FDA ex­perts turn thumbs down on Karyopharm’s trou­bled pitch for an ac­cel­er­at­ed OK — but not all of them

The Karyopharm team $KP­TI took on a tough chal­lenge on Tues­day, try­ing to over­come an over­whelm­ing­ly crit­i­cal re­view by FDA reg­u­la­tors in win­ning over a pan­el of out­side ex­perts brought in to re­view their pitch for an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval of se­linex­or for mul­ti­ple myelo­ma.

They lost, but nev­er­the­less found con­sid­er­able sup­port for this drug among the pan­elists.

The pan­el vot­ed 8 to 5 against an ap­proval, say­ing af­fir­ma­tive­ly that the FDA should take a wait-and-see at­ti­tude un­til the ran­dom­ized piv­otal study wraps to­ward the end of the year.

Karyopharm’s stock — bat­tered last Fri­day — took an­oth­er tum­ble af­ter the bell, drop­ping 19%.

FDA rep­re­sen­ta­tives were po­lite about it, but out­lined mul­ti­ple prob­lems with the da­ta that Karyopharm pre­sent­ed: Miss­ing da­ta due to dropouts, un­ac­cept­able re­al world ev­i­dence, an ab­sence of ev­i­dence of pos­i­tive sin­gle agent ac­tiv­i­ty (there are neg­a­tive re­sults), most­ly par­tial re­spons­es and much, much more — all in­for­ma­tion that the biotech failed to spot­light in the lead-up to the NDA. In one study the FDA cit­ed, the over­all sur­vival rate was worse in the se­linex­or arm.

Then there was the tox­i­c­i­ty pro­file, with a high fre­quen­cy of treat­ment emer­gent ad­verse events among pa­tients tak­ing the drug. The agency cit­ed a 94% rate of grade 3 or grade 4 ad­verse event. 10 deaths were due to a fa­tal ad­verse event in the main sin­gle arm study used for the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval. And 9 in 10 pa­tients re­quired a dose mod­i­fi­ca­tion, with a ma­jor­i­ty re­quir­ing 2 mod­i­fi­ca­tions.

Giv­en the lim­it­ed ef­fi­ca­cy and tox­i­c­i­ty, the FDA as­sert­ed, “it is un­clear whether the ben­e­fit out­weighs the risk.” 

That’s not some­thing you want to hear in a pan­el re­view.

Mean­while, a piv­otal tri­al is un­der­way, and if a pa­tient de­mand­ed it, there are av­enues that pa­tients could use to get the drug with­out an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval.

The FDA’s on­col­o­gy pan­el is not a tough group, on av­er­age, to win over. There’s a big ap­petite for new drugs to treat can­cer pa­tients who have failed mul­ti­ple ther­a­pies, and a low bar on safe­ty. Not get­ting past that at this stage will like­ly set the bar high­er for when Karyopharm comes back with their piv­otal da­ta — pro­vid­ed that the agency goes ahead and re­jects it, as they have clear­ly in­di­cat­ed that they plan to.

The sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of votes in Karyopharm’s fa­vor, de­spite the FDA’s po­si­tion, does un­der­score just how anx­ious many of these ex­perts are about of­fer­ing ear­ly ap­provals, even when mul­ti­ple drugs are ap­proved for the same in­di­ca­tion. The bias is in fa­vor of more op­tions, which was clear­ly on dis­play here.

Dana Far­ber’s David Har­ring­ton joined the mi­nor­i­ty in fa­vor of pro­vid­ing an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval. “The da­ta are not con­clu­sive in ei­ther di­rec­tion,” he said, but…”I think we do pa­tients some po­ten­tial ben­e­fit if this is used con­struc­tive­ly.”

Just a slight nudge in its fa­vor from reg­u­la­tors may well have been enough to win an ap­proval, de­spite the tri­al is­sues. And that once again gets back to whether the de­vel­op­ers have a close work­ing re­la­tion­ship with the agency.

The biotech’s case wasn’t good enough, though, with the ma­jor­i­ty sid­ing with the reg­u­la­tors who have the fi­nal say now. Tox­i­c­i­ty was a ma­jor is­sue with the ex­perts who sided against a quick OK.

At best, Karyopharm like­ly faces a lengthy de­lay re­fil­ing an NDA. And that is if the Phase III da­ta are pos­i­tive.

RWE chal­lenges for to­day's bio­phar­ma

The rapid development of technology — and the resulting avalanche of data — are catalysts for significant change in the biopharmaceutical industry. This translates into urgent pressures for today’s biopharma, including a need to quickly and affordably develop products with proven therapeutic efficacy and value. This urgency is expedited by the growth of value-based contracting, where access to reimbursement and profit depends on these abilities.

UP­DAT­ED: In a stun­ning turn­around, Bio­gen says that ad­u­canum­ab does work for Alzheimer's — but da­ta min­ing in­cites con­tro­ver­sy and ques­tions

Biogen has confounded the biotech world one more time.

In a stunning about-face, the company and its partners at Eisai say that a new analysis of a larger dataset on aducanumab has restored its faith in the drug as a game-changer for Alzheimer’s and, after talking it over with the FDA, they’ll now be filing for an approval of a drug that had been given up for dead.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 63,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As shares suf­fer from a lin­ger­ing slump, a bruised Alk­er­mes slash­es 160 jobs in R&D re­struc­tur­ing

With its share price in a deep slump after suffering through a regulatory debacle over their depression drug ALKS 5461, Alkermes CEO Richard Pops is taking the ax to its R&D organization in a restructuring aimed at cutting costs ahead of its next attempt at a rollout in a tough field.

Richard Pops, Endpoints via Youtube

Click on the image to see the full-sized version

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 63,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Acor­da's Ron Co­hen brings the ax back out as new drug sales on­ly trick­le in while cash cow is led to the slaugh­ter

With its new drug earning meager sums and its one-time cash cow reduced to a bony shadow of its former self, Acorda Therapeutics today is rolling out a new restructuring aimed at slashing the staff and cutting costs to get through the hard times ahead.

The biotech is chopping a quarter of its staff today, carving back R&D as well as SG&A expenses. And CEO Ron Cohen is cutting deep.

Under the new austerity budget, Acorda’s R&D expenses for the full year 2019 are expected to be $55 – $60 million, reduced from $70 – $80 million. SG&A expenses for the full year 2019 are expected to be $185 – $190 million, reduced from $200 – $210 million. R&D expenses for the full year 2020 are expected to be $20 – $25 million and SG&A
expenses for the full year 2020 are expected to be $160 – $165 million.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 63,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

RAPT Ther­a­peu­tics re­turns to Wall Street to re­vive IPO bid

On May 24, FLX Bio, a small cancer and inflammation biotech with backing from GV, changed its name to RAPT Therapeutics and filed confidentially for an IPO. On July 5th, they filed to raise up to $86 million. On July 22, they announced the IPO with a $75 million goal.  And on August 1, they abruptly and without explanation called it all off.

Now, without explanation, they’re reviving the bid, filing again for a $75 million IPO, this time with a new bookrunner and a new drug candidate in the clinic. The terms will be the same: 5 million shares at $14-$16 per share. It would give them a diluted market value of $351 million.

EY vet set to re­place re­tir­ing Am­gen CFO Meline

Ahead of its third-quarter results next week, Amgen on Tuesday disclosed the planned retirement of David Meline, who has served as the company’s chief financial officer since 2014.

Meline will be replaced by Ernst & Young vet, Peter Griffith, as CFO come January 1, 2020 — but until then Griffith will serve as executive vice president, finance.

“Over the last 5 years at Amgen, Meline instituted many major changes that led to operational efficiencies and margin expansion while successfully returning cash to shareholders. Now that Amgen is on solid footing, it was a good time to step away,” Cowen’s Yaron Werber wrote in a note. “We do not anticipate any major changes to strategy or operations immediately due to this transition as Amgen is on solid footing.”

Eli Lil­ly’s USA, di­a­betes chief En­rique Con­ter­no is head­ing out af­ter 27 years, and he’s be­ing re­placed by a com­pa­ny in­sid­er

Close to 3 years after Eli Lilly CEO Dave Ricks added the title of president of the US operations to Enrique Conterno’s resume, which included his helmsmanship of the diabetes franchise, the Peruvian born exec is set to retire after a 27-year run at the pharma giant.

Lilly put out the news just as it was posting Q3 results, with a mix of upbeat and downbeat results in the latest set of numbers from Lilly.
Conterno — a grizzled, deeply experienced and sometimes gruff veteran of the pharma world — was a high-profile figure at Lilly, stepping up to expanded duties as the company was forced to deal with intense pricing pressure on the diabetes side of the business. He had replaced outgoing US president Alex Azar, who later popped up as head of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration.
As head of the diabetes unit, Conterno had to deal with an extraordinarily competitive field as payers demanded bigger discounts. Trulicity’s success helped generate new revenue for the company, but Q3’s miss on revenue had a lot to do with the need for discounting the drug ahead of Novo Nordisk’s rival therapy, Rybelsus, which was priced on the wholesale level at an almost identical rate.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 63,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis hands off $80M in cash to part­ner up with a top biotech play­er in the fi­bro­sis sec­tor

Never underestimate the power of a good showing at a scientific conference.
In a presentation late last year, the researchers at Pliant Therapeutics launched a series of discussions about the preclinical data they were pulling together around their work on their small-molecule integrin inhibitor aimed at transforming growth factor beta, or TGF-β, a key pathway involved in fibrosis.
And they got some serious attention for the work.
“We got interest from pharma partners and at the end Novartis basically made it,” says Pliant CEO Bernard Coulie.

Is there a recipe for M&A suc­cess? The best and worst buy­out deals in the past decade of­fer some keys to suc­cess — and fail­ure

It’s not easy achieving a solid win in M&A in this industry. But if you follow a few simple guidelines, you may be able to increase your odds of success.
Geoffrey Porges and the team at SVB Leerink went about the “notoriously difficult” task of scoring the biopharma buyout of 2009 to 2019. Sizing up current and expected revenue from the products that were gained, they came up with the 5 winners:
Merck/Schering Plough
Bristol/Medarex
Gilead/Pharmasset
Sanofi/Genzyme
AstraZeneca/Acerta
It says a lot about the field that it’s much easier sorting out the 5 worst deals, though there’s also a lot more competition for that title, notes Porges. As picked by the analysts:
J&J/Actelion
Merck/Cubist
Alexion/Synageva
AbbVie/Stemcentrx
Gilead/Kite

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 63,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.