Gilead boasts of pos­i­tive remde­sivir da­ta on mor­tal­i­ty — but their analy­sis pro­vokes the skep­tics

Gilead is surg­ing again off da­ta that sug­gest its an­tivi­ral remde­sivir might im­prove sur­vival.

The new da­ta come from an analy­sis Gilead con­duct­ed com­par­ing the death rate and re­cov­ery time of pa­tients in one of its remde­sivir tri­als to a group of 800 pa­tients “with sim­i­lar base­line char­ac­ter­is­tics and dis­ease sever­i­ty” who re­ceived on­ly stan­dard-of-care around the same time. The re­sult, they said, sug­gest­ed that pa­tients who re­ceived remde­sivir had a 62% bet­ter chance at sur­viv­ing than those who did not.

Ret­ro­spec­tive looks are more sus­pect than place­bo-con­trolled tri­als, so the da­ta are far from con­clu­sive. But it does add new ev­i­dence to the ques­tion of whether remde­sivir can im­prove mor­tal­i­ty. The NIH tri­al that led the FDA to au­tho­rize remde­sivir for use in Covid-19 pa­tients on­ly showed that remde­sivir could help pa­tients re­cov­er faster. Few­er pa­tients on remde­sivir died in that tri­al than on stan­dard-of-care — 8% vs 11% — but the re­sults were not sig­nif­i­cant.

For­mer FDA chief sci­en­tist Lu­ciana Bo­rio said that da­ta from ob­ser­va­tion­al stud­ies are dif­fi­cult to in­ter­pret, but that the bulk of ev­i­dence points to remde­sivir help­ing pa­tients sur­vive Covid-19. “It is very like­ly that Remde­sivir does in­deed af­ford pa­tients a mor­tal­i­ty ben­e­fit,” she said in an email. “The gold stan­dard RCT con­duct­ed by the NIH demon­strat­ing the clin­i­cal ben­e­fit of Remde­sivir in im­prov­ing time to re­cov­er wasn’t pow­ered to de­tect a dif­fer­ence in mor­tal­i­ty. It doesn’t mean that there wasn’t one”

In a tweet, for­mer FDA chief Scott Got­tlieb called the re­sults “en­cour­ag­ing” but urged that it need­ed to be con­firmed. The com­pa­ny ac­knowl­edged in their press re­lease that a prospec­tive study was need­ed.

Gilead was up 2% pre-mar­ket on the news, from $74.71 to $76.18.

Oth­er an­a­lysts and ex­perts, though, were more skep­ti­cal and in some cas­es en­tire­ly dis­mis­sive. Pe­ter Bach, the di­rec­tor for the cen­ter for health pol­i­cy and out­comes at Memo­r­i­al Sloan Ket­ter­ing Can­cer Cen­ter, said on Twit­ter that com­par­ing tri­al par­tic­i­pants to re­al-world pa­tients on­ly works when doc­tors have a good un­der­stand­ing of the dis­ease, some­thing that isn’t the case with Covid-19.

Baird an­a­lyst Bri­an Sko­r­ney com­pared the study to work from Di­di­er Raoult, the French physi­cian who pub­lished in Feb­ru­ary one of the first tri­als on hy­drox­y­chloro­quine in Covid-19. That study, de­spite gin­ning up sig­nif­i­cant in­ter­est in the drug, was seen as rife with is­sues, in­clud­ing in “los­ing” 6 of the tri­al’s 26 pa­tients “in fol­low-up,” 4 of whom died.

In the study, 312 pa­tients from Gilead’s open-la­bel SIM­PLE tri­al were com­pared to 818 re­al-world pa­tients who had sim­i­lar char­ac­ter­is­tics. Pa­tients who re­ceived remde­sivir had a 7.6% chance of dy­ing, com­pared to 12.6% for those who re­ceived stan­dard-of-care. That trans­lates to 62% im­proved odds of sur­vival — or slight­ly more than dou­ble the 30% im­proved odds the NIH tri­al’s raw num­bers sug­gest­ed.

Sun­Trust an­a­lyst Robyn Kar­nauskas said the sur­vival rates in each tri­al were “com­pa­ra­ble,” while ac­knowl­edg­ing the study was “not an ap­ples-to-ap­ples com­par­i­son.”

The remde­sivir pa­tients in the analy­sis al­so had a 74.4% chance of re­cov­er­ing by day 14, ver­sus 59.9% for stan­dard-of-care.

Not every tri­al, though, has found remde­sivir has a ben­e­fit. On the same day as the NIH read­out, The Lancet pub­lished a study from Chi­na that found remde­sivir im­proved nei­ther mor­tal­i­ty nor oth­er pa­tient met­rics. That study, though, was end­ed ear­ly af­ter the first out­break in Chi­na end­ed.

For hos­pi­tals that can get their hands on it, remde­sivir so far has been one of on­ly two proven treat­ments for Covid-19, along with a gener­ic steroid called dex­am­etha­sone. More an­tivi­rals and neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies, though, are now be­ing stud­ied, hav­ing be­come a grow­ing fo­cus of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion. If more ther­a­pies prove ef­fec­tive, the new Gilead da­ta could help physi­cians choose the best op­tion.

“While not as vig­or­ous as a ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­al, this analy­sis im­por­tant­ly draws from a re­al-world set­ting and serves as an im­por­tant ad­junct to clin­i­cal tri­al da­ta, adding to our col­lec­tive un­der­stand­ing of this virus and re­flect­ing the ex­tra­or­di­nary pace of the on­go­ing pan­dem­ic,” in­ves­ti­ga­tor Su­san Olen­der of Co­lum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty Irv­ing Med­ical Cen­ter said in a state­ment.

So­cial: AP Im­ages

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

Biotech Half­time Re­port: Af­ter a bumpy year, is biotech ready to re­bound?

The biotech sector has come down firmly from the highs of February as negative sentiment takes hold. The sector had a major boost of optimism from the success of the COVID-19 vaccines, making investors keenly aware of the potential of biopharma R&D engines. But from early this year, clinical trial, regulatory and access setbacks have reminded investors of the sector’s inherent risks.

RBC Capital Markets recently surveyed investors to take the temperature of the market, a mix of specialists/generalists and long-only/ long-short investment strategies. Heading into the second half of the year, investors mostly see the sector as undervalued (49%), a large change from the first half of the year when only 20% rated it as undervalued. Around 41% of investors now believe that biotech will underperform the S&P500 in the second half of 2021. Despite that view, 54% plan to maintain their position in the market and 41% still plan to increase their holdings.

How to col­lect and sub­mit RWD to win ap­proval for a new drug in­di­ca­tion: FDA spells it out in a long-await­ed guid­ance

Real-world data is messy. There can be differences in the standards used to collect different types of data, differences in terminologies and curation strategies, and even in the way data is exchanged.

While acknowledging this somewhat controlled chaos, the FDA is now explaining how biopharma companies can submit study data derived from real-world data (RWD) sources in applicable regulatory submissions, including new drug indications.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

David Livingston (Credit: Michael Sazel for CeMM)

Renowned Dana-Far­ber sci­en­tist, men­tor and bio­phar­ma ad­vi­sor David Liv­ingston has died

David Livingston, the Dana-Farber/Harvard Med scientist who helped shine a light on some of the key molecular drivers of breast and ovarian cancer, died unexpectedly last Sunday.

One of the senior leaders at Dana-Farber during his nearly half century of work there, Livingston was credited with shedding light on the genes that regulate cell growth, with insights into inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that helped lay the scientific foundation for targeted therapies and earlier detection that have transformed the field.

David Lockhart, ReCode Therapeutics CEO

Pfiz­er throws its weight be­hind LNP play­er eye­ing mR­NA treat­ments for CF, PCD

David Lockhart did not see the meteoric rise of messenger RNA and lipid nanoparticles coming.

Thanks to the worldwide fight against Covid-19, mRNA — the genetic code that can be engineered to turn the body into a mini protein factory — and LNPs, those tiny bubbles of fat carrying those instructions, have found their way into hundreds of millions of people. Within the biotech world, pioneers like Alnylam and Intellia have demonstrated just how versatile LNPs can be as a delivery vehicle for anything from siRNA to CRISPR/Cas9.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 120,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Boost­er bo­nan­za: FDA en­dors­es 'mix-and-match' scheme, and Mod­er­na and J&J too

The FDA late Wednesday signed off on authorizing the use of heterologous — or what FDA calls a “mix and match” of a primary vaccine series and different booster doses — for all currently available Covid-19 vaccines, in addition to separately authorizing Moderna and J&J boosters.

On the mix-and-match approach, which FDA officials insisted isn’t too confusing in a press conference, the agency offered the example of an 18-year-old who received the J&J shot at least two months ago and may now receive a single booster of the J&J, a half dose of the Moderna, or the Pfizer-BioNTech booster.

No­vo CEO Lars Fruer­gaard Jør­gensen on R&D risk, the deal strat­e­gy and tar­gets for gen­der di­ver­si­ty

 

I kicked off our European R&D summit last week with a conversation involving Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen. Novo is aiming to launch a new era of obesity management with a new approval for semaglutide. And Jørgensen had a lot to say about what comes next in R&D, how they manage risk and gender diversity targets at the trendsetting European pharma giant.

John Carroll: I’m here with Lars Jørgensen, the CEO of Novo Nordisk. Lars, it’s been a really interesting year so far with Novo Nordisk, right? You’ve projected a new era of growing sales. You’ve been able to expand on the GLP-1 franchise that was already well established in diabetes now going into obesity. And I think a tremendous number of people are really interested in how that’s working out. You have forecast a growing amount of sales. We don’t know specifically how that might play out. I know a lot of the analysts have different ideas, how those numbers might play out, but that we are in fact embarking on a new era for Novo Nordisk in terms of what the company’s capable of doing and what it’s able to do and what it wants to do. And I wanted to start off by asking you about obesity in particular. Semaglutide has been approved in the United States for obesity. It’s an area of R&D that’s been very troubled for decades. There have been weight loss drugs that have come along. They’ve attracted a lot of attention, but they haven’t actually ever gained traction in the market. My first question is what’s different this time about obesity? What is different about this drug and why do you expect it to work now whereas previous drugs haven’t?

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Leen Kawas (L) has resigned as CEO of Athira and will be replaced by COO Mark Litton

Ex­clu­sive: Athi­ra CEO Leen Kawas re­signs af­ter in­ves­ti­ga­tion finds she ma­nip­u­lat­ed da­ta

Leen Kawas, CEO and founder of the Alzheimer’s upstart Athira Pharma, has resigned after an internal investigation found she altered images in her doctoral thesis and four other papers that were foundational to establishing the company.

Mark Litton, the company’s COO since June 2019 and a longtime biotech executive, has been named full-time CEO. Kawas, meanwhile, will no longer have ties to the company except for owning a few hundred thousand shares.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca CEO (via Getty images)

UP­DAT­ED: FDA slaps As­traZeneca's MCL-1 can­cer drug with a hold af­ter safe­ty is­sue — 2 years af­ter Am­gen axed a trou­bled ri­val

There are new questions being posed about a class of cancer drugs in the wake of the second FDA-enforced clinical hold in the field.

Two years after the FDA hit Amgen with a clinical hold on its MCL-1 inhibitor AMG 397 following signs of cardiac toxicity, AstraZeneca says that regulators hit them with a hold on their rival therapy of the same class.

The pharma giant noted on clinicaltrials.gov that its Phase I/II study for the MCL-1 drug AZD5991 “has been put on hold to allow further evaluation of safety related information.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 120,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Man­u­fac­tur­ing woes for No­vavax’s Covid jab bad­ly dis­rupt plans for roll­out to the poor — re­port

Production problems at a Novavax facility in Maryland have led to delays in the Covax vaccine sharing program. Now, a shortage of 1 billion doses is expected, as the supplier tries to navigate producing a shot up to regulators’ standards, Politico reported Tuesday.

The company has run into trouble with the purity of the vaccine. Novavax has had trouble proving it can produce a shot consistently up to standards, and it has caused significant delays in the rollout to low- and middle-income countries. This follows several delays at Novavax that has put the executive crew on the defensive.