May the can­dle burn for­ev­er: Po­lite re­minders about the JP­Mor­gan con­fab

Ed­i­tor’s Note: Biotech Voic­es is a con­tributed col­umn from se­lect End­points News read­ers. Be­low is an anony­mous com­men­tary from a pub­lic biotech CEO who was in­spired to write a de­fense of JP­Mor­gan fol­low­ing a litany of com­plaints.


Every year we start the biotech cal­en­dar with a busy Jan­u­ary pil­grim­age where JP­Mor­gan hosts a wide­ly at­tend­ed get to­geth­er that at­tracts big and small to the San Fran­cis­co Union Square neigh­bor­hood. De­spite the peren­ni­al suc­cess of this event, it is in­ter­est­ing to hear re­cent com­plaints from mul­ti­ple voic­es, sug­gest­ing di­min­ish­ing re­turns and wan­ing en­thu­si­asm for fu­ture par­tic­i­pa­tion. While all of these com­plaints may be valid, let’s not go over­board and for­get why this event is a key land­mark.

On be­half of the many ben­e­fi­cia­ries of the JP­Mor­gan con­fab, I would like to pro­vide re­spect­ful and po­lite re­minders re­gard­ing the un­par­al­leled val­ue of this meet­ing. I have been com­ing to JP­Mor­gan for ap­prox­i­mate­ly 20 years, no spe­cif­ic fi­nan­cial con­nec­tion with JP­Mor­gan it­self, but I like many oth­ers hope and pray that our in­dus­try’s can­dle burns bright­ly, and that the Jan­u­ary mo­men­tum cre­at­ed by JP­Mor­gan’s con­fab is peren­ni­al.

Re­minder #1: The core pur­pose is pub­lic bio­phar­ma com­pa­ny guid­ance. The heart of this event, lo­cat­ed on the mez­za­nine floor of the West­in St. Fran­cis, is the need for each pub­lic com­pa­ny to es­tab­lish guid­ance for what they seek to achieve dur­ing the cal­en­dar year. An as­ton­ish­ing­ly high num­ber of well-qual­i­fied pub­lic mar­ket in­vestors come to pre­sen­ta­tions, have 1-on-1 sched­uled meet­ings with com­pa­nies and ex­change ideas in­side the hall­ways of the West­in through­out the week. The qual­i­ty and quan­ti­ty of in­flu­en­tial in­vestors at JP­Mor­gan al­lows large phar­ma, and fledg­ling pub­lic biotechs, to reach a wide au­di­ence in per­son on a sin­gle trip. This is why the event ex­ists and is high­ly re­spect­ed.

Re­minder #2: Gets the buzz go­ing. An enor­mous, per­haps un­re­al­ized, ben­e­fit of JP­Mor­gan is how it tends to ig­nite in­dus­try mo­men­tum each year. We should all re­mem­ber that we are in a high­ly risky busi­ness with more fre­quent fail­ures than suc­cess­es, and it would be easy for us to be­come dour on the chal­lenges of drug de­vel­op­ment. The in­ten­tion­al hold-back of good news by many com­pa­nies un­til JP­Mor­gan cre­ates a spring-load ef­fect that like­ly dri­ves in­vest­ment and risk cap­i­tal cy­cles through the rest of the year. The event ma­te­ri­al­izes themes re­gard­ing how phar­ma is like­ly to be­have, how the mar­kets are like­ly to play and what tech­nol­o­gy waves are go­ing to be an­tic­i­pat­ed for the rest of the year. With­out this, we would like­ly grap­ple for pos­i­tive news, or even di­rec­tion, for months in the new year.

Re­minder #3: The by­stander ef­fect. Many, many biotech com­pa­nies have been launched, fi­nanced, bought and part­nered dur­ing this week with­out hold­ing an ac­tu­al in­vite to JP­Mor­gan it­self. A by­stander ef­fect is cre­at­ed be­cause every ma­jor phar­ma hosts meet­ings out­side of the core meet­ing, pro­vid­ing a tar­get rich en­vi­ron­ment for emerg­ing com­pa­nies to sell their wares. Even if these meet­ings are short, and mere­ly in­tro­duc­to­ry in na­ture, they pro­vide an av­enue for phar­ma mon­ey to meet biotech as­sets. Al­lows phar­ma to triage who they want to li­cense or buy for their strate­gic ther­a­peu­tic area needs dur­ing the com­ing year. This is worth gold for every emerg­ing biotech com­pa­ny that wants to con­tem­plate a part­ner­ship to fur­ther their busi­ness. While per­haps not as large as some oth­er part­ner­ing-on­ly fo­cused events, the by­stander ef­fect of JP­Mor­gan is a life-line for key parts of the in­dus­try.

Re­minder #4: The de­mand-and-sup­ply pen­du­lum. The cost of at­tend­ing JP­Mor­gan, or be­ing a by­stander, has in­creased re­mark­ably over the years. The in­dus­try is gath­er­ing mo­men­tum, hir­ing more peo­ple, de­ploy­ing more cap­i­tal and there­fore it is no sur­prise that peo­ple are will­ing to spend more to at­tend the bio­phar­ma su­per­bowl. We are at a tip­ping point where peo­ple are dis­gust­ed, but this will not lead to a dra­mat­ic pull back but more of a grad­ual re­cal­i­bra­tion. De­pend­ing on busi­ness mod­els, some com­pa­nies ap­pro­pri­ate­ly will not find the cost to be worth­while and will hence make de­ci­sions ac­cord­ing­ly next year, which will bring the pen­du­lum back to a point where San Fran­cis­co ho­tels and restau­rants will ad­just prices clos­er to nor­mal lev­els. For most of us, the cost is def­i­nite­ly worth­while.

Re­minder #5: Thank you JP­Mor­gan an­a­lysts. If any­one has the right to com­plain, it’s the JP­Mor­gan an­a­lyst team that is re­spon­si­ble for cov­er­ing >200 pre­sent­ing com­pa­nies at this con­fer­ence. It is their work that at­tracts pub­lic com­pa­nies and in­vestors to at­tend. I can­not imag­ine the hours they (Chris, Cory, Anu­pam, Jes­si­ca, Er­ic and oth­ers) must put in to pre­pare for com­pa­ny guid­ance and then write re­ports on each com­pa­ny post-pre­sen­ta­tion. Every pub­lic com­pa­ny CEO ap­pre­ci­ates your ef­fort.

I wrote this anony­mous­ly in or­der to avoid dis­trac­tion from my of­fi­cial com­pa­ny nar­ra­tive, but I rep­re­sent a con­tin­gent of bio­phar­ma CEOs that are thank­ful for what our in­dus­try has be­come and the role that the JP­Mor­gan con­fer­ence has played over the years. May the can­dle burn for­ev­er.


Im­age: West­in St. Fran­cis ho­tel SHEHLA SHAKOOR for END­POINTS NEWS

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.