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.”


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

As­traZeneca trum­pets the good da­ta they found for Tagris­so in an ad­ju­vant set­ting for NSCLC — but many of the ex­perts aren’t cheer­ing along

AstraZeneca is rolling out the big guns this evening to provide a salute to their ADAURA data on Tagrisso at ASCO.

Cancer R&D chief José Baselga calls the disease-free survival data for their drug in an adjuvant setting of early stage, epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated NSCLC patients following surgery “momentous.” Roy Herbst, the principal investigator out of Yale, calls it “transformative.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pablo Legorreta, founder and CEO of Royalty Pharma AG, speaks at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Cap­i­tal­iz­ing Pablo: The world’s biggest drug roy­al­ty buy­er is go­ing pub­lic. And the low-key CEO di­vulges a few se­crets along the way

Pablo Legorreta is one of the most influential players in biopharma you likely never heard of.

Over the last 24 years, Legorreta’s Royalty Pharma group has become, by its own reckoning, the biggest buyer of drug royalties in the world. The CEO and founder has bought up a stake in a lengthy list of the world’s biggest drug franchises, spending $18 billion in the process — $2.2 billion last year alone. And he’s become one of the best-paid execs in the industry, reaping $28 million from the cash flow last year while reserving 20% of the cash flow, less expenses, for himself.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi CEO (Getty Images)

Sanofi CEO Paul Hud­son has $23B burn­ing a hole in his pock­et. And here are some hints on how he plans to spend that

Sanofi has reaped $11.1 billion after selling off a big chunk of its Regeneron stock at $515 a share. And now everyone on the M&A side of the business is focused on how CEO Paul Hudson plans to spend it.

After getting stung in France for some awkward politicking — suggesting the US was in the front of the line for Sanofi’s vaccines given American financial support for their work, versus little help from European powers — Hudson now has the much more popular task of managing a major cash cache to pull off something in the order of a big bolt-on. Or two.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The Advance Clinical leadership team: CEO Yvonne Lungershausen, Sandrien Louwaars - Director Business Development Operations, Gabriel Kremmidiotis - Chief Scientific Officer, Ben Edwards - Chief Strategy Officer

How Aus­tralia De­liv­ers Rapid Start-up and 43.5% Re­bate for Ear­ly Phase On­col­o­gy Tri­als

About Avance Clinical

Avance Clinical is an Australian owned Contract Research Organisation that has been providing high-quality clinical research services to the local and international drug development industry for 20 years. They specialise in working with biotech companies to execute Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials to deliver high-quality outcomes fit for global regulatory standards.

As oncology sponsors look internationally to speed-up trials after unprecedented COVID-19 suspensions and delays, Australia, which has led the world in minimizing the pandemic’s impact, stands out as an attractive destination for early phase trials. This in combination with the streamlined regulatory system and the financial benefits including a very favourable exchange rate and the R & D cash rebate makes Australia the perfect location for accelerating biotech clinical programs.

Dan O'Day, Gilead CEO (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Gilead leas­es part­ner rights to TIG­IT, PD-1 in a $2B deal with Ar­cus. Now comes the hard part

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has brokered his way to a PD-1 and lined up a front row seat in the TIGIT arena, inking a deal worth close to $2 billion to align the big biotech closely with Terry Rosen’s Arcus. And $375 million of that comes upfront, with cash for the buy-in plus equity, along with $400 million for R&D and $1.22 billion in reserve to cover opt-in payments and milestones..

Hotly rumored for weeks, the 2 players have formalized a 10-year alliance that starts with rights to the PD-1, zimberelimab. O’Day also has first dibs on TIGIT and 2 other leading programs, agreeing to an opt-in fee ranging from $200 million to $275 million on each. There’s $500 million in potential TIGIT milestones on US regulatory events — likely capped by an approval — if Gilead partners on it and the stars align on the data. And there’s another $150 million opt-in payments for the rest of the Arcus pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis jumps in­to Covid-19 vac­cine hunt, as Big Phar­ma and big biotech com­mit to bil­lions of dos­es

After spending most of the pandemic on the sidelines, Novartis is offering its aid in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

AveXis, the Swiss pharma’s gene therapy subsidiary, has agreed to manufacture the vaccine being developed by Massachusetts Eye and Ear and Massachusetts General Hospital. The biotech will begin manufacturing this month, while the vaccine undergoes further preclinical testing. They’ve agreed to provide the vaccine for free for clinical trials beginning in the second half of 2020, but have not disclosed financials for after.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bris­tol My­ers Squibb fi­nal­ly gets in the front­line NSCLC game dom­i­nat­ed by Mer­ck, adding a sec­ond Op­di­vo/Yer­voy-based op­tion

Bristol Myers Squibb may be trailing Merck and Roche in the checkpoint race to treat frontline cases of non-small cell lung cancer, but as it does, it makes sure to bring its best feet forward.

Just days after scoring a landmark NSCLC approval for Opdivo and Yervoy alone for PD-L1 positive patients, the company said the FDA has also OK’d using the two agents with a limited course of chemo regardless of the biomarker status.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bryan Roberts, Venrock

Ven­rock sur­vey shows grow­ing recog­ni­tion of coro­n­avirus toll, wan­ing con­fi­dence in ar­rival of vac­cines and treat­ments

When Venrock partner Bryan Roberts went to check the results from their annual survey of healthcare leaders, what he found was an imprint of the pandemic’s slow arrival in America.

The venture firm had sent their form out to hundreds of insurance and health tech executives, investors, officials and academics on February 24 and gave them two weeks to fill it out. No Americans had died at that point but the coronavirus had become enough of a global crisis that they included two questions about the virus, including “Total U.S. deaths in 2020 from the novel coronavirus will be:”.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck R&D chief (YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Backed by BAR­DA, Mer­ck jumps in­to Covid-19: buy­ing out a vac­cine, part­ner­ing on an­oth­er and adding an­tivi­ral to the mix

Merck execs are making a triple play in a sudden leap into the R&D campaign against Covid-19. And they have more BARDA cash backing them up on the move.

Tuesday morning the pharma giant simultaneously announced plans to buy an Austrian biotech that has been working on a preclinical vaccine candidate, added a collaboration on another vaccine with the nonprofit IAVI and inked a deal with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on an early-stage antiviral.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.