FDA un­veils guid­ance for Covid-19 tri­als

The FDA on Wednes­day is­sued new fi­nal guid­ance to help spon­sors as­sure the safe­ty of tri­al par­tic­i­pants, main­tain com­pli­ance with good clin­i­cal prac­tice (GCP) and min­i­mize the risks to tri­al in­tegri­ty dur­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic.

The guid­ance comes as the Na­tion­al In­sti­tutes of Health last week ini­ti­at­ed the first Covid-19 vac­cine Phase 1 tri­al in Seat­tle. Sanofi and Re­gen­eron Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals al­so an­nounced on Mon­day they have start­ed a Phase 2/3 tri­al at med­ical cen­ters in New York eval­u­at­ing the IL-6 tar­get­ed Kevzara (sar­ilum­ab) in pa­tients hos­pi­tal­ized with se­vere Covid-19.

In ad­di­tion, Gilead has ini­ti­at­ed two Phase 3 stud­ies at sites across Asia to eval­u­ate the safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy of the an­tivi­ral remde­sivir in adults di­ag­nosed with Covid-19, as well as in Ne­bras­ka, while Eu­sa Phar­ma said Wednes­day that it ini­ti­at­ed a study at a hos­pi­tal in Berg­amo, Italy for sil­tux­imab, an­oth­er IL-6 tar­get­ed mon­o­clon­al an­ti­body, for the treat­ment of pa­tients with Covid-19 who have de­vel­oped se­ri­ous res­pi­ra­to­ry com­pli­ca­tions.

FDA Guid­ance De­tails

While rec­og­niz­ing that pro­to­col mod­i­fi­ca­tions may be re­quired, and that there may be un­avoid­able pro­to­col de­vi­a­tions due to Covid-19 ill­ness and/or Covid-19 con­trol mea­sures, FDA urges spon­sors and clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tors to en­gage with In­sti­tu­tion­al Re­view Boards (IRBs)/In­de­pen­dent Ethics Com­mit­tees (IECs) “as ear­ly as pos­si­ble when ur­gent or emer­gent changes to the pro­to­col or in­formed con­sent are an­tic­i­pat­ed as a re­sult of COVID-19.”

But FDA al­so says that such changes to the pro­to­col or in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al plan to min­i­mize or elim­i­nate im­me­di­ate haz­ards or to pro­tect the life and well-be­ing of re­search par­tic­i­pants (e.g., to lim­it ex­po­sure to Covid-19) “may be im­ple­ment­ed with­out IRB ap­proval or be­fore fil­ing an amend­ment to the IND or IDE, but are re­quired to be re­port­ed af­ter­wards.”

David Bo­rasky, VP of IRB Com­pli­ance at WCG, said in a we­bi­nar on Covid-19 tri­als on Wednes­day that IRBs want to know about changes as soon as pos­si­ble and hope that they’ll be re­port­ed with­in five days, but they un­der­stand the cir­cum­stances.

He added that IRBs should not be a road­block to mak­ing changes that are es­sen­tial to main­tain­ing re­search that is eth­i­cal­ly ap­pro­pri­ate, max­i­mizes the safe­ty of study par­tic­i­pants and re­search teams, sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly valid and com­pli­ant with the reg­u­la­tions.

As far as ef­fi­ca­cy as­sess­ments, FDA’s guid­ance “rec­om­mends con­sul­ta­tion with the ap­pro­pri­ate re­view di­vi­sion re­gard­ing pro­to­col mod­i­fi­ca­tions for the col­lec­tion of ef­fi­ca­cy end­points, such as use of vir­tu­al as­sess­ments, de­lays in as­sess­ments, and al­ter­na­tive col­lec­tion of re­search-spe­cif­ic spec­i­mens, if fea­si­ble. For in­di­vid­ual in­stances where ef­fi­ca­cy end­points are not col­lect­ed, the rea­sons for fail­ing to ob­tain the ef­fi­ca­cy as­sess­ment should be doc­u­ment­ed (e.g., iden­ti­fy­ing the spe­cif­ic lim­i­ta­tion im­posed by COVID-19 lead­ing to the in­abil­i­ty to per­form the pro­to­col-spec­i­fied as­sess­ment).”

And pri­or to lock­ing the data­base, the 9-page guid­ance says spon­sors should use its sta­tis­ti­cal analy­sis plan to ad­dress how pro­to­col de­vi­a­tions re­lat­ed to Covid-19 will be han­dled for the pre­spec­i­fied analy­ses.

In ad­di­tion, the guid­ance adds that spon­sors and clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tors should doc­u­ment how Covid-19-re­lat­ed re­stric­tions led to changes in study con­duct and the du­ra­tion of those changes, as well as in­di­cat­ing which tri­al par­tic­i­pants were im­pact­ed and how those tri­al par­tic­i­pants were im­pact­ed.

“Spon­sors, in con­sul­ta­tion with clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tors and, may de­ter­mine that the pro­tec­tion of a par­tic­i­pant’s safe­ty, wel­fare, and rights is best served by con­tin­u­ing a study par­tic­i­pant in the tri­al as per the pro­to­col or by dis­con­tin­u­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion or use of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct or even par­tic­i­pa­tion in the tri­al. Such de­ci­sions will de­pend on spe­cif­ic cir­cum­stances, in­clud­ing the na­ture of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct, the abil­i­ty to con­duct ap­pro­pri­ate safe­ty mon­i­tor­ing, the po­ten­tial im­pact on the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct sup­ply chain, and the na­ture of the dis­ease un­der study in the tri­al,” the guid­ance adds.

Dif­fi­cul­ties in get­ting prospec­tive pa­tients to tri­al sites al­so mean that spon­sors should eval­u­ate whether al­ter­na­tive meth­ods for safe­ty as­sess­ments (e.g., phone con­tact, vir­tu­al vis­it, al­ter­na­tive lo­ca­tion for as­sess­ment, in­clud­ing lo­cal labs or imag­ing cen­ters) could be im­ple­ment­ed when nec­es­sary and fea­si­ble, and would be suf­fi­cient to as­sure the safe­ty of tri­al par­tic­i­pants, FDA says.

“COVID-19 screen­ing pro­ce­dures that may be man­dat­ed by the health care sys­tem in which a clin­i­cal tri­al is be­ing con­duct­ed do not need to be re­port­ed as an amend­ment to the pro­to­col even if done dur­ing clin­i­cal study vis­its un­less the spon­sor is in­cor­po­rat­ing the da­ta col­lect­ed as part of a new re­search ob­jec­tive,” the guid­ance adds.

For a look at all End­points News coro­n­avirus sto­ries, check out our spe­cial news chan­nel.

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.

ZS Per­spec­tive: 3 Pre­dic­tions on the Fu­ture of Cell & Gene Ther­a­pies

The field of cell and gene therapies (C&GTs) has seen a renaissance, with first generation commercial therapies such as Kymriah, Yescarta, and Luxturna laying the groundwork for an incoming wave of potentially transformative C&GTs that aim to address diverse disease areas. With this renaissance comes several potential opportunities, of which we discuss three predictions below.

Allogenic Natural Killer (NK) Cells have the potential to displace current Cell Therapies in oncology if proven durable.

Despite being early in development, Allogenic NKs are proving to be an attractive new treatment paradigm in oncology. The question of durability of response with allogenic therapies is still an unknown. Fate Therapeutics’ recent phase 1 data for FT516 showed relatively quicker relapses vs already approved autologous CAR-Ts. However, other manufacturers, like Allogene for their allogenic CAR-T therapy ALLO-501A, are exploring novel lymphodepletion approaches to improve persistence of allogenic cells. Nevertheless, allogenic NKs demonstrate a strong value proposition relative to their T cell counterparts due to comparable response rates (so far) combined with the added advantage of a significantly safer AE profile. Specifically, little to no risk of graft versus host disease (GvHD), cytotoxic release syndrome (CRS), and neurotoxicity (NT) have been seen so far with allogenic NK cells (Fig. 1). In addition, being able to harness an allogenic cell source gives way to operational advantages as “off-the-shelf” products provide improved turnaround time (TAT), scalability, and potentially reduced cost. NKs are currently in development for a variety of overlapping hematological indications with chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-Ts) today, and the question remains to what extent they will disrupt the current cell therapy landscape. Click for more details.

A $3B+ peak sales win? Pfiz­er thinks so, as FDA of­fers a tardy green light to its JAK1 drug abroc­i­tinib

Back in the fall of 2020, newly crowned Pfizer chief Albert Bourla confidently put their JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib at the top of the list of blockbuster drugs in the late-stage pipeline with a $3 billion-plus peak sales estimate.

Since then it’s been subjected to serious criticism for the safety warnings associated with the class, held back by a cautious FDA and questioned when researchers rolled out a top-line boast that their heavyweight contender had beaten the champ in the field of atopic dermatitis — Dupixent — in a head-to-head study.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Robert Califf, FDA commissioner nominee (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Rob Califf ad­vances as Biden's FDA nom­i­nee, with a close com­mit­tee vote

Rob Califf’s second confirmation process as FDA commissioner is already much more difficult than his near unanimous confirmation under the Obama administration.

The Senate Health Committee on Thursday voted 13-8 in favor of advancing Califf’s nomination to a full Senate vote. Several Democrats voted against Califf, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Maggie Hassan. Several other Democrats who aren’t on the committee, like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, also said Thursday that they would not vote for Califf. Markey, Hassan and Manchin all previously expressed reservations about the prospect of Janet Woodcock as an FDA commissioner nominee too.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CRO own­er pleads guilty to ob­struct­ing FDA in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to fal­si­fied clin­i­cal tri­al da­ta

The co-owner of a Florida-based clinical research site pleaded guilty to lying to an FDA investigator during a 2017 inspection, revealing that she falsely portrayed part of a GlaxoSmithKline pediatric asthma study as legitimate, when in fact she knew that certain data had been falsified, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Three other employees — Yvelice Villaman Bencosme, Lisett Raventos and Maytee Lledo — previously pleaded guilty and were sentenced in connection with falsifying data associated with the trial at the CRO Unlimited Medical Research.

Lat­est news on Pfiz­er's $3B+ JAK1 win; Pacts over M&A at #JPM22; 2021 by the num­bers; Bio­gen's Aduhelm reck­on­ing; The sto­ry of sotro­vimab; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

For those of you who attended #JPM22 in any shape or form, we hope you had a fruitful time. Regardless of how you spent the past hectic week, may your weekend be just what you need it to be.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

A patient in Alaska receiving an antibody infusion to prevent Covid hospitalizations in September. All but one of these treatments has been rendered useless by Omicron (Rick Bowmer/AP Images)

How a tiny Swiss lab and two old blood sam­ples cre­at­ed one of the on­ly ef­fec­tive drugs against Omi­cron (and why we have so lit­tle of it)

Exactly a decade before a novel coronavirus broke out in Wuhan, Davide Corti — a newly-minted immunologist with frameless glasses and a quick laugh — walked into a cramped lab on the top floor of an office building two hours outside Zurich. He had only enough money for two technicians and the ceiling was so low in parts that short stature was a job requirement, but Corti believed it’d be enough to test an idea he thought could change medicine.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Michel Vounatsos, Biogen CEO (World Economic Forum/Ciaran McCrickard)

Bio­gen vows to fight CM­S' draft cov­er­age de­ci­sion for Aduhelm be­fore April fi­nal­iza­tion

Biogen executives made clear in an investor call Thursday they are not preparing to run a new CMS-approved clinical trial for their controversial Alzheimer’s drug anytime soon.

As requested in a draft national coverage decision from CMS earlier this week, Biogen and other anti-amyloid drugs will need to show “a meaningful improvement in health outcomes” for Alzheimer’s patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to get paid for their drugs, rather than just the reduction in amyloid plaques that won Aduhelm its accelerated approval in June.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Susan Galbraith, AstraZeneca EVP, Oncology R&D

Can­cer pow­er­house As­traZeneca rolls the dice on a $75M cash bet on a buzzy up­start in the on­col­o­gy field

After establishing itself in the front ranks of cancer drug developers and marketers, AstraZeneca is putting its scientific shoulder — and a significant amount of cash — behind the wheel of a brash new upstart in the biotech world.

The pharma giant trumpeted news this morning that it is handing over $75 million upfront to ally itself with Scorpion Therapeutics, one of those biotechs that was newly birthed by some top scientific, venture and executive talent and bequeathed with a fortune by way of a bankroll to advance an only hazily explained drug platform. And they are still very much in the discovery and preclinical phase.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 128,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

‘Skin­ny la­bels’ on gener­ics can save pa­tients mon­ey, re­search shows, but re­cent court de­ci­sions cloud fu­ture

New research shows how generic drug companies can successfully market a limited number of approved indications for a brand name drug, prior to coming to market for all of the indications. But several recent court decisions have created a layer of uncertainty around these so-called “skinny” labels.

While courts have generally allowed generic manufacturers to use their statutorily permitted skinny-label approvals, last summer, a federal circuit court found that Teva Pharmaceuticals was liable for inducing prescribers and patients to infringe GlaxoSmithKline’s patents through advertising and marketing practices that suggested Teva’s generic, with its skinny label, could be employed for the patented uses.