FDA com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb just broke a pub­lic promise on pub­lish­ing CRLs — and yes, it mat­ters

Scott Got­tlieb

In his tes­ti­mo­ny to the US Sen­ate dur­ing his con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings to lead the FDA, Scott Got­tlieb clear­ly enun­ci­at­ed his po­si­tion on pub­lish­ing the com­plete re­sponse let­ters the FDA sends to bio­phar­mas when reg­u­la­tors re­ject their new drug ap­pli­ca­tions.

Vow­ing to achieve greater trans­paren­cy, Got­tlieb promised to open up more. He wrote: “This in­cludes the com­plete re­sponse let­ters, af­ter prop­er redac­tion of com­mer­cial con­fi­den­tial in­for­ma­tion.”

To­day, af­ter hint­ing at it in a few in­ter­views, Got­tlieb sub­stan­tial­ly re­neged on that promise. In­stead of pub­lish­ing redact­ed CRLs, the com­mis­sion­er now says that he may be will­ing to pub­lish pieces of some of the re­jec­tion no­tices — pro­vid­ed it serves what the agency deems is a need to pro­vide in­for­ma­tion rel­a­tive to pub­lic health con­cerns.

In an ad­dress this morn­ing iron­i­cal­ly ti­tled “Fos­ter­ing Trans­paren­cy to Im­prove Pub­lic Health,” Got­tlieb now has this to say on CRLs:

Re­leas­ing all the CRLs would be ad­min­is­tra­tive­ly bur­den­some, giv­en the like­li­hood we would con­tin­ue to redact cer­tain pro­pri­etary in­for­ma­tion from these let­ters. And not all the let­ters have in­for­ma­tion that would di­rect­ly in­form clin­i­cal prac­tice. For ex­am­ple, many let­ters pri­mar­i­ly re­late to man­u­fac­tur­ing short­com­ings with new drug ap­pli­ca­tions that are even­tu­al­ly re­solved.

But some of the let­ters do con­tain in­for­ma­tion that could be di­rect­ly rel­e­vant to pa­tients. We’re eval­u­at­ing whether there is a sub­set of the com­plete re­sponse let­ters where there are es­pe­cial­ly im­por­tant pub­lic health rea­sons to redact and re­lease these let­ters. For ex­am­ple, let­ters that have safe­ty-re­lat­ed find­ings or rec­om­men­da­tions that could help in­form pa­tients and providers about the pro­file of al­ready-mar­ket­ed prod­ucts. Re­leas­ing this in­for­ma­tion could en­hance pa­tient safe­ty, by re­duc­ing the num­ber of po­ten­tial­ly fu­tile tri­als, and spare pa­tients ex­po­sure to po­ten­tial risks with­out the prospect of a like­ly ben­e­fit. It can al­so help bet­ter in­form clin­i­cal prac­tice.

So the FDA, at a time when there are grow­ing con­cerns that po­lit­i­cal in­flu­ence could be shap­ing the agency’s de­ci­sions, now wants to be left in charge of de­cid­ing what is an im­por­tant pub­lic health rea­son and what isn’t.

And why did Got­tlieb re­treat now? What changed his mind?

Trans­paren­cy at the FDA is a pre­cious com­mod­i­ty, rarely found and of­ten bad­ly ne­glect­ed. Why don’t we let the peo­ple de­cide for them­selves what is im­por­tant and what is not in a CRL? If it’s a rou­tine mat­ter that can be eas­i­ly re­solved, then it should be a boon to the com­pa­ny in­volved to have that re­leased. If the com­pa­ny screwed up their da­ta, can’t prove ef­fi­ca­cy or raise unan­swered safe­ty is­sues, re­gard­less of what­ev­er class of drugs — on or off the mar­ket — this could re­late to, the pub­lic has a right to know.

Aside from in­form­ing the pub­lic about this process, re­searchers at the NIH, in acad­e­mia and com­pa­nies work­ing in drug de­vel­op­ment all have their own need to see be­hind the veil.

Every­one has a clear right to what Got­tlieb promised to win Sen­ate sup­port — which on­ly re­peat­ed his ear­li­er state­ments sup­port­ing the pub­li­ca­tion of CRLs. It’s all a pub­lic health is­sue, and com­pa­nies will be­have bet­ter if they know their own worst mis­steps will be a mat­ter of pub­lic record.

Too bur­den­some? Then pub­lish with­out a redac­tion. Prob­lem solved. Bur­den lift­ed. Or just try and match the greater trans­paren­cy achieved in Eu­rope, where no great hur­dles had to be over­come.

As of now, the FDA has re­versed it­self on three CRLs since Got­tlieb took the head of­fice at the FDA. We don’t know for cer­tain what prompt­ed the CRLs, we don’t know why the FDA changed its mind — though we do know that at least one of the com­pa­nies was will­ing to lob­by se­nior of­fi­cials at the agency with a case that it nev­er went pub­lic with.

That’s the op­po­site of trans­paren­cy.

As of now, this is the first promise Got­tlieb has clear­ly bro­ken.

Michel Younatsos, Biogen CEO (via YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Bio­gen scores a pri­or­i­ty re­view for its Alzheimer's drug ad­u­canum­ab, mov­ing one gi­ant leap for­ward in its con­tro­ver­sial quest

Biogen scored a big win at the FDA today as regulators accepted their application for the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab and gave it a priority review.

The PDUFA date is March 7, 2021.

Significantly, Biogen says it did not use its priority review voucher to win special treatment at the FDA. The agency handed that out gratis.

That’s the ideal scenario Biogen was looking for as disappointed analysts wondered aloud about the delayed application earlier in the year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ryan Watts, Denali CEO

Bio­gen hands De­nali $1B-plus in cash, $1B-plus in mile­stones to part­ner on late-stage Parkin­son’s drug

Biogen is handing over more than a billion dollars cash to partner with the up-and-coming neurosciences crew at Denali on a new therapy for Parkinson’s. And the big biotech is ready to pile on more than a billion dollars more in milestones — if the alliance is a success.

For Biogen $BIIB, the move on Denali’s small molecule inhibitors of LRRK2 puts them in line to collaborate on a late-stage program for DNL151, which is scheduled to start next year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

President Trump (AP Images)

FDA takes the lead on defin­ing es­sen­tial un­der Trump's 'Buy Amer­i­can' ex­ec­u­tive or­der — as in­dus­try warns of sup­ply chain dis­rup­tion

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order detailing how the federal government should help on-shore drug manufacturing — and the FDA will play a central role.

The agency now has three months to draw up the list of “essential medicines, medical countermeasures, and their critical inputs” that the US must have available at all times. Various departments and agencies are then directed to buy these drugs and their ingredients from American manufacturers.

Covid-19 roundup: No­vavax inks vac­cine deals with Japan and In­dia; As­traZeneca near­ing agree­ments with Japan and Brazil

Following the release this week of promising early data for their Covid-19 vaccine candidate, Novavax has announced collaborations to supply it to two countries — Japan and India.

The Maryland-based biotech announced a deal Friday morning with Takeda to develop and manufacture up to 250 million doses per year of its adjuvanted vaccine. And late Thursday afternoon, Novavax entered into an agreement with the Serum Institute of India to provide up to 1 billion doses to India and low- and middle-income countries.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

President Trump speaks with members of the media before boarding Marine One (AP Images)

'Oc­to­ber is com­ing,' and every­one still wants to know if a Covid-19 vac­cine will be whisked through the FDA ahead of the elec­tion

Right on the heels of a lengthy assurance from FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn that the agency will not rush through a quick approval for a Covid-19 vaccine, the President of the United States has some thoughts on timing he’d like to share.

In an exchange with Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera on Thursday, President Trump allowed that a vaccine could be ready to roll “sooner than the end of the year, could be much sooner.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

In sur­pris­ing set­back, com­bo of Roche’s Tecen­triq and chemo fails to help pa­tients with triple-neg­a­tive breast can­cer

Roche broke ground last year when they secured the first FDA approval for a checkpoint therapy in triple-negative breast cancer, a notoriously difficult-to-treat indication that has been passed over by the wave of targeted therapies.

Now, though, doctors are puzzling over why a combination of drugs meant to make that therapy more potent instead appeared to make it less effective.

Roche said Thursday that in a Phase III trial, combining their PD-1/L1 checkpoint therapy Tecentriq with the chemotherapy paclitaxel, did not significantly improve progression-free survival for patients with locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer over giving those patients chemotherapy alone. In fact, patients on the Tecentriq-chemo arm had lower overall survival than patients on chemo, although the drugmaker cautioned that the trial was not powered for that endpoint and the data were immature.

Donald Trump, AP

Trump reach­es for his pen as long-await­ed ex­ec­u­tive or­der on drug man­u­fac­tur­ing on-shoring fi­nal­ly ar­rives — re­ports

President Trump will sign a long-rumored executive order later today that is designed to spur more made-in-the-USA therapies, according to a slate of new reports out Thursday morning.

Drug manufacturing circles have been buzzing about this EO for months now, wondering how Trump plans to require the on-shoring of certain therapies.

According to the Bloomberg report, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told reporters that the administration will come up with a list of essential medicines Trump wants to have made inside the US. The order will direct government purchasers to buy these essential meds from US suppliers. The reports add that the order relaxes drug safety and environmental regulations to make it happen.

Yvonne Greenstreet, incoming Alnylam president (Alnylam)

Al­ny­lam pres­i­dent Bar­ry Greene leaves af­ter 17 years, hand­ing po­si­tion over to Yvonne Green­street as biotech looks to­ward prof­itabil­i­ty

After 17 years helping Alnylam steer control of buzzy but unproven science they promised could change medicine, president Barry Greene is leaving the RNAi biotech just as that technology is beginning to hit prime time.

Leaving to “pursue outside interests in the biopharmaceutical industry,” the longtime executive will hand over the reins on October 1 to current COO Yvonne Greenstreet. Greenstreet, a former Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline executive, inherits the high-profile spot at a company that’s proven its tech can work in rare diseases but now faces the daunting task of turning a couple successes and a new mountain of cash into drugs that are broadly applicable and, crucially, profitable.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: No­vavax her­alds the lat­est pos­i­tive snap­shot of ear­ly-stage Covid-19 vac­cine — so why did its stock briefly crater?

High-flying Novavax $NVAX became the latest of the Covid-19 vaccine players to stake out a positive set of biomarker data from its early-stage look at its vaccine in humans.

Their adjuvanted Covid-19 vaccine was “well-tolerated and elicited robust antibody responses numerically superior to that seen in human convalescent sera,” the company noted. According to the biotech:

All subjects developed anti-spike IgG antibodies after a single dose of vaccine, many of them also developing wild-type virus neutralizing antibody responses, and after Dose 2, 100% of participants developed wild-type virus neutralizing antibody responses. Both anti-spike IgG and viral neutralization responses compared favorably to responses from patients with clinically significant COVID‑19 disease. Importantly, the IgG antibody response was highly correlated with neutralization titers, demonstrating that a significant proportion of antibodies were functional.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.