ICER chas­tis­es J&J for over­pric­ing de­pres­sion drug es­ke­t­a­mine ‘where there is such need for treat­ment’

Cog­nizant of the myr­i­ad of ap­proved an­ti­de­pres­sants that of­ten don’t work, reg­u­la­tors en­dorsed J&J’s $JNJ phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal ver­sion of the hal­lu­cino­genic anes­thet­ic ke­t­a­mine — es­ke­t­a­mine — in March for treat­ment-re­sis­tant de­pres­sion, well aware that the orig­i­nal cat tran­quil­iz­er is fre­quent­ly used off-la­bel for se­vere de­pres­sion. On Thurs­day, ICER con­clud­ed that while the drug, sold as Spra­va­to, does con­fer a “promis­ing” clin­i­cal ben­e­fit, its cur­rent list price ex­ceeds a com­mon cost-ef­fec­tive­ness thresh­old by a mod­est mar­gin.

In 2017, an es­ti­mat­ed 17.3 mil­lion adults in the Unit­ed States — rough­ly 7% of all US adults — had at least one ma­jor de­pres­sive episode, ac­cord­ing to the NIH. Most an­ti­de­pres­sants usu­al­ly take a few weeks to work – and half of the pa­tients fail to ful­ly re­spond. The par­ty drug (some­times re­ferred to as Kit Kat or Vi­t­a­min K) and anes­thet­ic ke­t­a­mine which can lift de­pres­sion in many pa­tients with­in hours, must be ad­min­is­tered through in­fu­sion but can have pro­found dis­so­cia­tive side-ef­fects, and pa­tients typ­i­cal­ly re­lapse af­ter treat­ment ends.

Es­ke­t­a­mine is a low-dose, nasal-spray for­mu­la­tion of ke­t­a­mine — but due to its side-ef­fect pro­file, the J&J treat­ment is de­signed to be ad­min­is­tered in the pres­ence of a health­care prac­ti­tion­er.  It was ap­proved on the ba­sis of five piv­otal Phase III stud­ies in pa­tients with treat­ment-re­sis­tant de­pres­sion.

The da­ta used to ap­prove the drug sug­gests it is clin­i­cal­ly ef­fec­tive — but with the ab­sence of long-term safe­ty da­ta, the ev­i­dence is “promis­ing but in­con­clu­sive,” ICER re­searchers said. Since there are no head-to-head tri­als com­par­ing es­ke­t­a­mine with any com­para­tors — such as ke­t­a­mine, elec­tro­con­vul­sive ther­a­py, tran­scra­nial mag­net­ic stim­u­la­tion, oral an­ti­de­pres­sants, or aug­men­ta­tion with an­tipsy­chotics (e.g., olan­za­p­ine) — its rel­a­tive ben­e­fit is al­so hard to judge, they added.

Akin to NICE in the UK, ICER is an in­de­pen­dent body that an­a­lyzes the cost-ef­fec­tive­ness of drugs and oth­er med­ical ser­vices in the Unit­ed States. Un­like NICE, though, ICER is not gov­ern­ment-af­fil­i­at­ed, but its de­ter­mi­na­tions are in­creas­ing­ly be­com­ing in­flu­en­tial with pay­ers.

ICER con­duct­ed its analy­ses us­ing two mea­sures: 1) QALYs, or qual­i­ty-ad­just­ed life-years, a mea­sure of the state of health of a per­son or group in which the ben­e­fits — in terms of length of life — are ad­just­ed to re­flect the qual­i­ty of life. Es­sen­tial­ly, one QALY is equal to one year of life in per­fect health. 2) Life years gained (LYG), which ex­press­es the ad­di­tion­al num­ber of years of life that a per­son lives as a re­sult of re­ceiv­ing treat­ment.

Com­pared with no ad­di­tion­al treat­ment be­yond a back­ground an­ti­de­pres­sant, treat­ment with es­ke­t­a­mine plus a back­ground an­ti­de­pres­sant re­sult­ed in im­por­tant QALY gains in pa­tients with treat­ment-re­sis­tant de­pres­sion (TRD), ICER said.

Us­ing the es­ke­t­a­mine list price of $295 per 28 mg in­tranasal de­vice, the treat­ment’s use re­sults in an in­cre­men­tal cost-ef­fec­tive­ness ra­tio of ap­prox­i­mate­ly $198,000 per QALY com­pared to no ad­di­tion­al treat­ment, ex­ceed­ing the com­mon­ly cit­ed cost-ef­fec­tive­ness thresh­olds of be­tween $50,000-$150,000 per QALY. Mean­while, es­ke­t­a­mine is es­ti­mat­ed to cost ap­prox­i­mate­ly $2.6 mil­lion per life year gained, ICER found.

Es­ke­t­a­mine’s ap­proval was al­so meant to en­hance ac­cess to treat­ment — since ke­t­a­mine is not cov­ered by health in­sur­ers — al­though there is a con­cern that there may still be high out-of-pock­et ex­pens­es through de­ductibles or non-cov­er­age poli­cies.

David Rind

“Es­ke­t­a­mine shows some ben­e­fits for such pa­tients and pro­vides an FDA-ap­proved treat­ment for TRD that may be cov­ered by pay­ers; how­ev­er, it is con­cern­ing to have an over­priced ther­a­py where there is such need for treat­ment. Ad­di­tion­al­ly, the sim­i­lar­i­ty of ke­t­a­mine to es­ke­t­a­mine rais­es is­sues for all stake­hold­ers about how to con­sid­er off-la­bel pre­scrip­tion and cov­er­age of a treat­ment that has not been as well stud­ied but is be­ing in­creas­ing­ly used for TRD,” said ICER’s CMO David Rind in a state­ment.

The ICER re­port was pub­lished on Thurs­day hav­ing in­cor­po­rat­ed the feed­back from pa­tient groups, clin­i­cians, drug man­u­fac­tur­ers, and oth­er stake­hold­ers to the draft ver­sion orig­i­nal­ly un­veiled in March. A fi­nal re­port is ex­pect­ed to be pub­lished in June, fol­low­ing a vote lat­er this month.

J&J dis­agrees with this re­port, a Janssen spokesper­son told End­points News. “It un­der­es­ti­mates the proven short- and long-term ben­e­fits that this treat­ment…brings to TRD pa­tients in need. The in­ac­cu­rate as­sump­tions in the draft re­port re­lat­ed to the pos­i­tive ben­e­fit risk pro­file of Spra­va­to and the com­par­i­son be­tween this FDA ap­proved treat­ment and ke­t­a­mine, a treat­ment be­ing used off-la­bel that has not been ad­e­quate­ly stud­ied and is viewed as ex­per­i­men­tal for TRD, are reck­less.”

Due to a lack of com­par­a­tive da­ta be­tween es­ke­t­a­mine and ke­t­a­mine, ICER was not able to ex­am­ine rel­a­tive cost-ef­fec­tive­ness be­tween the two ther­a­pies. In­stead, the in­sti­tute com­pared the in­di­vid­ual one-year costs and found that es­ke­t­a­mine was ten times more ex­pen­sive than ke­t­a­mine in the first year of use — de­spite the ad­min­is­tra­tion costs as­so­ci­at­ed with pro­vid­ing ke­t­a­mine in­tra­venous­ly.

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Stephen Hahn, AP

The FDA has de­val­ued the gold stan­dard on R&D. And that threat­ens every­one in drug de­vel­op­ment

Bioregnum Opinion Column by John Carroll

A few weeks ago, when Stephen Hahn was being lightly queried by Senators in his confirmation hearing as the new commissioner of the FDA, he made the usual vow to maintain the gold standard in drug development.

Neatly summarized, that standard requires the agency to sign off on clinical data — usually from two, well-controlled human studies — that prove a drug’s benefit outweighs any risks.

Over the last few years, biopharma has enjoyed an unprecedented loosening over just what it takes to clear that bar. Regulators are more willing to drop the second trial requirement ahead of an accelerated approval — particularly if they have an unmet medical need where patients are clamoring for a therapy.

That confirmatory trial the FDA demands can wait a few years. And most everyone in biopharma would tell you that’s the right thing for patients. They know its a tonic for everyone in the industry faced with pushing a drug through clinical development. And it’s helped inspire a global biotech boom.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: New play­ers are jump­ing in­to the scram­ble to de­vel­op a vac­cine as pan­dem­ic pan­ic spreads fast

When the CNN news crew in Wuhan caught wind of the Chinese government’s plan to quarantine the city of 11 million people, they made a run for one of the last trains out — their Atlanta colleagues urging them on. On the way to the train station, they were forced to skirt the local seafood market, where the coronavirus at the heart of a brewing outbreak may have taken root.

And they breathlessly reported every moment of the early morning dash.

In shuttering the city, triggering an exodus of masked residents who caught wind of the quarantine ahead of time, China signaled that they were prepared to take extreme actions to stop the spread of a virus that has claimed 17 lives, sickened many more and panicked people around the globe.

CNN helped illustrate how hard all that can be.

The early reaction in the biotech industry has been classic, with small-cap companies scrambling to headline efforts to step in fast. But there are also new players in the field with new tech that has been introduced since the last of a series of pandemic panics that could change the usual storylines. And they’re volunteering for a crash course in speeding up vaccine development — a field where overnight solutions have been impossible to prove.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mer­ck KGaA spin­out gets first fund­ing to bring dual-act­ing can­cer mol­e­cules in­to the clin­ic

Two and a half years after launch, Merck KGaA spinout iOnctura is getting its first major round of funding.

The oncology startup raised €15 million ($16.6 million) to put its lead drug into the clinic and get its second drug past IND-enabling tests. INKEF Capital and VI Partners co-led the round and were joined by the biotech’s longtime backer M Ventures, an arm of Merck KGaA, and Schroder Adveq.

UP­DAT­ED: Eli Lil­ly’s $1.6B can­cer drug failed to spark even the slight­est pos­i­tive gain for pa­tients in its 1st PhI­II

Eli Lilly had high hopes for its pegylated IL-10 drug pegilodecakin when it bought Armo last year for $1.6 billion in cash. But after reporting a few months ago that it had failed a Phase III in pancreatic cancer, without the data, its likely value has plunged. And now we’re getting some exact data that underscore just how little positive effect it had.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Am­gen aug­ments Asia foothold by tak­ing over Astel­las joint ven­ture in Japan

California-based Amgen, which does the bulk of its business in the United States, made its ambition to reinvigorate its growth prospects by expanding its presence in Asia clear at the sidelines of the JP Morgan healthcare conference in San Francisco earlier this month.

The Thousand Oaks-based company on Thursday executed its plan to dissolve the joint venture with Astellas — created in 2013 — to operate the unit independently in Japan. With its rapidly aging population, the region represents an appealing market for Amgen’s osteoporosis treatments Prolia and Evenity as well as a cholesterol-lowering injection Repatha.

Daphne Zohar (PureTech)

PureTech bags $200M from sale of Karuna shares — still siz­zling from promis­ing schiz­o­phre­nia da­ta

Cashing in on the exuberance around Karuna Therapeutics and its potential blockbuster CNS drug, PureTech has sold a chunk of the biotech’s shares to Goldman Sachs for $200 million.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.