FDA should re­assess post­mar­ket tri­als for can­cer drugs ap­proved via ac­cel­er­at­ed path­way, re­searchers say

The FDA may need to re­assess how con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als are con­duct­ed af­ter just one-fifth of such tri­als for can­cer drug in­di­ca­tions ap­proved via the FDA’s ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval path­way have demon­strat­ed im­prove­ments in over­all sur­vival (OS), re­searchers re­port­ed Tues­day in JA­MA In­ter­nal Med­i­cine re­search.

The re­searchers looked at 93 can­cer drug in­di­ca­tions grant­ed ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval by the FDA from 1992 through May 2017, find­ing con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als re­port­ed that 20% had im­prove­ment in over­all sur­vival, 21% had im­prove­ment in a dif­fer­ent sur­ro­gate mea­sure and 20% had im­prove­ment in the same sur­ro­gate mea­sure used in con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als and preap­proval tri­als.

“Ap­pro­pri­ate use of sur­ro­gates for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval re­quires an ap­pre­ci­a­tion for how the va­lid­i­ty of a sur­ro­gate can vary from one in­di­ca­tion to an­oth­er. One strat­e­gy for cap­tur­ing this vari­abil­i­ty would be to have a con­tin­u­al­ly up­dat­ed data­base of strengths of sur­ro­gate val­i­da­tion across tu­mor types as re­sults from new­er tri­als be­come avail­able,” the re­searchers from the Pro­gram on Reg­u­la­tion, Ther­a­peu­tics, and Law (POR­TAL), Di­vi­sion of Phar­ma­coepi­demi­ol­o­gy and Phar­ma­coeco­nom­ics at Brigham and Women’s Hos­pi­tal and Har­vard Med­ical School said.

They al­so called to adapt the FDA’s re­cent­ly pub­lished list of sur­ro­gate mea­sures to in­clude the strengths of sur­ro­ga­cy val­i­da­tion. “Con­firm­ing the clin­i­cal ben­e­fit of a can­cer drug us­ing the same sur­ro­gate mea­sure as the one used in its preap­proval tri­al should be re­served for when the sur­ro­gate mea­sure for a giv­en in­di­ca­tion has been val­i­dat­ed,” they added.

In ad­di­tion, the re­searchers ad­dressed po­ten­tial crit­ics who may dis­agree that it is im­por­tant to demon­strate an OS ben­e­fit to ver­i­fy a clin­i­cal ben­e­fit. They use the ex­am­ple of ima­tinib for chron­ic myeloid leukemia (CML), which was ap­proved with­out the need to re­port OS ben­e­fit in tri­als.

“How­ev­er, ima­tinib for CML is an atyp­i­cal ex­am­ple of a drug with such huge ben­e­fits that it is con­sid­ered life­sav­ing rather than life pro­long­ing,” they wrote. “Most ap­proved can­cer drugs fall in­to the lat­ter cat­e­go­ry, and as a re­sult, even im­pres­sive ef­fects on sur­ro­gate mea­sures may not trans­late to ex­tend­ed sur­vival ben­e­fits. Thus, al­though im­prove­ment in sur­ro­gate mea­sures alone may be ac­cept­able for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval, the con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als should ver­i­fy the clin­i­cal ben­e­fit in terms of ben­e­fits in OS, qual­i­ty of life, or a valid sur­ro­gate of ei­ther.

“Re­assess­ment of the re­quire­ments for con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als may be nec­es­sary to ob­tain more clin­i­cal­ly mean­ing­ful in­for­ma­tion,” they added. “FDA should adopt a con­sis­tent ap­proach re­gard­ing the re­sults of con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als to help physi­cians and pa­tients bet­ter un­der­stand what con­sti­tutes ver­i­fi­ca­tion of ben­e­fit.”

Com­men­taries

In a com­men­tary ac­com­pa­ny­ing the study and a sec­ond study on can­cer drugs ap­proved based on re­sponse rates, pro­fes­sors from the Perel­man School of Med­i­cine at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia crit­i­cize the FDA for call­ing the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval process a suc­cess be­cause on­ly 5% of con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als failed.

“FDA is con­grat­u­lat­ing it­self, us­ing its own ‘sur­ro­gate’ end points, which it can al­ter to demon­strate that its poli­cies are suc­ceed­ing. This low rate of with­drawals is not a valid mea­sure of suc­cess. There is no good rea­son for the FDA to re­ly so heav­i­ly on ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval us­ing re­sponse rates or oth­er un­re­li­able sur­ro­gate end­points,” they write.

They al­so point to three nec­es­sary pol­i­cy changes: “First, the end­point for con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als should nev­er be the same sur­ro­gate end­point used in the orig­i­nal study, and a new sur­ro­gate end­point should be used on­ly if there is a proven cor­re­la­tion be­tween that end­point and over­all sur­vival or im­proved qual­i­ty of life. Most con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als should use over­all sur­vival and/or qual­i­ty-of-life end­points.

“Sec­ond, ap­proval of drugs should be rapid­ly with­drawn when con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als re­port se­ri­ous tox­ic ef­fects or do not re­port mean­ing­ful clin­i­cal im­prove­ments. Fi­nal­ly, the con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als must be con­duct­ed prompt­ly, with cred­i­ble threats of re­versed ap­proval. Hav­ing more than a quar­ter of tri­als in­com­plete years af­ter ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval is un­ac­cept­able,” they add.

An­oth­er com­men­tary from a pro­fes­sor at Yale School of Med­i­cine and a pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Birm­ing­ham in the UK ex­plain how the find­ings from the two stud­ies “build on a grow­ing body of work, which in ag­gre­gate, demon­strate a post­mar­ket­ing eval­u­a­tion process that is serv­ing nei­ther pa­tients nor so­ci­ety well.”

As­sess­ment of the Clin­i­cal Ben­e­fit of Can­cer Drugs Re­ceiv­ing Ac­cel­er­at­ed Ap­proval

An Overview of Can­cer Drugs Ap­proved by the US Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion Based on the Sur­ro­gate End Point of Re­sponse Rate

Ac­cel­er­at­ed Ap­proval of Can­cer Drugs—Right­ing the Ship of the US Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion

An In­ter­na­tion­al Per­spec­tive on Drugs for Can­cer


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.

Im­age: Jacque­lyn Mar­tin AP

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

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.

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.

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.

Seer adds ex-FDA chief Mark Mc­Clel­lan to the board; Her­cules Cap­i­tal makes it of­fi­cial for new CEO Scott Bluestein

→ On the same day it announced a $17.5 million Series C, life sciences and health data company Seer unveiled that it had lured former FDA commissioner and ex-CMS administrator Mark McClellan on to its board. “Mark’s deep understanding of the health care ecosystem and visionary insights on policy reform will be crucial in informing our thinking as we work to bring our liquid biopsy and life sciences products to market,” said Seer chief and founder Omid Farokhzad in a statement.

Daniel O'Day

No­var­tis hands off 3 pre­clin­i­cal pro­grams to the an­tivi­ral R&D mas­ters at Gilead

Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day’s new task hunting up a CSO for the company isn’t stopping the industry’s dominant antiviral player from doing pipeline deals.

The big biotech today snapped up 3 preclinical antiviral programs from pharma giant Novartis, with drugs promising to treat human rhinovirus, influenza and herpes viruses. We don’t know what the upfront is, but the back end has $291 million in milestones baked in.

Vas Narasimhan, AP Images

On a hot streak, No­var­tis ex­ecs run the odds on their two most im­por­tant PhI­II read­outs. Which is 0.01% more like­ly to suc­ceed?

Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan is living in the sweet spot right now.

The numbers are running a bit better than expected, the pipeline — which he assembled as development chief — is performing and the stock popped more than 4% on Thursday as the executive team ran through their assessment of Q2 performance.

Year-to-date the stock is up 28%, so the investors will be beaming. Anyone looking for chinks in their armor — and there are plenty giving it a shot — right now focus on payer acceptance of their $2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, where it’s early days. And CAR-T continues to underperform, but Novartis doesn’t appear to be suffering from it.

So what could go wrong?

Actually, not much. But Tim Anderson at Wolfe pressed Narasimhan and his development chief John Tsai to pick which of two looming Phase III readouts with blockbuster implication had the better odds of success.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

H1 analy­sis: The high-stakes ta­ble in the biotech deals casi­no is pay­ing out some record-set­ting win­nings

For years the big trend among dealmakers at the major players has been centered on ratcheting down upfront payments in favor of bigger milestones. Better known as biobucks for some. But with the top 15 companies competing for the kind of “transformative” pacts that can whip up some excitement on Wall Street, with some big biotechs like Regeneron now weighing in as well, cash is king at the high stakes table.

We asked Chris Dokomajilar, the head of DealForma, to crunch the numbers for us, looking over the top 20 deals for the past decade and breaking it all down into the top alliances already created in 2019. Gilead has clearly tipped the scales in terms of the coin of the bio-realm, with its record-setting $5 billion upfront to tie up to Galapagos’ entire pipeline.

Dokomajilar notes:

We’re going to need a ‘three comma club’ for the deals with over $1 billion in total upfront cash and equity. The $100 million-plus club is getting crowded at 164 deals in the last decade with new deals being added towards the top of the chart. 2019 already has 14 deals with at least $100 million in upfront cash and equity for a total year-to-date of over $9 billion. That beats last year’s $8 billion and sets a record.

Add upfronts and equity payments and you get $11.5 billion for the year, just shy of last year’s record-setting $11.8 billion.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Part club, part guide, part land­lord: Arie Bellde­grun is blue­print­ing a string of be­spoke biotech com­plex­es in glob­al boom­towns — start­ing with Boston

The biotech industry is getting a landlord, unlike anything it’s ever known before.

Inspired by his recent experiences scrounging for space in Boston and the Bay Area, master biotech builder, investor, and global dealmaker Arie Belldegrun has organized a new venture to build a new, 250,000 square foot biopharma building in Boston’s Seaport district — home to Vertex and a number of up-and-coming biotech players.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.