How bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies use NIH and vice ver­sa

An ar­gu­ment has been brew­ing on Capi­tol Hill and else­where that boils down to the the­o­ry that US tax­pay­ers are fronting bil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of pub­lic re­search that trans­lates in­to ear­ly-stage prod­ucts that are lat­er sold to com­pa­nies, go on to win FDA ap­proval and then reap mil­lions or bil­lions in sales, al­though the gov­ern­ment nev­er sees a dime of those earn­ings.

With the help of a new Con­gres­sion­al Re­search Ser­vice (CRS) re­port pub­lished Fri­day and some oth­er ma­te­ri­als, Fo­cus can break down what’s hap­pen­ing.

1. Do tax­pay­ers pay for bil­lions in re­search?

Yes. In FY 2018, the Na­tion­al In­sti­tutes of Health (NIH) had a bud­get of more than $34 bil­lion to sup­port more than 300,000 sci­en­tists and re­search per­son­nel work­ing at over 2,500 in­sti­tu­tions across the US and abroad. And from FY 1998 to FY 2003, Con­gress dou­bled the NIH bud­get. The to­tal NIH ap­pro­pri­a­tion for FY 2019 is $39 bil­lion.

2. Does NIH re­search trans­late in­to ear­ly-stage prod­ucts?

Some­times. And here’s where the quan­tifi­ca­tion of NIH’s work gets tricky.

As the CRS re­port notes, over 50% of NIH fund­ing sup­ports ba­sic re­search, mean­ing, “NIH fund­ed re­search is, to a greater ex­tent, in­di­rect­ly in­volved—by gen­er­at­ing sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge and in­no­va­tions that aid in phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal de­vel­op­ment. For ex­am­ple, im­por­tant ba­sic ad­vances in re­search, such as re­com­bi­nant DNA, can lead to the de­vel­op­ment of whole new class­es of drugs.”

But drugs with a patent held by NIH or NIH-fund­ed re­searchers rep­re­sent a small por­tion of all ap­proved drugs by the US Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion (FDA). A Health Af­fairs study from 2011 found that 9% of the new drugs ap­proved by FDA from 1988 to 2005 were based on a patent held by ei­ther a gov­ern­ment agency or a non­govern­men­tal in­sti­tu­tion that had re­ceived gov­ern­ment sup­port.

An­oth­er study from the New Eng­land Med­ical Jour­nal in 2011 found that of the 1,541 drugs ap­proved by FDA from 1990 through 2007, 143, or 9.3%, re­sult­ed from work con­duct­ed in pub­lic sec­tor re­search in­sti­tu­tions, in­clud­ing all uni­ver­si­ties, re­search hos­pi­tals, non­prof­it re­search in­sti­tutes and fed­er­al lab­o­ra­to­ries in the US.

But when the di­rect and in­di­rect im­pact of NIH fund­ing is con­sid­ered, the re­sults show a larg­er NIH im­pact. For in­stance, a PNAS study from 2018 found that NIH was “di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly as­so­ci­at­ed with every one of 210 NMEs [new mol­e­c­u­lar en­ti­ties] ap­proved from 2010-2016.”

Sim­i­lar­ly, 2018 study de­ter­mined that NIH in­vest­ments in a par­tic­u­lar re­search area in­crease sub­se­quent pri­vate sec­tor patent­ing in that area—a $10 mil­lion in­crease in NIH fund­ing for a re­search area re­sults in 2.7 ad­di­tion­al patents.

But as NIH’s Steven Fer­gu­son not­ed in the Jour­nal of Com­mer­cial Biotech­nol­o­gy in 2012, it’s not as if NIH can take these ear­ly-stage prod­ucts to mar­ket. And as with bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies, the num­ber of fail­ures con­tin­ues to heav­i­ly out­num­ber the ap­provals. Fer­gu­son said: “Be­cause many, if not most of the tech­nolo­gies de­vel­oped at the NIH and FDA, are ear­ly stage bio­med­ical tech­nolo­gies, the time and de­vel­op­ment risks to de­vel­op a com­mer­cial prod­uct are high.”

3. Does NIH make mon­ey from its ear­ly-stage prod­ucts?

Yes. From 1988 to 2004, NIH en­tered in­to al­most 2,500 li­cense agree­ments and gen­er­at­ed more than $500 mil­lion in roy­al­ty rev­enues. More re­cent­ly, roy­al­ties have amount­ed to more than $100 mil­lion per year.

NIH’s Of­fice of Tech­nol­o­gy Trans­fer FY 2014 an­nu­al re­port ex­plains how roy­al­ties col­lect­ed on prod­uct sales, pri­mar­i­ly drugs and bi­o­log­ics, ac­count for 84% of the $138 mil­lion in roy­al­ties col­lect­ed in 2014. And the three best-sell­ing prod­ucts uti­liz­ing tech­nol­o­gy li­censed from NIH that year were Janssen’s Prezista, a nov­el pro­tease in­hibitor for the treat­ment of HIV-1 in pa­tients who are non-re­spon­sive to ex­ist­ing an­ti­retro­vi­ral ther­a­pies, Mer­ck’s Gar­dasil, a vac­cine to pro­tect against cer­vi­cal can­cer, and As­traZeneca’s Synagis, a mon­o­clon­al an­ti­body for the treat­ment of Res­pi­ra­to­ry Syn­cy­tial Virus (RSV) in in­fants.

4. What else is com­ing?

Oth­er ques­tions are mount­ing now, in­clud­ing whether the roy­al­ties that NIH and oth­er gov­ern­ment agen­cies reap from its ear­ly-stage prod­ucts are ad­e­quate, and whether NIH should be able to step in and low­er the price of a prod­uct that it helped to de­vel­op.

Late last month, some are ques­tion­ing why the CDC is not reap­ing prof­its from patents it has on a li­censed HIV drug brought to mar­ket by Gilead. Gilead, how­ev­er, con­tends that the patents are in­valid.

More re­cent­ly, the Na­tion­al In­sti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­o­gy (NIST) is look­ing in­to the idea of clar­i­fy­ing that the gov­ern­ment can­not uni­lat­er­al­ly set prices for cer­tain phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals. The is­sue at hand con­cerns whether cer­tain reg­u­la­tions (nev­er used by NIH), un­der the Bayh-Dole Act, should be al­tered so the gov­ern­ment can­not con­trol the price of some phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals it helped to de­vel­op. Sev­er­al groups, in­clud­ing Doc­tors With­out Bor­ders, are push­ing back on those NIST changes.

CRS Re­port on NIH


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: NIH

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

De­vel­op­ment of the Next Gen­er­a­tion NKG2D CAR T-cell Man­u­fac­tur­ing Process

Celyad’s view on developing and delivering a CAR T-cell therapy with multi-tumor specificity combined with cell manufacturing success
Overview
Transitioning potential therapeutic assets from academia into the commercial environment is an exercise that is largely underappreciated by stakeholders, except for drug developers themselves. The promise of preclinical or early clinical results drives enthusiasm, but the pragmatic delivery of a therapy outside of small, local testing is most often a major challenge for drug developers especially, including among other things, the manufacturing challenges that surround the production of just-in-time and personalized autologous cell therapy products.

Paul Hudson. Sanofi

New Sanofi CEO Hud­son adds next-gen can­cer drug tech to the R&D quest, buy­ing Syn­thorx for $2.5B

When Paul Hudson lays out his R&D vision for Sanofi tomorrow, he will have a new slate of interleukin therapies and a synthetic biology platform to boast about.

The French pharma giant announced early Monday that it is snagging San Diego biotech Synthorx in a $2.5 billion deal. That marks an affordable bolt-on for Sanofi but a considerable return for Synthorx backers, including Avalon, RA Capital and OrbiMed: At $68 per share, the price represents a 172% premium to Friday’s closing.

Synthorx’s take on alternative IL-2 drugs for both cancer and autoimmune disorders — enabled by a synthetic DNA base pair pioneered by Scripps professor Floyd Romesberg — “fits perfectly” with the kind of innovation that he wants at Sanofi, Hudson said.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Game on: Re­gen­eron's BC­MA bis­pe­cif­ic makes clin­i­cal da­ta de­but, kick­ing off mul­ti­ple myelo­ma matchup with Bris­tol-My­ers

As J&J attempts to jostle past Bristol-Myers Squibb and bluebird for a landmark approval of its anti-BCMA CAR-T — and while GlaxoSmithKline maps a quick path to the FDA riding on its own BCMA-targeting antibody-drug conjugates — the bispecifics are arriving on the scene to stake a claim for a market that could cross $10 billion per year.

The main rivalry in multiple myeloma is shaping up to be one between Regeneron and Bristol-Myers, which picked up a bispecific antibody to BCMA through its recently closed $74 billion takeover of Celgene. Both presented promising first-in-human data at the ASH 2019 meeting.

FDA lifts hold on Abeon­a's but­ter­fly dis­ease ther­a­py, paving way for piv­otal study

It’s been a difficult few years for gene and cell therapy startup Abeona Therapeutics. Its newly crowned chief Carsten Thiel was forced out last year following accusations of unspecified “personal misconduct,” and this September, the FDA imposed a clinical hold on its therapy for a form of “butterfly” disease. But things are beginning to perk up. On Monday, the company said the regulator had lifted its hold and the experimental therapy is now set to be evaluated in a late-stage study.

Roche faces an­oth­er de­lay in strug­gle to nav­i­gate Spark deal past reg­u­la­tors — but this one is very short

Roche today issued the latest in a long string of delays of its $4.3 billion buyout of Philadelphia-based Spark Therapeutics. The delay comes as little surprise — it is their 10th in as many months — as their most recent delay was scheduled to expire before a key regulatory deadline.

But it is notable for its length: 6 days.

Previous extensions had moved the goalposts by about 3 weeks to a month, with the latest on November 22 expiring tomorrow. The new delay sets a deadline for next Monday, December 16, the same day by which the UK Competition and Markets Authority has to give its initial ruling on the deal. And they already reportedly have lined up an OK from the FTC staff – although that’s only one level of a multi-step process.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

KalVis­ta's di­a­bet­ic mac­u­lar ede­ma da­ta falls short — will Mer­ck walk away?

Merck’s 2017 bet on KalVista Pharmaceuticals may have soured, after the UK/US-based biotech’s lead drug failed a mid-stage study in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

Two doses of the intravitreal injection, KVD001, were tested against a placebo in a 129-patient trial. Patients who continued to experience significant inflammation and diminished visual acuity, despite anti-VEGF therapy, were recruited to the trial. Typically patients with DME — the most frequent cause of vision loss related to diabetes — are treated with anti-VEGF therapies such as Regeneron’s flagship Eylea or Roche’s Avastin and Lucentis.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck

#ASH19: Here’s why Mer­ck is pay­ing $2.7B to­day to grab Ar­Qule and its next-gen BTK drug, lin­ing up Eli Lil­ly ri­val­ry

Just a few months after making a splash at the European Hematology Association scientific confab with an early snapshot of positive data for their BTK inhibitor ARQ 531, ArQule has won a $2.7 billion buyout deal from Merck.

Merck is scooping up a next-gen BTK drug — which is making a splash at ASH today — from ArQule in an M&A pact set at $20 a share $ARQL. That’s more than twice Friday’s $9.66 close. And Merck R&D chief Roger Perlmutter heralded a deal that nets “multiple clinical-stage oral kinase inhibitors.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ear­ly-stage can­cer biotech nails $85M C round; Flem­ming Orn­skov's Gal­der­ma scores 'break­through' sta­tus

→ Zentalis Pharmaceuticals just nabbed an $85 million round from a syndicate that includes Matrix Capital, Viking Global Investors, Redmile Group, Farallon Capital, Perceptive Advisors, Surveyor Capital and Eventide Asset Management. Their lead drug is ZN-c5, which is currently in Phase I/II trials. The biotech describes that drug as a “potential best-in-class oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader for estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative (ER+/ HER2-) breast cancer.”

UP­DAT­ED: Ob­sE­va makes case for best-in-class hor­mone sup­pres­sive ther­a­py in pos­i­tive uter­ine fi­broid study

About a month after the Swiss biotech disclosed a failed late-stage study in its IVF program, ObsEva on Monday unveiled positive pivotal data on its experimental treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding triggered by uterine fibroids.

ObsEva in-licensed the drug, linzagolix, from Japan’s Kissei Pharmaceutical in 2015. Two doses of the drug (100 mg and 200 mg) were tested against a placebo in the 535-patient Phase III study, dubbed PRIMROSE 2, in patients who were both on and off hormonal add-back therapy (ABT).