Got­tlieb tack­les spec­u­la­tors, FDA trans­paren­cy and the R&D gold stan­dard in a last round of queries ahead of con­fir­ma­tion vote

Field­ing a fi­nal bar­rage of writ­ten ques­tions from a group of skep­ti­cal De­mo­c­ra­t­ic US Sen­a­tors ahead of to­day’s com­mit­tee vote on Scott Got­tlieb’s nom­i­na­tion as head of the FDA, the na­tion’s like­ly next Com­mis­sion­er of Food and Drugs vowed to square off against fi­nan­cial spec­u­la­tors who are gam­ing the sys­tem to charge high prices, reaf­firmed his un­wa­ver­ing sup­port for the coun­try’s gold stan­dard on drug de­vel­op­ment and re­views and called for pub­lish­ing most of what the agency’s CRLs say about reg­u­la­tors’ rea­sons for re­ject­ing a mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion.

This in­ter­change be­tween the prospec­tive head of the FDA and law­mak­ers helps il­lus­trate key points Got­tlieb is like­ly to raise in the com­ing years with the world’s drug de­vel­op­ers. And they mark a clear line in the sand that il­lus­trates where the agency is like­ly to be more — and less — ac­com­mo­dat­ing for com­pa­nies charged with han­dling the world’s drug pipeline.

De­mo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Robert Casey (D-PA) and Al Franken (D-MI) both pressed him on drug pric­ing and the role he could play at the FDA in bring­ing costs down. Franken in par­tic­u­lar cit­ed hun­dreds of gener­ic drugs with no cur­rent com­pe­ti­tion, leav­ing them wide open to play­ers like Mar­tin Shkre­li, the for­mer CEO at Tur­ing, who hiked the price of gener­ic Dara­prim by more than 5000%, trig­ger­ing a lin­ger­ing con­tro­ver­sy.

Here is Got­tlieb’s an­swer, which he re­peat­ed in oth­er re­spons­es to the ar­ray of ques­tions he faced (em­pha­sis added):

While drug pric­ing does not fall di­rect­ly with­in FDA’s purview, I be­lieve the agency can play an im­por­tant role on this im­por­tant is­sue by tak­ing steps to im­prove prod­uct com­pe­ti­tion. If con­firmed, I will work to en­sure FDA has the ap­pro­pri­ate poli­cies and process­es in place to ef­fec­tive­ly fa­cil­i­tate gener­ic mar­ket en­try and com­pe­ti­tion, es­pe­cial­ly for com­plex drugs that some­times don’t face ef­fec­tive gener­ic com­pe­ti­tion even long af­ter patent ex­piries. Re­form­ing the reg­u­la­to­ry path­way for com­plex gener­ic prod­ucts would ad­dress one key pol­i­cy de­fi­cien­cy that re­sults in un­nec­es­sary bar­ri­ers to the de­vel­op­ment and re­view of gener­ic com­peti­tors for some in­no­va­tor prod­ucts for which tra­di­tion­al bioe­quiv­a­lence and bioavail­abil­i­ty test­ing alone are some­times in­suf­fi­cient for prov­ing same­ness. FDA should al­so ex­plore op­tions to im­prove the ef­fi­cien­cy and con­sis­ten­cy of AN­DA re­view process­es and time­lines, so that fi­nan­cial spec­u­la­tors can­not en­gage in a reg­u­la­to­ry ar­bi­trage, by dra­mat­i­cal­ly hik­ing the price of some very old gener­ic drugs be­cause they know it can take years for new gener­ic com­peti­tors to en­ter the mar­ket.

Sen­a­tor Shel­don White­house (D-RI) not­ed that there have been oc­ca­sions when gener­ic man­u­fac­tur­ers protest­ed that brand­ed drug man­u­fac­tur­ers were rais­ing hur­dles on ac­cess­ing drugs to de­lay cheap knock­offs.

Part of Got­tlieb’s re­sponse:

If man­u­fac­tur­ers in­ap­pro­pri­ate­ly refuse to pro­vide their prod­uct to prospec­tive gener­ic com­peti­tors, this would be a con­cern to FDA and be­come a mat­ter for po­ten­tial en­force­ment ac­tion by the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion.

Al­so, he added, re­form­ing the path­way on com­plex gener­ics could al­so help ad­dress this.

Tam­my Bald­win (D-WI) en­cour­aged Got­tlieb to get be­hind new rules to use pa­tient-re­port­ed out­comes mea­sures in the re­view process, to “cap­ture da­ta be­yond just dis­ease symp­toms and phys­i­cal func­tion­ing to in­clude psy­choso­cial health mea­sures, in­clud­ing dis­tress screen­ing (e.g., con­cerns re­lat­ed to dis­rup­tion of work/fam­i­ly life [due to the reg­i­men], con­cerns re­lat­ed to nu­tri­tion, fi­nan­cial im­pact and oth­ers). This would pro­vide mean­ing­ful pa­tient feed­back about is­sues that may not be iden­ti­fied through the cur­rent mea­sures be­ing used in the clin­i­cal tri­al process.”

Got­tlieb:

I strong­ly agree that pa­tient ex­pe­ri­ences, pref­er­ences, and per­spec­tives should play an im­por­tant and ap­pro­pri­ate role in FDA’s reg­u­la­to­ry pol­i­cy-mak­ing and de­ci­sion-mak­ing. Among oth­er ap­proach­es, I have ad­vo­cat­ed that we con­tin­ue to ad­vance well-val­i­dat­ed, sci­en­tif­ic tools for in­cor­po­rat­ing Pa­tient Re­port­ed Out­comes (PROs) as end­points in clin­i­cal tri­als. I sup­port these and oth­er mea­sures that would al­low mean­ing­ful pa­tient feed­back to be in­cor­po­rat­ed in­to reg­u­la­to­ry de­ci­sion mak­ing to bet­ter de­fine pa­tient-ex­pe­ri­ence da­ta that may not be iden­ti­fied through the cur­rent mea­sures be­ing used in the clin­i­cal tri­al process.

Sen­a­tor Christo­pher Mur­phy (D-CT) raised Got­tlieb’s stand on trans­paren­cy, an is­sue that comes up rou­tine­ly for an agency barred by law from dis­cussing de­tails on drug da­ta — and much more.

I am a strong pro­po­nent of da­ta trans­paren­cy—for pa­tients, physi­cians, and man­u­fac­tur­ers. I have long ad­vo­cat­ed that the FDA re­lease more in­for­ma­tion re­lat­ed to its own re­view process that could be used to bet­ter in­form con­sumers and prod­uct de­vel­op­ers alike. If con­firmed, I will be com­mit­ted to work­ing with Con­gress, pa­tients, in­dus­try, and stake­hold­ers on the is­sue of da­ta trans­paren­cy and new ways that FDA could po­ten­tial­ly make im­por­tant of its own in­for­ma­tion and de­lib­er­a­tions more read­i­ly avail­able to the pub­lic.

And in an­oth­er an­swer to one of Sen­a­tor Eliz­a­beth War­ren’s (D-MA) ques­tions, he added an im­por­tant point on his com­mit­ment to open­ing up more.

This in­cludes the com­plete re­sponse let­ters, af­ter prop­er redac­tion of com­mer­cial con­fi­den­tial in­for­ma­tion.

Through it all, Got­tlieb re­peat­ed­ly com­mit­ted to main­tain­ing the agency’s stan­dards on prov­ing a drug’s ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty ahead of an ap­proval. And he stuck to that as Sen­a­tor Pat­ty Mur­ray (D-WA) ques­tioned where he would draw the line and new drug ap­provals, cit­ing some crit­i­cism from Got­tlieb five years ago.

FDA has made sig­nif­i­cant progress in re­cent years to en­sure that pa­tients in the U.S. have ac­cess to new, in­no­v­a­tive ther­a­pies thanks to new leg­isla­tive path­ways like Break­through Ther­a­py des­ig­na­tion. The adop­tion of the Break­through path­way ad­dressed many of the con­cerns I raised in that 2012 ar­ti­cle. I be­lieve we should con­tin­ue to look for ways to im­prove the ef­fi­cien­cy of FDA’s med­ical prod­uct re­view pro­gram, mod­ern­ize the sci­en­tif­ic stan­dards used in drug reg­u­la­tion, and seek more uni­form adop­tion of path­ways cre­at­ed by Con­gress like the Break­through Des­ig­na­tion, and build on these op­por­tu­ni­ties through adop­tion of the new pro­vi­sions in Con­gress in 21st Cen­tu­ry Cures. We need to do all these things while con­tin­u­ing to en­sure that new prod­ucts meet FDA’s Gold Stan­dard for safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy.

In an­oth­er re­sponse, he not­ed:

Main­tain­ing the Gold Stan­dard of safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy for med­ical prod­ucts is fun­da­men­tal to FDA’s mis­sion to pro­tect and pro­mote pub­lic health.

Got­tlieb al­so re­peat­ed that his of­ten cit­ed busi­ness ties to com­pa­nies like Glax­o­SmithK­line, which had paid him $60,000 a year plus trav­el ex­pens­es for his ad­vice, Ver­tex, Cel­gene and oth­ers were al­ready or about to be sev­ered, vow­ing to seek coun­sel from ethics ad­vis­ers af­ter re­cus­ing him­self from any de­ci­sions about his for­mer clients and busi­ness in­vest­ments.

Got­tlieb is dig­ging in for the du­ra­tion.


Im­age: Com­mis­sion­er-des­ig­nate Scott Got­tlieb at his nom­i­na­tion hear­ing in ear­ly April Zach Gib­son/Get­ty Im­ages

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.