FDA launch­es crim­i­nal probe in­to unau­tho­rized her­pes vac­cine R&D backed by Pe­ter Thiel

The Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion has launched a crim­i­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to re­search by a South­ern Illi­nois Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor who in­ject­ed peo­ple with his unau­tho­rized her­pes vac­cine, Kaiser Health News has learned.

SIU pro­fes­sor William Hal­ford, who died in June, in­ject­ed par­tic­i­pants with his ex­per­i­men­tal her­pes vac­cine in St. Kitts and Nevis in 2016 and in Illi­nois ho­tel rooms in 2013 with­out safe­ty over­sight that is rou­tine­ly per­formed by the FDA or an in­sti­tu­tion­al re­view board.

Ac­cord­ing to four peo­ple with knowl­edge about the in­quiry, the FDA’s Of­fice of Crim­i­nal In­ves­ti­ga­tions is look­ing in­to whether any­one from SIU or Hal­ford’s for­mer com­pa­ny, Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines, vi­o­lat­ed FDA reg­u­la­tions by help­ing Hal­ford con­duct unau­tho­rized re­search. The probe is al­so look­ing at any­one else out­side the com­pa­ny or uni­ver­si­ty who might have been com­plic­it, ac­cord­ing to the sources who asked not to be iden­ti­fied be­cause of the sen­si­tiv­i­ty of the mat­ter.

The FDA rarely pros­e­cutes re­search vi­o­la­tions, usu­al­ly choos­ing to ad­min­is­tra­tive­ly sanc­tion or ban re­searchers or com­pa­nies from fu­ture clin­i­cal tri­als, le­gal ex­perts said. Even so, the agency is em­pow­ered to pur­sue as a crime the unau­tho­rized de­vel­op­ment of vac­cines and drugs — and some­times goes af­ter such cas­es to send a mes­sage.

In this case, hu­man-sub­ject vi­o­la­tions would be deemed es­pe­cial­ly se­ri­ous giv­en Hal­ford was not a med­ical doc­tor and had in­ject­ed peo­ple with his ex­per­i­men­tal vac­cine with­out any rou­tine over­sight, ex­perts said.

“Since the re­search ap­pears to be an ef­fort to to­tal­ly evade FDA over­sight and is egre­gious, it makes sense the FDA would in­ves­ti­gate it as a crim­i­nal mat­ter,” said Pa­tri­cia Zettler, a for­mer FDA lawyer who was told of the crim­i­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion by KHN. “There is a de­ter­rent ef­fect for oth­ers who might con­sid­er this a very brazen way to get out of hu­man sub­ject and FDA re­quire­ments.”

The FDA de­clined to com­ment. Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines did not re­spond to re­quests for com­ment. An SIU spokes­woman said, with­out elab­o­ra­tion, “The gov­ern­ment is in­ves­ti­gat­ing and we are co­op­er­at­ing.”

Any re­sult­ing crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion from the in­ves­ti­ga­tion could have po­lit­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions.

Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines was co-found­ed with Hol­ly­wood film­mak­er Agustín Fer­nán­dez III and the com­pa­ny re­ceived mil­lions of dol­lars in pri­vate in­vest­ment from in­vestors af­ter the Caribbean tri­al, in­clud­ing from bil­lion­aire Pe­ter Thiel.

Thiel, who for months has re­fused to re­spond to ques­tions from KHN, con­tributed to Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s cam­paign and is a high-pro­file crit­ic of the FDA. Thiel is part of a larg­er lib­er­tar­i­an move­ment to roll back FDA reg­u­la­tions to speed up med­ical in­no­va­tion.

The sources fa­mil­iar with the in­quiry said the FDA’s Of­fice of Crim­i­nal In­ves­ti­ga­tions, which has dozens of of­fices across the coun­try, be­gan to ag­gres­sive­ly pur­sue the case weeks ago.

The in­ves­ti­ga­tors have in­ter­viewed wit­ness­es across the coun­try, ask­ing them to iden­ti­fy Hal­ford’s as­so­ciates, and have de­scribed his ac­tions as pos­si­ble vi­o­la­tions of hu­man-sub­ject guide­lines and of FDA reg­u­la­tions, the sources told KHN.

The in­ves­ti­ga­tors al­so have ex­pressed in­ter­est in whether Hal­ford’s for­mer as­so­ciates at the uni­ver­si­ty or oth­er re­searchers and med­ical pro­fes­sion­als out­side the uni­ver­si­ty might have helped or known about his con­duct, the sources said. They al­so have raised ques­tions about the com­pa­ny’s knowl­edge of the vi­o­la­tions.

Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines helped over­see the Caribbean tri­al, but the 2013 ho­tel in­jec­tions took place be­fore the com­pa­ny was formed.

Un­der a Supreme Court rul­ing, a cor­po­rate of­fi­cial may be pros­e­cut­ed for a crim­i­nal mis­de­meanor of­fense un­der the Fed­er­al Food, Drug and Cos­met­ic Act even with­out proof that the of­fi­cial act­ed with in­tent or ac­tu­al knowl­edge of the of­fense.

Ini­tial­ly, uni­ver­si­ty of­fi­cials and Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines pub­licly de­fend­ed Hal­ford’s re­search. Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines has said it con­sid­ered the 2016 tri­al a suc­cess — though it is un­clear what da­ta it used to sup­port that claim.

Af­ter KHN’s in­ves­ti­ga­tion re­vealed that Hal­ford in­ject­ed peo­ple in the Unit­ed States, not just in the Caribbean, Ra­tio­nal Vac­cines took down its web­site, al­though it had vowed to con­tin­ue re­search.

SIU, a state uni­ver­si­ty with a med­ical school in Spring­field, IL, ini­tial­ly said it bore no re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for the ex­per­i­ments be­cause Hal­ford con­duct­ed the re­search in­de­pen­dent­ly and over­seas.

Af­ter Kaiser Health News raised ques­tions about Hal­ford’s prac­tices, the De­part­ment of Health and Hu­man Ser­vices asked the uni­ver­si­ty to de­ter­mine whether his ac­tiv­i­ties vi­o­lat­ed the in­sti­tu­tion’s pledge to HHS to fol­low hu­man-sub­ject safe­ty pro­to­cols for all re­search. SIU’s med­ical school re­ceives about $9 mil­lion a year in fed­er­al re­search dol­lars.

SIU has since ac­knowl­edged that Hal­ford’s con­duct vi­o­lat­ed uni­ver­si­ty rules and US laws. Uni­ver­si­ty of­fi­cials have de­nied know­ing about his mis­con­duct, an as­ser­tion that FDA in­ves­ti­ga­tors are still prob­ing, the sources said.

Hal­ford’s ac­tions al­ready raised un­usu­al le­gal ques­tions be­cause the FDA would not or­di­nar­i­ly have ju­ris­dic­tion over clin­i­cal tri­als when they oc­cur over­seas and the re­searchers have not sought FDA ap­proval.

It’s al­so un­clear where Hal­ford man­u­fac­tured the vac­cine.

If it was man­u­fac­tured in the Unit­ed States, the FDA like­ly has ju­ris­dic­tion, said Zettler, a law pro­fes­sor at Geor­gia State Uni­ver­si­ty.

The OCI of­ten goes af­ter such cas­es of con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed food, coun­ter­feit or off-la­bel phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals. The of­fice was cre­at­ed in the wake of a 1988 scan­dal in which phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal ex­ec­u­tives bribed FDA of­fi­cials in ex­change for speed­ing up gener­ic drug ap­provals.

While rare, the OCI oc­ca­sion­al­ly pur­sues re­search abus­es as a crime. A Glax­o­SmithK­line re­searcher, for in­stance, plead­ed guilty in 2010 to charges re­lat­ed to her fab­ri­ca­tion of da­ta in a study of chil­dren tak­ing the an­ti­de­pres­sant Pax­il. Glax­o­SmithK­line lat­er agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 bil­lion to re­solve its crim­i­nal and civ­il li­a­bil­i­ty in the case.

By Marisa Tay­lor. Orig­i­nal­ly post­ed at Kaiser Health News, a na­tion­al health pol­i­cy news ser­vice that is part of the non­par­ti­san Hen­ry J Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion.

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

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).

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

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.

Aymeric Le Chatelier, Ipsen

A $1B-plus drug stum­bles in­to an­oth­er big PhI­II set­back -- this time flunk­ing fu­til­i­ty test -- as FDA hold re­mains in ef­fect for Ipsen

David Meek

At the time Ipsen stepped up last year with more than a billion dollars in cash to buy Clementia and a late-stage program for a rare bone disease that afflicts children, then CEO David Meek was confident that he had put the French biotech on a short path to a mid-2020 launch.

Instead of prepping a launch, though, the company was hit with a hold on the FDA’s concerns that a therapy designed to prevent overgrowth of bone for cases of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva might actually stunt children’s growth. So they ordered a halt to any treatments for kids 14 and under. Meek left soon after to run a startup in Boston. And today the Paris-based biotech is grappling with the independent monitoring committee’s decision that their Phase III had failed a futility test.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche's check­point play­er Tecen­triq flops in an­oth­er blad­der can­cer sub­set

Just weeks after Merck’s star checkpoint inhibitor Keytruda secured FDA approval for a subset of bladder cancer patients, Swiss competitor Roche’s Tecentriq has failed in a pivotal bladder cancer study.

The 809-patient trial — IMvigor010 — tested the PD-L1 drug in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (MIUC) who had undergone surgery, and were at high risk for recurrence.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead claims Tru­va­da patents in HHS’ com­plaint are in­valid

Back in November, the Department of Health and Human Services took the rare step of filing a complaint against Gilead for infringing on government-owned patents related to the HIV drug Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

But on Thursday, Gilead filed its own retort, making clear that it does not believe it has infringed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Truvada patents because they are invalid.

Gilead dusts off a failed Ebo­la drug as coro­n­avirus spreads; Ex­elix­is boasts pos­i­tive Ph I/II da­ta

→ Less than a year ago Gilead’s antiviral remdesivir failed to make the cut as investigators considered a raft of potential drugs that could be used against an Ebola outbreak. But it may gain a new mission with the outbreak of the coronavirus in China, which is popping up now around the world.

Gilead put out a statement saying that they’re now in discussions with health officials in the US and China about testing their NUC against the virus. It’s the latest in a growing lineup of biopharma companies that are marshaling R&D forces to see if they can come up with a vaccine or therapy to blunt the spread of the virus, which has now sickened hundreds, killed at least 17 people and led the Chinese government to start quarantining cities.

Alex Karnal (Deerfield)

Deer­field vaults to the top of cell and gene ther­a­py CD­MO game with $1.1B fa­cil­i­ty at Philadel­phi­a's newest bio­phar­ma hub

Back at the beginning of 2015, Deerfield Management co-led a $10 million Series C for a private gene therapy startup, reshaping the company and bringing in new leaders to pave way for an IPO just a year later.

Fast forward four more years and the startup, AveXis, is now a subsidiary of Novartis marketing the second-ever gene therapy to be approved in the US.

For its part, Deerfield has also grown more comfortable and ambitious about the nascent field. And the investment firm is now putting down its biggest bet yet: a $1.1 billion contract development and manufacturing facility to produce everything one needs for cell and gene therapy — faster and better than how it’s currently done.

Tri­fec­ta of sick­le cell dis­ease ther­a­pies ex­tend life ex­pectan­cy, but are not cost-ef­fec­tive — ICER

Different therapeutic traits brandished by the three approved therapies for sickle cell disease all extend life expectancy, but their impact on quality of life is uncertain and their long-term cost-effectiveness is not up to scratch according to the thresholds considered reasonable by ICER, the non-profit concluded in a draft guidance report on Thursday.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), which encompasses a group of inherited red blood cell disorders that typically afflict those of African ancestry, impacts hemoglobin — and is characterized by episodes of searing pain as well as organ damage.