Eli Lil­ly has suf­fered through the biggest set­backs in late-stage drug de­vel­op­ment work for Alzheimer’s — pil­ing up high-pro­file fail­ures for sema­gace­s­tat, solanezum­ab and just months ago lan­abece­s­tat af­ter it be­came ap­par­ent that the BACE ap­proach was a non-starter in symp­to­matic pa­tients. To­day, it’s sig­nal­ing that the com­pa­ny is now ready to fold their hand ear­ly if it doesn’t look like they have a rea­son­able chance to go on to win the pot.

Out in the quar­ter­ly cleanup went a Phase II BACE com­bo in­clud­ing an an­ti­body for N3PG. And the com­pa­ny al­so axed what was termed an SEL BACE 1 Phase I study. N3PG will con­tin­ue on its own.

“There are many vari­abil­i­ties at play with the BACE class and re­cent find­ings from Lil­ly and oth­ers have chal­lenged the BACE hy­poth­e­sis,” notes a spokesper­son from Eli Lil­ly in an email fol­lowup with me. “As a field we are still eval­u­at­ing the class and will con­tin­ue to have ro­bust sci­en­tif­ic dis­cus­sions about its vi­a­bil­i­ty.”

Mer­ck dealt a de­ci­sive blow to BACE with back-to-back Phase III stud­ies in which the drug did what was ex­pect­ed in terms of turn­ing the tap off on amy­loid be­ta, the long­time cul­prit for a dis­ease that wipes out mem­o­ry. With clear ev­i­dence that the strat­e­gy is a non-starter, Lil­ly and its part­ners at As­traZeneca agreed to kill off their late-stage pro­gram for lan­abece­s­tat af­ter re­view­ing the re­sults to date.

But BACE isn’t quite fin­ished yet. 

Back in ear­ly June, Ei­sai and Bio­gen claimed a sig­nif­i­cant suc­cess for their BACE drug, elen­be­ce­s­tat. But while the bio­mark­er for amy­loid be­ta re­duc­tion was hit, the re­searchers failed to see a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant im­prove­ment in the de­cline of cog­ni­tion. That didn’t stop them from main­tain­ing that they had tracked a re­sponse “sug­gest­ing a de­lay of clin­i­cal symp­tom de­cline in ex­plorato­ry end­points.”

It wasn’t ex­act­ly a big win, rais­ing fresh doubts for two com­pa­nies that con­tin­ue to have a big stake in the amy­loid be­ta the­o­ry.

Ei­sai and Bio­gen have had their hands full de­fend­ing their da­ta on a dif­fer­ent drug, BAN2401, af­ter a change­up in the study de­sign drew a host of crit­ics sug­gest­ing that they had tilt­ed the tri­al to­ward a pos­i­tive out­come. And the crit­ics haven’t backed off af­ter a re­cent at­tempt to de­fend those re­sults.

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Every few years, a public health crisis (think Ebola, Zika) spurred by a rogue pathogen triggers a small-biotech rally, as drugmakers emerge from the woodwork with ambitious plans to treat the mounting outbreak. In most cases, that enthusiasm never quite delivers.

Things are no different, as the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China takes hold. There have been close to 300 confirmed human infections in China, and at least four deaths. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, which include MERS and SARS. On Tuesday, the CDC reported the virus was detected in a US traveler returning from Wuhan.

Update: Nominations open through end of day, Monday, January 27

Two years ago, when we did our first Endpoints 20-under-40, we profiled a set of up-and-comers who promised to help reshape the industry as we know it. Now we’re back and once again looking for the top 20 biopharma professionals under the age of 40. We’ll be profiling folks who have accomplished a lot at a young age but seem on the verge of accomplishing so much more.

The venture tide might have subsided, the IPO window may be closing and certain listed biotechs may be having a tough time amid Neil Woodford’s well-publicized demised, but there’s still plenty to celebrate in the UK BioIndustry Association’s eyes.

Overall investment in UK biotech last year fell from the record-breaking £2.2 billion levels of 2018 to £1.3 billion — including £679 million in venture capital, a meager £64 million in IPOs plus £596 million when you add up all public financings, according to a new report from the BIA.

→ Blueprint Medicines filed an amendment to its application to get the gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) drug Ayvakit approved in fourth-line GIST, the company disclosed in the prospectus for a new $325 million public offering.  Blueprint got a big accelerated OK on the drug this month in a particular mutation, but because the FDA decided to split their review in two, they didn’t hear on fourth-line GIST. They were supposed to hear before February 14, but this amendment could push that date back by 3 months. Blueprint wrote that the amendment is designed to allow the company to comply with the FDA’s request for data from the Phase III VOYAGER before they give a judgment.