On the same day that Glax­o­SmithK­line sought to as­sure in­vestors that the com­pa­ny’s new R&D team would de­liv­er im­por­tant drugs in the fu­ture, its re­searchers work­ing on Nu­cala (mepolizum­ab) were slapped down in their at­tempt to gain an added OK for COPD.

A pan­el of out­side ex­perts vot­ed 16 to 3 against a mar­ket­ing ap­proval. That isn’t bind­ing, but af­ter the in­ter­nal re­view­ers at the FDA of­fered a scathing re­view of their da­ta, it’s all but a done deal now — bar­ring some un­ex­pect­ed last minute in­ter­ven­tion in its fa­vor.

AD­COMM VOTE: Is the ben­e­fit-risk pro­file ad­e­quate to sup­port ap­proval of #mepolizum­ab as add-on treat­ment to in­haled cor­ti­cos­teroid-based main­te­nance treat­ment for the re­duc­tion of ex­ac­er­ba­tions in pa­tients with #COPD guid­ed by blood eosinophil counts? $GSK
3-Yes
16-No
0-Ab­stain

— SAC Track­er (@FDAad­comm) Ju­ly 25, 2018

The FDA was clear­ly unim­pressed with GSK’s pack­age.

GSK’s drug failed one late-stage test while scor­ing a suc­cess in the oth­er. With on­ly two Phase III stud­ies in this in­di­ca­tion, that left the pan­el to con­sid­er an ap­proval with­out sup­port­ing da­ta from two well-con­trolled stud­ies — the agency gold stan­dard.

There was no dose re­sponse they could find in the two dosage arms, which didn’t help.

The FDA added:

Some key sec­ondary end­points, such as time to first mod­er­ate-to-se­vere COPD ex­ac­er­ba­tion showed nu­mer­i­cal trends fa­vor­ing mepolizum­ab. How­ev­er, there were no con­sis­tent and clin­i­cal­ly mean­ing­ful dif­fer­ences in se­vere COPD ex­ac­er­ba­tion rate, FEV1, or SGRQ be­tween mepolizum­ab 100 mg and place­bo.

GSK’s tri­al de­sign al­so spurred ques­tions, with no base­line col­lec­tion of asth­ma his­to­ry — which could have in­flu­enced the out­come of the study. How will GSK prop­er­ly de­fine the pa­tient pop­u­la­tion for this drug?

David Livingston, the Dana-Farber/Harvard Med scientist who helped shine a light on some of the key molecular drivers of breast and ovarian cancer, died unexpectedly last Sunday.

One of the senior leaders at Dana-Farber during his nearly half century of work there, Livingston was credited with shedding light on the genes that regulate cell growth, with insights into inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that helped lay the scientific foundation for targeted therapies and earlier detection that have transformed the field.

Just as Avoro Capital’s campaign to derail Merck’s proposed $11.5 billion buyout of Acceleron gains steam, Bristol Myers Squibb is leaning in with some hefty counterweight.

The pharma giant is planning to tender its Acceleron shares, Bloomberg reported, which add up to a sizable 11.5% stake. Based on the offer price, the sale would net Bristol Myers around $1.3 billion.

To complete its deal, Merck needs a majority of shareholders to agree to sell their shares.

When Beth Hogan, a metastatic pancreatic cancer patient, showed up for her infusion at Yale’s Smilow Cancer Hospital in New Haven, CT on Oct. 11, she said she was informed that day that she would not be receiving Bristol Myers Squibb’s Abraxane, part of her combo treatment, because of a shortage.

“I was told we don’t know when you can have it,” she told Endpoints News via email, adding that she doesn’t expect to receive any Abraxane this coming Monday at her treatment appointment either, and she doesn’t know when things will change.

A federal court found Eli Lilly in breach of a royalty agreement with an Arizona company, likely sending the case — which deals with Lilly’s blockbuster diabetes drugs — to a trial.

The Arizona District Court ordered Lilly to pay the royalties to Tucson, AZ-based Research Corporation Technologies, per an opinion delivered Tuesday, stemming from a 1990 agreement involving materials used in manufacturing Lilly’s insulin products. Lilly had agreed to pay a 2% royalty on worldwide sales, and the exact amount of damages will be determined in a trial, Judge Scott Rash wrote.