Is FDA too lax with its drug ap­proval stan­dards? Se­nior FDA of­fi­cials dis­cuss

From in­dus­try to acad­e­mia, com­menters have ar­gued that the FDA drug ap­proval stan­dards are be­com­ing in­ap­pro­pri­ate­ly low and that the re­quired postap­proval eval­u­a­tions are ei­ther in­ad­e­quate or left un­done.

But three se­nior FDA of­fi­cials of­fered sev­er­al coun­ter­points on Mon­day at the fifth an­nu­al Bio­phar­ma Con­gress in Wash­ing­ton, DC.

Janet Wood­cock FDA

Janet Wood­cock, di­rec­tor of the FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search, ex­plained that the agency is work­ing on its own analy­ses to pro­vide “a more ro­bust re­sponse” to these cri­tiques. She al­so ex­plained how the high num­ber of ap­provals in re­cent years for rare dis­eases may be in­flu­enc­ing this per­cep­tion of a low­er bar, es­pe­cial­ly as more treat­ments are ap­proved on the ba­sis of a sin­gle-arm study or with an ex­ter­nal con­trol group. In ad­di­tion, she point­ed to the “as­tound­ing­ly” high launch prices for some of these rare dis­ease treat­ments that may al­so be part of the rea­son for the push­back.

“We can’t opine on [prices] but we need to get the facts and fig­ures to­geth­er on the tra­jec­to­ries of what they were and what they are now,” Wood­cock said, not­ing she does not think there are any con­cerns from FDA staff re­lat­ed to ther­a­pies ap­proved with a break­through or oth­er ac­cel­er­at­ed des­ig­na­tion.

Pe­ter Marks FDA

Pe­ter Marks, di­rec­tor of the FDA’s Cen­ter for Bi­o­log­ics Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search (CBER), said he thinks the FDA will “al­ways be crit­i­cized for be­ing too fast or too slow,” and that he’s “try­ing to strike the right bal­ance.” He said it’s been help­ful that with some gene ther­a­pies, “it’s very clear that the out­comes are very ap­par­ent, but the prob­lem is that many are not that clear.”

He al­so said that with some re­gen­er­a­tive med­i­cine prod­ucts, CBER sees the op­po­site ex­treme as the “ther­a­pies that are not ef­fec­tive and they want us to say they are ef­fec­tive.” When the FDA says a prod­uct has the ap­pro­pri­ate ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty, “we want peo­ple to put ap­pro­pri­ate­ly placed hope in those prod­ucts,” he added.

But Marks cau­tioned: “If there’s no ef­fi­ca­cy, noth­ing is safe enough,” re­fer­ring to some re­gen­er­a­tive med­i­cine prod­ucts that pa­tients are be­ing charged for but which are in­ef­fec­tive.

He al­so said the FDA may get it wrong oc­ca­sion­al­ly with an ap­proval, echo­ing com­ments made by Act­ing Com­mis­sion­er Ned Sharp­less at lunch with re­gard to ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals, but Marks added: “That’s what hap­pens when you’re work­ing at the edge.”

Gideon Blu­men­thal FDA

Gideon Blu­men­thal, deputy di­rec­tor of the FDA’s Of­fice of On­col­o­gy Ex­cel­lence (OCE), added that over­all sur­vival “is the gold stan­dard end­point” for on­col­o­gy drugs, and “that’s what we al­ways want to at­tain but there are cir­cum­stances where pa­tient pop­u­la­tions are get­ting small­er and small­er, and it would be im­pos­si­ble to de­tect over­all sur­vival.”

Marks al­so said that the largest de­vel­op­ment he’s seen re­cent­ly is a tran­si­tion from per­son­al­ized to in­di­vid­u­al­ized med­i­cine.

“We’re un­der­stand­ing the mol­e­c­u­lar mech­a­nisms of dis­ease and var­i­ous in­di­vid­ual char­ac­ter­is­tics of dis­ease that we can tar­get prod­ucts for,” he said, which means a “unique ap­proach to reg­u­la­tion be­cause it’s not mak­ing prod­ucts for tra­di­tion­al clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment. It’s a dif­fer­ent par­a­digm to find ways to have a pro­to­type prod­uct sup­ple­ment­ed with small changes, or for some prod­ucts they won’t even be li­censed but be per­pet­u­al­ly un­der an IND.”

Marks al­so dis­cussed how the pace of in­no­va­tion right now “is in­cred­i­bly fast – we have to be on top of what’s go­ing on at in­dus­try, aca­d­e­m­ic or­ga­ni­za­tions and in­dus­try or­ga­ni­za­tions. Our re­search teams are go­ing through a hori­zon scan­ning process to con­tin­u­al­ly re­tool with ques­tions,” he added.

But Marks al­so not­ed that CBER is go­ing to need to quick­ly in­crease in size to keep up with the pace of new sub­mis­sions. FDA of­fi­cials have pre­vi­ous­ly said that by 2025, the agency will be ap­prov­ing be­tween 10 and 20 cell and gene ther­a­py prod­ucts an­nu­al­ly.

“We’re lucky to have at­tract­ed some skilled peo­ple, com­mit­ted to gene and cell ther­a­py, but it re­mains a chal­lenge par­tic­u­lar­ly with this growth. I wouldn’t be sur­prised if the cell and gene ther­a­py branch­es need to dou­ble in size over the next three to five years,” Marks said.

RAPS: 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.


Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Patrik Jonsson, the president of Lilly Bio-Medicines

Who knew? Der­mi­ra’s board kept watch as its stock price tracked Eli Lil­ly’s se­cret bid­ding on a $1.1B buy­out

In just 8 days, from December 6 to December 14, the stock jumped from $7.88 to $12.70 — just under the initial $13 bid. There was no hard news about the company that would explain a rise like that tracking closely to the bid offer, raising the obvious question of whether insider info has leaked out to traders.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

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.

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 70,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Aymeric Le Chatelier, Ipsen

A $1B-plus drug stum­bles in­to an­oth­er big PhI­II set­back -- this time flunk­ing fu­til­i­ty test -- as FDA hold re­mains in ef­fect for Ipsen

David Meek

At the time Ipsen stepped up last year with more than a billion dollars in cash to buy Clementia and a late-stage program for a rare bone disease that afflicts children, then CEO David Meek was confident that he had put the French biotech on a short path to a mid-2020 launch.

Instead of prepping a launch, though, the company was hit with a hold on the FDA’s concerns that a therapy designed to prevent overgrowth of bone for cases of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva might actually stunt children’s growth. So they ordered a halt to any treatments for kids 14 and under. Meek left soon after to run a startup in Boston. And today the Paris-based biotech is grappling with the independent monitoring committee’s decision that their Phase III had failed a futility test.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche's check­point play­er Tecen­triq flops in an­oth­er blad­der can­cer sub­set

Just weeks after Merck’s star checkpoint inhibitor Keytruda secured FDA approval for a subset of bladder cancer patients, Swiss competitor Roche’s Tecentriq has failed in a pivotal bladder cancer study.

The 809-patient trial — IMvigor010 — tested the PD-L1 drug in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (MIUC) who had undergone surgery, and were at high risk for recurrence.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

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 70,600+ 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 70,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Wuhan virus out­break trig­gers in­evitable small-biotech ral­ly

Every few years, a public health crisis (think Ebola, Zika) spurred by a rogue pathogen triggers a small-biotech rally, as drugmakers emerge from the woodwork with ambitious plans to treat the mounting outbreak. In most cases, that enthusiasm never quite delivers.

Things are no different, as the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China takes hold. There have been close to 300 confirmed human infections in China, and at least four deaths. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, which include MERS and SARS. On Tuesday, the CDC reported the virus was detected in a US traveler returning from Wuhan.