FDA preps for a new and flex­i­ble ap­proach to genome edit­ing in an­i­mals

With the use of CRISPR pro­lif­er­at­ing and gene dri­ves on the hori­zon in the US, the FDA said that it’s now look­ing at a risk-based ap­proach to reg­u­lat­ing the gene edit­ing of an­i­mals.

As part of that ap­proach the agency is es­tab­lish­ing a new pi­lot pro­gram, known as the Vet­eri­nary In­no­va­tion Pro­gram (VIP). It’s charged with pro­vid­ing tech­ni­cal and pro­gram­mat­ic as­sis­tance to de­vel­op­ers seek­ing FDA ap­proval of in­ten­tion­al­ly al­tered ge­nom­ic DNA in an­i­mals and an­i­mal cells, tis­sues and cell- or tis­sue-based prod­ucts that pro­vide a ben­e­fit to hu­man health, an­i­mal health, an­i­mal well-be­ing or food pro­duc­tion.

“The goal of the VIP is to fa­cil­i­tate ad­vance­ments in the de­vel­op­ment of in­no­v­a­tive an­i­mal prod­ucts by pro­vid­ing greater cer­tain­ty in the reg­u­la­to­ry process, en­cour­ag­ing de­vel­op­ment and re­search, and sup­port­ing an ef­fi­cient and pre­dictable path­way to ap­proval for cer­tain in­no­v­a­tive an­i­mal prod­ucts,” the FDA said in a new re­port.

In 2019, the agency al­so in­tends to pub­lish guid­ance clar­i­fy­ing that risk-based cat­e­gories will in­clude: “an FDA de­ci­sion not to en­force ap­proval re­quire­ments with no pri­or re­view, an FDA de­ci­sion not to en­force ap­proval re­quire­ments fol­low­ing a re­view of da­ta that ad­dress spe­cif­ic risk ques­tions, and an FDA de­ci­sion to re­view for ap­proval with da­ta re­quire­ments pro­por­tion­ate to the risk as­so­ci­at­ed with the par­tic­u­lar prod­uct.”

This ap­proach in­cludes flex­i­bil­i­ty to trans­fer prod­ucts across these cat­e­gories based on spe­cif­ic con­di­tions and as FDA gains fa­mil­iar­i­ty with dif­fer­ent prod­uct risk pro­files. How­ev­er, FDA is still pro­hib­it­ed by Con­gress from ac­cept­ing any in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al new drug ap­pli­ca­tion for “re­search in which a hu­man em­bryo is in­ten­tion­al­ly cre­at­ed or mod­i­fied to in­clude a her­i­ta­ble ge­net­ic mod­i­fi­ca­tion.”

In an­oth­er draft guid­ance, FDA in­tends to clar­i­fy its reg­u­la­to­ry ap­proach for cat­e­gories of in­ten­tion­al­ly ge­net­i­cal­ly al­tered an­i­mals used in re­search and plans to out­line, based on risk, when FDA in­tends to ex­er­cise en­force­ment dis­cre­tion or when it in­tends to en­force the re­quire­ment for an ap­proved new an­i­mal drug ap­pli­ca­tion.

An ad­di­tion­al draft guid­ance for in­dus­try will es­tab­lish an al­ter­na­tive type of file as a repos­i­to­ry for in­for­ma­tion ex­changes with the FDA’s Cen­ter for Vet­eri­nary Med­i­cine (CVM) for prod­ucts that are in ear­ly de­vel­op­ment stages or that are de­vel­oped for re­search pur­pos­es on­ly and may nev­er progress to a mar­ketable prod­uct.

In ad­di­tion, the FDA’s CVM in­tends to hold a pub­lic we­bi­nar on 3 De­cem­ber to dis­cuss the sci­ence be­hind genome edit­ing in an­i­mals, the promis­ing us­es of this tech­nol­o­gy in an­i­mals and the po­ten­tial risks, and in­for­ma­tion about CVM’s risk-based ap­proach to the reg­u­la­tion of in­ten­tion­al ge­nom­ic al­ter­ations to an­i­mals.

And to en­hance trans­paren­cy, FDA al­so said it will list on its web­site the spe­cif­ic an­i­mals or cat­e­gories of an­i­mals with in­ten­tion­al ge­nom­ic al­ter­ations for which the agency has de­cid­ed to ex­er­cise en­force­ment dis­cre­tion with re­gard to pre­mar­ket ap­proval re­quire­ments.


First pub­lished here. reg­u­la­to­ry fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.

The key dates for KRAS watch­ers through the end of the year — the trail is nar­row and risks are ex­treme

There’s nothing quite like a big patent win when it comes to burnishing your prospects in the pipeline. And for Amgen, which seems to have rescued Enbrel for a run to 2029, the cheering section on Wall Street is now fixed on AMG 510 and a key rival.

And it didn’t take much data to do it. 

There was the first snapshot of a handful of patients, with a 50% response rate. Then came word that Amgen researchers are also tracking responses in different cancers, at least one in colorectal cancer and appendiceal too. 

Bain's Or­ly Mis­han joins Pfiz­er's neu­ro spin­out Cerev­el; On­colyt­ic virus biotech taps Sil­la­Jen ex­ec He­le­na Chaye as CEO

→ Bain Capital is deploying one of its top investors to Cerevel Therapeutics, steering a $350 million-plus neuro play carved out of Pfizer. Orly Mishan — a co-founder and principal of Bain’s life sciences unit — was involved in the partnership that birthed the biotech spinout in the first place. As Cerevel’s first chief business officer, she is tasked with corporate development, program management as well as technical operations. 

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.