Mark Pruzanski, Intercept CEO (GlobeNewswire via YouTube)

FDA re­jects In­ter­cept’s pitch for NASH as CEO fires back at the agency’s ‘evolv­ing’ guide­lines

In a ma­jor set­back for an al­ready ail­ing field, the FDA has re­ject­ed obeti­cholic acid, the In­ter­cept Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals com­pound that would have been the first drug specif­i­cal­ly ap­proved to treat NASH.

The In­ter­cept drug had, in Feb­ru­ary of 2019, yield­ed the first pos­i­tive Phase III re­sults for the obe­si­ty-re­lat­ed liv­er con­di­tion and its sub­se­quent NDA sub­mis­sion was close­ly watched around the in­dus­try as the first test for how reg­u­la­tors would treat the nascent but fast-grow­ing field.

Yet con­fi­dence that an ap­proval would come had been wan­ing for months. The drug was sched­uled for an ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee hear­ing on April 22, but in March In­ter­cept an­nounced the meet­ing was de­layed to June 9th due to Covid-19. Then in May, In­ter­cept said that hear­ing was post­poned again to “ac­com­mo­date the re­view of ad­di­tion­al da­ta re­quest­ed by the FDA.” In­ter­cept didn’t spec­i­fy what da­ta the FDA want­ed, but shares flagged and an­a­lysts were di­vid­ed over how omi­nous the de­lay was. SVB Leerink’s Thomas Smith wrote it “in­jects ad­di­tion­al un­cer­tain­ty” on “po­ten­tial ap­proval/la­bel/tim­ing.”

Now, In­ter­cept says, the FDA re­ject­ed the drug be­cause they were un­cer­tain if the sur­ro­gate end­point from their Phase III tri­al — re­duc­tion in liv­er fi­bro­sis — would ac­tu­al­ly trans­late in­to ben­e­fit for pa­tients. The FDA in­vit­ed them to re-sub­mit with longer term da­ta from the Phase III tri­al, but In­ter­cept spoke harsh­ly against the de­ci­sion.

In a state­ment that could lay the ground­work for an ap­peal, CEO Mark Pruzan­s­ki crit­i­cized the agency for can­cel­ing the ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee hear­ing, said their re­view as “in­com­plete,” and ar­gued the agency re­peat­ed­ly moved the goal­posts for ap­proval in a way that could pre­vent the de­vel­op­ment of new ther­a­pies.

At no point dur­ing the re­view did the FDA com­mu­ni­cate that OCA was not ap­prov­able on an ac­cel­er­at­ed ba­sis, and we strong­ly be­lieve that the to­tal­i­ty of da­ta sub­mit­ted to date both meet the re­quire­ments of the Agency’s own guid­ance and clear­ly sup­port the pos­i­tive ben­e­fit-risk pro­file of OCA. We are dis­ap­point­ed to see the de­ter­mi­na­tion the Agency has reached based on an ap­par­ent­ly in­com­plete re­view, and with­out hav­ing pro­vid­ed med­ical ex­perts and pa­tients the op­por­tu­ni­ty to be heard at the an­tic­i­pat­ed Ad­com on the mer­its of OCA, which is a des­ig­nat­ed Break­through Ther­a­py. The FDA has pro­gres­sive­ly in­creased the com­plex­i­ty of the his­to­log­ic end­points, cre­at­ing a very high bar that on­ly OCA has so far met in a piv­otal Phase 3 study. On be­half of the he­pa­tol­ogy com­mu­ni­ty, we are very con­cerned that the Agency’s ap­par­ent­ly still evolv­ing ex­pec­ta­tions will make it ex­ceed­ing­ly chal­leng­ing to bring in­no­v­a­tive ther­a­pies to NASH pa­tients with high un­met med­ical need.

Shares of the com­pa­ny nose­dived on the news from $77 to to $48, shav­ing off over a $1 bil­lion in mar­ket cap. Pro­ject­ing In­ter­cept to trend to­ward $50, Jef­feries’ Michael Yee called the news “a sur­prise down­side sce­nario that was not ex­pect­ed and un­for­tu­nate­ly leaves in­vestors in a pro­longed pe­ri­od of chal­leng­ing un­cer­tain­ty now.”

On a con­fer­ence call Mon­day morn­ing, Pruzan­s­ki told an­a­lysts that the last he heard from the agency was that they would get back to In­ter­cept about resched­ul­ing an ad­vi­so­ry hear­ing. Then on the PDU­FA date of June 26, they re­ceived a let­ter that an im­prove­ment in fi­bro­sis — which, In­ter­cept said, the FDA had in­di­cat­ed would be enough for ap­proval — wasn’t enough to prove the drug was worth its risk.

“What’s new here is the ques­tion­ing — with­out re­al­ly sub­stan­ti­a­tion, as far as we could tell — on the ben­e­fit side,” Pruzan­s­ki said. “It’s hard to know what’s go­ing on.”

Al­though mixed in their re­ac­tions to the news, an­a­lysts ex­pressed ex­pressed broad sur­prise the FDA and In­ter­cept would be on such marked­ly dif­fer­ent pages, giv­en that the drug had achieved a break­through des­ig­na­tion that is sup­posed to open close chan­nels be­tween the par­ties. The frac­ture, they said, could be spe­cif­ic to In­ter­cept, but could al­so point to where the bar will be for fu­ture NASH sub­mis­sions.

“It is un­clear at this point how sig­nif­i­cant­ly the CRL af­fects OCA’s reg­u­la­to­ry path for­ward in NASH,” Smith wrote in a note fol­low­ing the news, “nor are the broad­er im­pli­ca­tions on the reg­u­la­to­ry path­way for oth­er drugs be­ing de­vel­oped in NASH clear at this time.”

The re­jec­tion is the lat­est in a se­ries of strug­gles for the NASH field. NASH, or non­al­co­holic steato­hep­ati­tis, refers to fat buildup in the liv­er that caus­es in­flam­ma­tion and scar­ring. It was lit­tle known in the biotech world be­fore the 2014 JP Mor­gan con­fer­ence, when In­ter­cept re­leased a batch of Phase II da­ta that sent their stock soar­ing. With mil­lions of Amer­i­cans po­ten­tial­ly suf­fer­ing from the con­di­tion, the dis­ease has since at­tract­ed sig­nif­i­cant buzz, but in the past year, it’s seen a string of tri­al fail­ures, most no­tably from Gilead.

Al­though nu­mer­ous drug­mak­ers have ear­ly-stage can­di­dates in the pipeline, the In­ter­cept CRL could push the first ap­proval back sig­nif­i­cant­ly. The oth­er ma­jor late-stage ef­fort, from the French biotech Gen­Fit, failed in May.

Al­though it’s im­pos­si­ble to know the pre­cise guid­ance the FDA gave In­ter­cept and oth­er com­pa­nies, sig­nif­i­cant ques­tions did ex­ist for the ef­fi­ca­cy of their drug and oth­er NASH com­pounds. Com­pa­nies have large­ly fo­cused on test­ing to see if their med­i­cines can halt fi­bro­sis or fat ac­cu­mu­la­tion, but they have not yet proven that those will then lead to im­proved sur­vival or pre­vent cir­rho­sis.

In a note, Stifel’s Derek Archi­la ar­gued the CRL was a re­sult of a sin­gle ad­verse event: raised LDL cho­les­terol, which in turn raised car­dio­vas­cu­lar risk. That, he said, could’ve tipped the risk-ben­e­fit pro­file cal­cu­lus for the agency.

An­a­lysts will be watch­ing close­ly to see what da­ta the FDA asks for and its im­pli­ca­tions for all NASH de­vel­op­ers, but there will be im­me­di­ate im­pli­ca­tions for In­ter­cept. The com­pa­ny hired a sales team in prepa­ra­tion for an ap­proval and, Yee not­ed, is cur­rent­ly burn­ing through $300 mil­lion per year, with on­ly $554 mil­lion and $690 mil­lion in debt.

“As we pre­pare to meet with FDA, we will si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly be­gin plan­ning to make sure we’re in a good po­si­tion fi­nan­cial­ly,” Pruzan­s­ki said on the call.

Mi­no­ryx and Sper­o­genix ink an ex­clu­sive li­cense agree­ment to de­vel­op and com­mer­cial­ize lerigli­ta­zone in Chi­na

September 23, 2020 – Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai (China) and Mataró, Barcelona (Spain)  

Minoryx will receive an upfront and milestone payments of up to $78 million, as well as double digit royalties on annual net sales 

Sperogenix will receive exclusive rights to develop and commercialize leriglitazone for the treatment of X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (X-ALD), a rare life-threatening neurological condition

President Trump walks past HHS secretary Alex Azar (Getty Images)

Azar falls in line un­der Trump again. Ex­perts say he's re­in­forc­ing a dark sig­nal sent to the FDA

In the latest incident where Alex Azar has steadfastly taken the side of President Donald Trump over that of the FDA, the HHS secretary was noncommittal this morning when asked if he supports the attempt by his subordinates at the FDA to strengthen guidelines for a vaccine EUA.

Appearing on NBC’s Today Show, the HHS secretary muddied the waters, stating that the guidance that matters is the one that is “actually already out there.”

CDC’s Robert Redfield, NIAID’s Anthony Fauci, Admiral Brett Giroir at HHS, and FDA’s Stephen Hahn prepare to testify at a House hearing on June 23 (Getty)

'Ex­treme­ly po­lit­i­cal' — Trump neuters FDA's at­tempt to strength­en vac­cine EUA

Stephen Hahn went before a Senate committee Wednesday and declared he’s fighting. “Every one of the decisions we have reached has been made by career FDA scientists based on science and data, not politics,” he exclaimed, adding that “FDA will not permit any pressure from anyone to change that. I will fight for science.”

A few hours later, he was undermined by President Donald Trump when a reporter asked if he was okay with stricter vaccine guidelines that the FDA was said to be cooking up. “That has to be approved by the White House. We may or may not approve it. That sounds like a political move,” he decided.

New York governor Andrew Cuomo (AP Images)

An­drew Cuo­mo says New York will un­der­take its own vac­cine re­view process, and wouldn’t rec­om­mend trust­ing the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment

The concerns keep mounting over President Donald Trump’s politicization of the FDA and other federal agencies guiding the development of a safe and effective vaccine. And today, the telegenic New York governor Andrew Cuomo appeared to introduce even more politics into the matter — latest in an ongoing series of incidents that have cast the proudly independent FDA in starkly political terms.

During his daily press conference Cuomo said that the state will review any coronavirus vaccines approved by the federal government, citing a lack of trust of the Trump administration. The announcement comes one day after Trump accused the FDA of making an “extremely political” move in proposing stricter vaccine guidance.

PhII Alzheimer's fail­ure deals new blow to Roche, AC Im­mune — but the tau hy­poth­e­sis is far from dead

The leading anti-tau antibody has failed its first Phase II testing, casting a shadow on a popular target (just trailing amyloid beta) for Alzheimer’s disease.

Roche and AC Immune are quick to acknowledge disappointment in the topline readout, which suggested that semorinemab did not reduce cognitive decline among patients with early Alzheimer’s disease, who are either just starting to have symptoms or have mild manifestations.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vas Narasimhan (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Still held down by clin­i­cal hold, No­var­tis' Zol­gens­ma falls fur­ther be­hind Bio­gen and Roche as FDA asks for a new piv­otal study

Last October, the FDA slowed down Novartis’ quest to extend its gene therapy to older spinal muscular atrophy patients by slapping a partial hold on intrathecal administration. Almost a year later, the hold is still there, and regulators are adding another hurdle required for regulatory submission: a new pivotal confirmatory study.

The new requirement — which departs significantly from Novartis’ prior expectations — will likely stretch the path to registration beyond 2021, when analysts were expecting a BLA submission. That could mean more time for Biogen to reap Spinraza revenues and Roche to ramp up sales of Evrysdi in the absence of a rival.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Laura Shawver (Silverback Therapeutics)

Fol­low­ing a hefty Se­ries B, Sil­ver­back Ther­a­peu­tics quick­ly pulls in $85M for 'an im­por­tant growth phase'

Months after reeling in a $78 million Series B round, Silverback Therapeutics has hooked an even larger Series C.

The Seattle-based company announced Wednesday that it netted $85 million from a slate of new and previous investors. The quick boost could be a sign that an IPO is on the way.

In an email, Silverback CEO Laura Shawver told me she was “not able to provide any additional comments about Silverback” beyond what was shared in the company’s news release. In the prepared statement, she said the company is at “an important growth phase.”

Covid-19 roundup: Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed's 7th vac­cine is live at­ten­u­at­ed; Small biotech touts big suc­cess where gi­ants have failed

Operation Warp Speed is stacking its vaccine portfolio with a “TBD” new candidate: a live attenuated vaccine that can be administered in a single dose, potentially as an oral formulation rather than an injection.

Sound familiar?

That could be because the unannounced candidate appears to match the profile of an inoculation being developed by Merck, according to Bloomberg, which first reported the development based on a presentation by Moncef Slaoui.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

On­ly five months af­ter a Se­ries A launch, Taysha goes pub­lic with $157M IPO

As has been the trend in 2020, Taysha Gene Therapies has become the latest biotech to make a quick ascent from a small, privately-funded company to enjoying its very own Nasdaq ticker.

The Dallas-based biotech raised $157 million for its IPO after pricing shares at $20 apiece Thursday, the high-point of its expected range. Initially pegging $100 million in financing, Taysha offered a little less than 8 million shares and will trade under the $TSHA symbol.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.