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.

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 55,100+ 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 55,100+ 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 55,100+ 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 55,100+ 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 55,100+ 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.