i­gi­ble pa­tient is one with a life-threat­en­ing dis­ease as de­fined in 21 CFR 312.81 and who meets cer­tain oth­er con­di­tions set forth in the statute. An in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­uct can on­ly be pro­vid­ed un­der Right to Try if it:

  • Is not ap­proved or li­censed for any use;
  • Has com­plet­ed a Phase 1 tri­al;
  • Ei­ther (1) is the sub­ject of an NDA or BLA filed with FDA or (2) is the sub­ject of an ac­tive IND, and is un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion in a clin­i­cal tri­al that ‘is in­tend­ed to form the pri­ma­ry ba­sis of a claim of ef­fec­tive­ness’; and
  • Is ac­tive­ly be­ing de­vel­oped (‘ac­tive de­vel­op­ment…is on­go­ing’), not dis­con­tin­ued, and not on clin­i­cal hold.

“In the near term,” Wood­cock told staff, “if you re­ceive in­quiries about the leg­is­la­tion from pa­tients or physi­cians about a spe­cif­ic prod­uct, please re­fer them to the spon­sor of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­uct. If spon­sors con­tact you re­gard­ing their oblig­a­tions un­der this law, we sug­gest that you re­fer them to the statute. If you re­ceive more de­tailed ques­tions re­gard­ing Right to Try, please re­fer those in­quiries to Drug­in­fo@fda.hhs.gov or by phone: (855) 543-3784.”

Hol­ly Fer­nan­dez Lynch of the De­part­ment of Med­ical Ethics and Health Pol­i­cy at Perel­man School of Med­i­cine, Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia, told Fo­cus: “I think there is lots of room for FDA to pro­tect pa­tients from po­ten­tial­ly dan­ger­ous ef­fects of the law, which I hope they will im­ple­ment through rule­mak­ing and guid­ance, al­though that will take time.”

She al­so of­fered a few pos­si­bil­i­ties for im­ple­men­ta­tion:

  1. Clar­i­fy that it is not enough to have a life-threat­en­ing ill­ness, but rather that the ill­ness should be im­me­di­ate­ly life-threat­en­ing.
  2. Re­quire ad­verse event re­port­ing not via the right to try law, but rather un­der the terms of the over­ar­ch­ing IND for the drug (this may be tricky, but not en­tire­ly im­plau­si­ble).
  3. Clar­i­fy what it means for a Phase 1 tri­al to be com­plet­ed, i.e., what is suc­cess?
  4. Re­quire that spon­sors de­vel­op con­tracts with cer­ti­fy­ing physi­cians that in or­der to ac­cess the drug, the physi­cian must col­lect and re­port safe­ty da­ta.
  5. Spec­i­fy the sorts of ad­verse event da­ta that needs to be col­lect­ed in or­der to sat­is­fy the re­quire­ments of the an­nu­al sum­ma­ry.
  6. Post as much in­for­ma­tion pub­licly as pos­si­ble, to help pa­tients and their physi­cians un­der­stand that the un­like­li­hood that right to try will be help­ful.
  7. En­cour­age pa­tients and com­pa­nies to uti­lize the ex­pand­ed ac­cess path­way rather than right to try.
  8. En­cour­age spon­sors and in­ves­ti­ga­tors to al­low for the broad­est clin­i­cal tri­al in­clu­sion con­sis­tent with par­tic­i­pant safe­ty and sci­en­tif­ic in­tegri­ty.

Ar­salan Arif con­tributed re­port­ing to this sto­ry.

First pub­lished here. Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion. 

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Hal Barron, GSK

Break­ing the death spi­ral: Hal Bar­ron talks about trans­form­ing the mori­bund R&D cul­ture at GSK in a crit­i­cal year for the late-stage pipeline

Just ahead of GlaxoSmithKline’s Q2 update on Wednesday, science chief Hal Barron is making the rounds to talk up the pharma giant’s late-stage strategy as the top execs continue to woo back a deeply skeptical investor group while pushing through a whole new R&D culture.

And that’s not easy, Barron is quick to note. He told the Financial Times:

I think that culture, to some extent, is as hard, in fact even harder, than doing the science.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Some Big Phar­mas stepped up their game on da­ta trans­paren­cy — but which flunked the test?

The nonprofit Bioethics International has come out with their latest scorecard on data transparency among the big biopharmas in the industry — flagging a few standouts while spotlighting some laggards who are continuing to underperform.

Now in its third year, the nonprofit created a new set of standards with Yale School of Medicine and Stanford Law School to evaluate the track record on trial registration, results reporting, publication and data-sharing practice.

Busy Gilead crew throws strug­gling biotech a life­line, with some cash up­front and hun­dreds of mil­lions in biobucks for HIV deal

Durect $DRRX got a badly needed shot in the arm Monday morning as Gilead’s busy BD team lined up access to its extended-release platform tech for HIV and hepatitis B.

Gilead, a leader in the HIV sector, is paying a modest $25 million in cash for the right to jump on the platform at Durect, which has been using its technology to come up with an extended-release version of bupivacaine. The FDA rejected that in 2014, but Durect has been working on a comeback.

In­tec blitzed by PhI­II flop as lead pro­gram fails to beat Mer­ck­'s stan­dard com­bo for Parkin­son’s

Intec Pharma’s $NTEC lead drug slammed into a brick wall Monday morning. The small-cap Israeli biotech reported that its lead program — coming off a platform designed to produce a safer, more effective oral drug for Parkinson’s — failed the Phase III at the primary endpoint.

Researchers at Intec, which has already seen its share price collapse over the past few months, says that its Accordion Pill-Carbidopa/Levodopa failed to prove superior to Sinemet in reducing daily ‘off’ time. 

Cel­gene racks up third Ote­zla ap­proval, heat­ing up talks about who Bris­tol-My­ers will sell to

Whoever is taking Otezla off Bristol-Myers Squibb’s hands will have one more revenue stream to boast.

The drug — a rising star in Celgene’s pipeline that generated global sales of $1.6 billion last year — is now OK’d to treat oral ulcers associated with Behçet’s disease, a common symptom for a rare inflammatory disorder. This marks the third FDA approval for the PDE4 inhibitor since 2014, when it was greenlighted for plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ 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 55,200+ 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 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vlad Coric (Biohaven)

In an­oth­er dis­ap­point­ment for in­vestors, FDA slaps down Bio­haven’s re­vised ver­sion of an old ALS drug

Biohaven is at risk of making a habit of disappointing its investors.

Late Friday the biotech $BHVN reported that the FDA had rejected its application for riluzole, an old drug that they had made over into a sublingual formulation that dissolves under the tongue. According to Biohaven, the FDA had a problem with the active ingredient used in a bioequivalence study back in 2017, which they got from the Canadian drugmaker Apotex.

Apotex, though, has been a disaster ground. The manufacturer voluntarily yanked the ANDAs on 31 drugs — in late 2017 — after the FDA came across serious manufacturing deficiencies at their plants in India. A few days ago, the FDA made it official.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ 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.