FDA of­fi­cials, ex­perts dis­cuss im­pact of Covid-19 on cell and gene ther­a­pies

While the FDA is still re­ceiv­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al new drug ap­pli­ca­tions (INDs) for cell and gene ther­a­pies, of­fi­cials are con­cerned about the im­pact of the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic on clin­i­cal tri­als.

Pe­ter Marks

“It’s clear that COVID-19 has ad­verse­ly af­fect­ed all as­pects of de­vel­op­ment of cell and gene ther­a­pies,” said CBER di­rec­tor Pe­ter Marks at the Al­liance for Re­gen­er­a­tive Med­i­cine’s Meet­ing on the Mesa. “For some of the stud­ies that are on­go­ing there are some re­al chal­lenges to over­come in terms of end­points that may have been missed.”

The pan­dem­ic al­so has dis­rupt­ed glob­al har­mo­niza­tion ef­forts around gene ther­a­pies, Marks said.

“We were on the cusp, in fact, work­ing with glob­al reg­u­la­tors try­ing to get to­wards more har­mo­niza­tion of gene ther­a­py pro­grams in dif­fer­ent coun­tries,” he said. “We’re try­ing to keep it mov­ing but it’s a chal­lenge to do.”

Marks not­ed that be­fore Covid-19 he spent about 75% of his time on cell and gene ther­a­pies, but the pan­dem­ic has forced him to shift pri­or­i­ties. “Some things have less pol­i­cy de­mands at this point in time. At this point in time it’s very much re­versed and it’s prob­a­bly 80% of my time on COVID-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ties.”

Marks al­so not­ed that CBER’s Of­fice of Tis­sues and Ad­vanced Ther­a­pies (OTAT) has been strug­gling to keep up with its work­load even be­fore the pan­dem­ic. With the in­flux of ap­pli­ca­tions for cell and gene ther­a­pies over the last five years, Marks said the of­fice, “Should have dou­bled in size and it’s on­ly mod­est­ly larg­er, 15-20% larg­er in size.”

Marks said he is not sat­is­fied with the lev­el of di­a­logue the agency has been able to have with gene ther­a­py de­vel­op­ers. “Es­pe­cial­ly ear­ly on, we should be able to have this di­a­logue that re­al­ly fa­cil­i­tates set­ting things up well so that our knowl­edge of the en­tire field—we help lever­age that for every spon­sor.”

“We’ve been so strapped in terms of per­son­nel that it’s hard to do that,” Marks said, not­ing that Covid-19 has ex­ac­er­bat­ed things even fur­ther. “Be­cause the num­ber of gene ther­a­py ap­pli­ca­tions hasn’t fall­en off dra­mat­i­cal­ly, some of the tri­als may not be mov­ing as quick­ly, but the ap­pli­ca­tions keep com­ing in.” Marks said that OTAT has al­so had to shift pri­or­i­ties dur­ing the pan­dem­ic and that he hopes the next user fee cy­cle will bring in the re­sources nec­es­sary to staff up fur­ther.

Wil­son Bryan

Speak­ing on a sep­a­rate pan­el with mem­bers of in­dus­try, OTAT Di­rec­tor Wil­son Bryan echoed Marks’ sen­ti­ment.

“We were stretched thin be­fore the pan­dem­ic, and with the flood of work that came in, it re­al­ly had an im­pact,” he said. “Some­times folks don’t like to ad­mit this, but we all know we’ve had de­layed meet­ings, we’ve had to de­lay re­view of some ap­pli­ca­tions be­cause of giv­ing pri­or­i­ty to the pan­dem­ic.”

How­ev­er, Bryan said the of­fice is get­ting its bal­ance and is work­ing to catch up on some of its de­layed ac­tiv­i­ties.

Bryan ex­pressed some wor­ry about the fi­nan­cial well-be­ing of some of the small­er com­pa­nies his of­fice works with. “We’re hear­ing a lot about their strug­gles to stay afloat and con­tin­ue and fin­ish off their de­vel­op­ment pro­grams and whether or not those de­vel­op­ment pro­grams are go­ing to be suf­fi­cient to meet reg­u­la­to­ry stan­dards,” he said.

One of the chal­lenges, said Tim­o­thy Schroed­er, CEO of CTI Clin­i­cal Tri­al & Con­sult­ing, will be deal­ing with gaps in da­ta from clin­i­cal tri­als. “The ques­tion is go­ing to be how do spon­sors, how do reg­u­la­to­ry au­thor­i­ties and how do com­pa­nies such as our­selves fill those gaps?”

On the reg­u­la­tor side, Bryan said his of­fice is work­ing with com­pa­nies on an in­di­vid­ual ba­sis to sort out those is­sues, which dif­fer from one in­di­ca­tion to the next.

Bryan added that one pos­i­tive to come of the pan­dem­ic is greater in­ter­est in re­mote out­come as­sess­ments in clin­i­cal tri­als. “If we have an en­er­gy now to de­vel­op out­come mea­sures and val­i­date out­come mea­sures that al­low us to re­li­ably cap­ture in­for­ma­tion from pa­tients in re­mote lo­ca­tions, that will ul­ti­mate­ly fa­cil­i­tate de­vel­op­ment,” he said.

The pan­dem­ic al­so has sig­nif­i­cant­ly dis­rupt­ed FDA’s abil­i­ty to con­duct sur­veil­lance and preap­proval in­spec­tions. While the agency has re­sumed some do­mes­tic in­spec­tions and mis­sion-crit­i­cal for­eign in­spec­tions, it al­so is lever­ag­ing oth­er sources of in­for­ma­tion, in­clud­ing in­spec­tion re­ports from oth­er reg­u­la­tors, and re­quest­ing doc­u­ments from ap­pli­cants and fa­cil­i­ties in lieu of on-site in­spec­tions where pos­si­ble.

“We’re con­sid­er­ing vir­tu­al in­spec­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly for com­pa­nies where the site has a track record, but if it’s a site that is brand new with no track record or if it’s a site with that has a bad track record, we’re hes­i­tant to do that,” Bryan said.

Bryan al­so raised the prospect of FDA in­spec­tors tag­ging along re­mote­ly for an in­spec­tion be­ing con­duct­ed by oth­er reg­u­la­tors. “Is it pos­si­ble that we could have an in­spec­tion by Eu­ro­pean in­spec­tors and have US reg­u­la­tors go­ing along for a vir­tu­al in­spec­tion at the same time? We think about those things, I don’t know that we’ve done them yet,” Bryan said, adding that he is not sure whether FDA in­spec­tors would be com­fort­able with the in­for­ma­tion they would get.

Cur­ran Simp­son

Cur­ran Simp­son, chief op­er­a­tions and tech­nol­o­gy of­fi­cer at Re­genxbio, said he sees promise in vir­tu­al au­dits and be­lieves the lev­el of doc­u­men­ta­tion a site pro­vides can be in­dica­tive of its com­pli­ance.

“How of­ten have I walked in­to a man­u­fac­tur­ing fa­cil­i­ty that’s well-run but has ter­ri­ble doc­u­men­ta­tion? Al­most nev­er. I think vir­tu­al au­dits, if you do a risk-based ap­proach and the au­dit part­ner has the abil­i­ty to send doc­u­men­ta­tion in an ef­fi­cient way and you have ex­pe­ri­enced peo­ple do­ing this, I think you’re go­ing to get the same fla­vor of an au­dit very quick­ly from the lev­el of the doc­u­men­ta­tion,” he said.

“Of course, you’ll want to ac­com­pa­ny that to the ex­tent pos­si­ble with imag­ing of the fa­cil­i­ty,” Simp­son said, “To see if those prac­tices are be­ing fol­lowed, the over­all clean­li­ness of the fa­cil­i­ty and the man­age­ment of ma­te­r­i­al move­ment … If you don’t get a good im­pres­sion from the doc­u­men­ta­tion that you’re work­ing through, it’s prob­a­bly a big­ger is­sue that you want to es­ca­late.”

Amy DuRoss

Amy DuRoss, co-founder and CEO of Vineti, an en­ter­prise soft­ware com­pa­ny spe­cial­iz­ing in ad­vanced ther­a­pies, ex­pressed some doubts about the cur­rent po­ten­tial for ful­ly re­mote au­dits.

“Cer­tain­ly our piece of the chain be­cause we’re en­ter­prise soft­ware is read­i­ly au­ditable re­mote­ly, but I would say that the over­all sys­tem and in man­u­fac­tur­ing, I’m not sure we’ve evolved as a species yet to adapt our re­mote tech­niques to get a full pic­ture … I don’t think we’re there yet,” she said.


RAPS: First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Health­care Dis­par­i­ties and Sick­le Cell Dis­ease

In the complicated U.S. healthcare system, navigating a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease can be remarkably challenging for patients and caregivers. When that illness is classified as a rare disease, those challenges can become even more acute. And when that rare disease occurs in a population that experiences health disparities, such as people with sickle cell disease (SCD) who are primarily Black and Latino, challenges can become almost insurmountable.

David Meek, new Mirati CEO (Marlene Awaad/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Fresh off Fer­Gene's melt­down, David Meek takes over at Mi­rati with lead KRAS drug rac­ing to an ap­proval

In the insular world of biotech, a spectacular failure can sometimes stay on any executive’s record for a long time. But for David Meek, the man at the helm of FerGene’s recent implosion, two questionable exits made way for what could be an excellent rebound.

Meek, most recently FerGene’s CEO and a past head at Ipsen, has become CEO at Mirati Therapeutics, taking the reins from founding CEO Charles Baum, who will step over into the role of president and head of R&D, according to a release.

So what hap­pened with No­var­tis' gene ther­a­py group? Here's your an­swer

Over the last couple of days it’s become clear that the gene therapy division at Novartis has quietly undergone a major reorganization. We learned on Monday that Dave Lennon, who had pursued a high-profile role as president of the unit with 1500 people, had left the pharma giant to take over as CEO of a startup.

Like a lot of the majors, Novartis is an open highway for head hunters, or anyone looking to staff a startup. So that was news but not completely unexpected.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Who are the women su­per­charg­ing bio­phar­ma R&D? Nom­i­nate them for this year's spe­cial re­port

The biotech industry has faced repeated calls to diversify its workforce — and in the last year, those calls got a lot louder. Though women account for just under half of all biotech employees around the world, they occupy very few places in C-suites, and even fewer make it to the helm.

Some companies are listening, according to a recent BIO survey which showed that this year’s companies were 2.5 times more likely to have a diversity and inclusion program compared to last year’s sample. But we still have a long way to go. Women represent just 31% of biotech executives, BIO reported. And those numbers are even more stark for women of color.

Jacob Van Naarden (Eli Lilly)

Ex­clu­sives: Eli Lil­ly out to crash the megablock­buster PD-(L)1 par­ty with 'dis­rup­tive' pric­ing; re­veals can­cer biotech buy­out

It’s taken 7 years, but Eli Lilly is promising to finally start hammering the small and affluent PD-(L)1 club with a “disruptive” pricing strategy for their checkpoint therapy allied with China’s Innovent.

Lilly in-licensed global rights to sintilimab a year ago, building on the China alliance they have with Innovent. That cost the pharma giant $200 million in cash upfront, which they plan to capitalize on now with a long-awaited plan to bust up the high-price market in lung cancer and other cancers that have created a market worth tens of billions of dollars.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

When ef­fi­ca­cy is bor­der­line: FDA needs to get more con­sis­tent on close-call drug ap­provals, agency-fund­ed re­search finds

In the exceedingly rare instances in which clinical efficacy is the only barrier to a new drug’s approval, new FDA-funded research from FDA and Stanford found that the agency does not have a consistent standard for defining “substantial evidence” when flexible criteria are used for an approval.

The research comes as the FDA is at a crossroads with its expedited-review pathways. The accelerated approval pathway is under fire as the agency recently signed off on a controversial new Alzheimer’s drug, with little precedent to explain its decision. Meanwhile, top officials like Rick Pazdur have called for a major push to simplify and clarify all of the various expedited pathways, which have grown to be must-haves for sponsors of nearly every newly approved drug.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 117,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Jay Bradner (Jeff Rumans for Endpoints News)

Div­ing deep­er in­to in­her­it­ed reti­nal dis­or­ders, No­var­tis gob­bles up an­oth­er bite-sized op­to­ge­net­ics biotech

Right about a year ago, a Novartis team led by Jay Bradner and Cynthia Grosskreutz at NIBR swooped in to scoop up a Cambridge, MA-based opthalmology gene therapy company called Vedere. Their focus was on a specific market niche: inherited retinal dystrophies that include a wide range of genetic retinal disorders marked by the loss of photoreceptor cells and progressive vision loss.

But that was just the first deal that whet their appetite.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 117,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The biggest ques­tions fac­ing gene ther­a­py, the XLMTM com­mu­ni­ty, and Astel­las af­ter fourth pa­tient death

After three patients died last year in an Astellas gene therapy trial, the company halted the study and began figuring out how to safely get the program back on track. They would, executives eventually explained, cut the dose by more than half and institute a battery of other measures to try to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Then tragically, Astellas announced this week that the first patient to receive the new regimen had died, just weeks after administration.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

FDA hands ac­cel­er­at­ed nod to Seagen, Gen­mab's so­lo ADC in cer­vi­cal can­cer, but com­bo stud­ies look even more promis­ing

Biopharma’s resident antibody-drug conjugate expert Seagen has scored a clutch of oncology approvals in recent years, finding gold in what are known as “third-gen” ADCs. Now, another of their partnered conjugates is ready for prime time.

The FDA on Monday handed an accelerated approval to Seagen and Genmab’s Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv, or “TV”) in second-line patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who previously progressed after chemotherapy rather than PD-(L)1 systemic therapy, the companies said in a release.