UP­DAT­ED: Mer­ck, Roche and Bris­tol My­ers nab 4 of 6 pos­i­tive ODAC votes for ‘dan­gling’ ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals

What looked at the out­set like a prime op­por­tu­ni­ty for the FDA to cri­tique in­dus­try over failed con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als for lag­ging ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals end­ed up be­ing most­ly a tri­umph for the large bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies.

The FDA’s On­co­log­ic Drugs Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mit­tee vot­ed in fa­vor of keep­ing on the mar­ket four of the six “dan­gling” ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals pre­sent­ed to it over the last three days. Even de­spite the failed tri­als, com­pa­nies and their physi­cians raised con­cerns about un­met treat­ment needs and the long du­ra­tion of re­spons­es for the check­point in­hibitors be­fore each of the six votes.

The two ODAC votes that didn’t re­ceive a ma­jor­i­ty of “yes” votes from the out­side ex­perts were Mer­ck’s Keytru­da (pem­brolizum­ab) as a third-line treat­ment for stom­ach can­cer and Bris­tol My­ers Squibb’s Op­di­vo (nivolum­ab) as a sec­ond line treat­ment for liv­er can­cer. In both cas­es, Richard Paz­dur, di­rec­tor of the FDA’s On­col­o­gy Cen­ter of Ex­cel­lence, raised con­cerns with the com­mit­tee, while not­ing the un­in­tend­ed con­se­quences of keep­ing Keytru­da on the mar­ket and ques­tion­ing BMS da­ta (see more be­low).

Leerink se­nior re­search an­a­lyst Daina Gray­bosch said in an in­vestor note on Fri­day, “We be­lieve mar­ket im­pact from the two in­di­ca­tions rec­om­mend­ed for with­draw­al are in­con­se­quen­tial, with a small and shrink­ing num­ber of pa­tients el­i­gi­ble” for Keytru­da as a third-line treat­ment for gas­tric can­cer (~1,000), and as there’s an op­por­tu­ni­ty for Bris­tol My­ers to shift pa­tients from Op­di­vo to the com­bi­na­tion of Op­di­vo and Yer­voy (ip­il­i­mum­ab), which al­so won ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval last year as a sec­ond-line treat­ment in he­pa­to­cel­lu­lar car­ci­no­ma (HCC).

Gray­bosch called the FDA “ob­jec­tive, but al­so force­ful in a cou­ple ar­gu­ments with spon­sors” dur­ing the three days, in line with re­cent ob­ser­va­tions from the agency. He al­so not­ed that Paz­dur made a “pow­er­ful case for with­draw­al in two cas­es, which seemed to sway the ODAC vote.”

Over­all, how­ev­er, the main take­away from the last three days seemed to be that if you’re a bio­phar­ma com­pa­ny that has won an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval and your con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al has failed, it may be un­wise to vol­un­tar­i­ly with­draw that ap­proval. Tak­ing the de­ci­sion to ODAC may end up with a thumbs up to re­main on the mar­ket while fu­ture tri­als are be­ing con­duct­ed.

Some out­side on­col­o­gists raised se­ri­ous con­cerns about main­tain­ing the in­tegri­ty of the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval path­way if com­pa­nies and the FDA don’t get rid of cer­tain drug in­di­ca­tions that have failed in con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als.

“If the drugs re­main on the mar­ket, the very na­ture of ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval should fall in­to ques­tion,” Vinay Prasad, on­col­o­gist at UCSF, told End­points. “Per­haps we can­not re­al­is­ti­cal­ly give con­di­tion­al ap­proval be­cause no one will ever have the courage to pull the drugs.”

Keytru­da in stom­ach can­cer

On Thurs­day morn­ing, ODAC vot­ed 6-2 against keep­ing Keytru­da as a third-line treat­ment for stom­ach can­cer. Pan­elists vot­ing no point­ed to the chang­ing treat­ment land­scape as ear­li­er this month an­oth­er check­point in­hibitor, Bris­tol My­ers Squibb’s Op­di­vo (nivolum­ab), won full ap­proval from the FDA and showed pos­i­tive over­all sur­vival ben­e­fit as a first line treat­ment for stom­ach can­cer.

The ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval first came in Sep­tem­ber 2017, but the FDA not­ed in its pre­sen­ta­tion Thurs­day that two fol­low-up tri­als did not con­firm the ben­e­fit that was ini­tial­ly seen.

Poo­ja Bha­gia, VP of on­col­o­gy re­search at Mer­ck, coun­tered that these two stud­ies were eval­u­at­ing Keytru­da as first- and sec­ond-line treat­ments for stom­ach can­cer. She al­so ex­plained how four on­go­ing Phase 3 tri­als (three of which are ei­ther ful­ly en­rolled or greater than 90% en­rolled) have the po­ten­tial to con­firm clin­i­cal ben­e­fit of Keytru­da in stom­ach can­cer be­fore the end of 2024.

Pe­ter En­zinger of the Dana Far­ber Can­cer In­sti­tute and a paid con­sul­tant to Mer­ck and oth­er physi­cians raised con­cerns about the lack of treat­ment op­tions in the third line, es­pe­cial­ly since Keytru­da is the on­ly im­munother­a­py avail­able.

But Paz­dur, FDA’s head of on­col­o­gy, shift­ed the tone of the morn­ing meet­ing and of­fered the agency’s per­spec­tive, stress­ing the un­in­tend­ed con­se­quences of keep­ing Keytru­da in this in­di­ca­tion as physi­cians might see check­point in­hibitors as op­tions in the first or third line, even though pos­i­tive over­all sur­vival re­sults have on­ly been seen in the first line with Op­di­vo.

And as more re­ceive check­point in­hibitors in the first line set­ting, few­er will re­ceive it in the third line set­ting, Steven Lemery, act­ing di­rec­tor of FDA’s Di­vi­sion of On­col­o­gy 3, added. He al­so not­ed im­mune-re­lat­ed ad­verse events with Keytru­da, how most pa­tients do not ben­e­fit from Keytru­da in this in­di­ca­tion, and he ques­tioned the rel­e­vance of the four pro­posed con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als for this third-line in­di­ca­tion as they all are study­ing Keytru­da in com­bo with chemo.

“Many of these po­ten­tial con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als won’t be avail­able for years. Would we grant this in­di­ca­tion at this time? The de­fin­i­tive an­swer is no,” Paz­dur said.

He al­so stressed that even if Keytru­da is pulled for this in­di­ca­tion, pa­tients who might be caught in lim­bo be­tween treat­ments may still be able to ac­cess Keytru­da be­cause the FDA can set up an ex­pand­ed ac­cess pro­to­col.

Keytru­da in HCC

The sit­u­a­tion turned against the FDA again in the af­ter­noon, al­though the agency isn’t oblig­ed to fol­low the ad­vice of its ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tees.

In the first ses­sion, ODAC vot­ed unan­i­mous­ly, 8-0, to main­tain Keytru­da’s ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval for pa­tients with he­pa­to­cel­lu­lar car­ci­no­ma (HCC), a com­mon type of liv­er can­cer, as a sec­ond line treat­ment.

Mer­ck first won that ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval in No­vem­ber 2018, and the com­pa­ny made the case for why Keytru­da should re­main on the mar­ket as, even with the new ap­proval in the first line set­ting for the com­bi­na­tion of ate­zolizum­ab and be­va­cizum­ab, and the two new sec­ond-line ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals in this in­di­ca­tion, there’s a need for an­ti-PD-1 monother­a­py in the sec­ond line set­ting.

The FDA ar­gued that the treat­ment land­scape changed af­ter the ate­zolizum­ab-be­va­cizum­ab com­bo was ap­proved in the first-line set­ting.

Richard Finn, a pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine at UCLA and paid con­sul­tant for Mer­ck, said there does not seem to be any ben­e­fit to pulling this ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval for Keytru­da while two oth­er con­fir­ma­to­ry re­sults are ex­pect­ed soon. One of those re­sults from a tri­al in Asia is ex­pect­ed to read out in June or Ju­ly, and is in the same set­ting as the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval.

FDA’s Steve Lemery not­ed that if this larg­er study in Asia is neg­a­tive, it’s un­clear if an­oth­er tri­al could be use­ful as a con­fir­ma­to­ry study as there would then be two neg­a­tive con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als against place­bo. He al­so not­ed that while some pa­tients did see long du­ra­tion of re­sponse, most pa­tients do not ben­e­fit from the treat­ment. And he raised ques­tions, giv­en the chang­ing treat­ment land­scape, if Keytru­da would win ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval in this sec­ond line set­ting to­day.

Op­di­vo in HCC

In the late af­ter­noon ses­sion, ODAC vot­ed 5 to 4 to not main­tain Bris­tol My­ers Squibb’s Op­di­vo’s (nivolum­ab) in­di­ca­tion for the monother­a­py use of nivolum­ab in pa­tients pre­vi­ous­ly treat­ed with so­rafenib pend­ing the con­duct or com­ple­tion of ad­di­tion­al tri­al(s).

Pan­elist An­tho­ny Sung, as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine at Duke Uni­ver­si­ty School of Med­i­cine, vot­ed “no” and said he didn’t think the da­ta was there on the whole. Su­san Ha­l­abi, a pro­fes­sor of bio­sta­tis­tics at Duke, al­so vot­ed no and said that al­though there’s an un­met need, she wasn’t con­vinced there was a clin­i­cal ben­e­fit.

Back in Sep­tem­ber 2017, Bris­tol My­ers Squibb’s Op­di­vo (nivolum­ab) won ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval as a sec­ond-line treat­ment for HCC. Two years lat­er, a con­fir­ma­to­ry study did not meet sta­tis­ti­cal sig­nif­i­cance in its pri­ma­ry end­point of over­all sur­vival and oth­er treat­ments for this in­di­ca­tion made their way to the mar­ket.

As seen with Keytru­da in the pri­or ses­sion, the al­tered treat­ment land­scape was a ques­tion for Op­di­vo, part­ly be­cause the drug al­so won an­oth­er, sep­a­rate ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval in com­bi­na­tion with Yer­voy (ip­il­i­mum­ab) last March for the same set­ting — pa­tients with HCC who have been pre­vi­ous­ly treat­ed with so­rafenib.

Bris­tol My­ers dis­cussed the sig­nif­i­cant un­met need in the sec­ond line treat­ment space for HCC and some long re­sponse rates with Op­di­vo.

An­tho­ny El-Khoueiry, as­so­ciate pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine at the Uni­ver­si­ty of South­ern Cal­i­for­nia, said Op­di­vo of­fers a more fa­vor­able ben­e­fit-risk pro­file than sec­ond-line an­ti-VEGF tar­get­ed op­tions.

Lemery pre­sent­ed again for FDA, ex­plain­ing the failed con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al and not­ing that the agency found the com­bo of Op­di­vo and Yer­voy to be “high­ly rel­e­vant” giv­en the con­sid­er­ably low­er re­sponse rate for monother­a­py.

But Thomas Abrams, an as­so­ci­at­ed pro­fes­sor at Har­vard Med­ical School and paid Mer­ck con­sul­tant, said the com­bo treat­ment is re­al­ly re­served for the fit­ter pa­tients who failed a TKI (ty­ro­sine ki­nase in­hibitor) in the first line. For monother­a­py with Op­di­vo, Abrams said the pa­tients have more co­mor­bidi­ties, and “they re­al­ly are two dif­fer­ent pa­tient pop­u­la­tions.”

FDA’s Paz­dur again weighed in, claim­ing that BMS is es­sen­tial­ly try­ing to make the case for Op­di­vo as a monother­a­py for those who can­not tol­er­ate the Op­di­vo and Yer­voy com­bi­na­tion. But when Paz­dur pressed BMS on da­ta around the re­sponse rate for this pop­u­la­tion, BMS said it didn’t have the da­ta.

“You’re ad­vo­cat­ing for a new in­di­ca­tion, please pro­vide the re­sponse rate – not anec­do­tal in­for­ma­tion,” Paz­dur said.

Leerink’s Gray­bosch said ODAC’s vote to with­draw nivolum­ab from this in­di­ca­tion “seemed some­what un­fair as ODAC vot­ed unan­i­mous­ly ear­li­er to keep ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval for pem­brolizum­ab in the same in­di­ca­tion. Three dif­fer­ences, how­ev­er, were that Mer­ck did share ORR [over­all re­sponse rate] da­ta for pem­brolizum­ab in pa­tients who would be con­sid­ered in­el­i­gi­ble for be­va­cizum­ab, placed more em­pha­sis on com­pa­ra­ble ef­fi­ca­cy in 2L to TKIs, and has an on­go­ing, ran­dom­ized tri­al that could con­firm monother­a­py ef­fi­ca­cy.”

Last two days

Thurs­day’s meet­ing fol­lowed three oth­er votes on Tues­day and Wednes­day to main­tain Keytru­da and Tecen­triq ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals in oth­er in­di­ca­tions.

On Wednes­day morn­ing, ODAC vot­ed 5-3 in fa­vor of keep­ing Keytru­da’s ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval alive as a first line blad­der can­cer treat­ment for those who are cis­platin-in­el­i­gi­ble and car­bo­platin-in­el­i­gi­ble, even af­ter a Mer­ck con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al failed.

And on Wednes­day af­ter­noon, ODAC vot­ed 10-1 in fa­vor of keep­ing Genen­tech’s Tecen­triq (ate­zolizum­ab) as a first-line treat­ment of cis­platin-in­el­i­gi­ble pa­tients with ad­vanced/metasta­t­ic blad­der can­cer pend­ing fi­nal over­all sur­vival re­sults from a con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al, known as IMvig­or130.

Com­mit­tee mem­bers on Tues­day al­so vot­ed 7-2 to main­tain the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval for Tecen­triq plus Abrax­ane (nab-pa­cli­tax­el) in metasta­t­ic triple neg­a­tive breast can­cer while ad­di­tion­al con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als are on­go­ing.

These votes add to four oth­er vol­un­tary ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval with­drawals for Op­di­vo and Keytru­da as third-line treat­ments in small cell lung can­cer, and Tecen­triq and As­traZeneca’s Imfinzi (dur­val­um­ab) as sec­ond-line treat­ments for blad­der can­cer.

Look­ing for­ward

The FDA is not ob­lig­at­ed to fol­low the ad­vice of ODAC, but the agency will be faced with some dif­fi­cult de­ci­sions, par­tic­u­lar­ly on the prece­dent that might be set if some com­pa­nies are al­lowed to con­duct or wait for an ad­di­tion­al con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al to read out be­fore their ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval in­di­ca­tions are pulled or con­vert­ed to a full ap­proval.

Al­though none of the drugs will be pulled en­tire­ly from the mar­ket, mean­ing all can be used off-la­bel for these in­di­ca­tions no mat­ter what hap­pens, this three-day meet­ing may push the FDA, and pos­si­bly even Con­gress, to re­assess the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval path­way over­all and what should oc­cur when a con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al fails.

Mov­ing Out of the Clin­ic with Dig­i­tal Tools: Mo­bile Spirom­e­try Dur­ing COVID-19 & Be­yond

An important technology in assessing lung function, spirometry offers crucial data for the diagnosis and monitoring of pulmonary system diseases, as well as the ongoing measurement of treatment efficacy. But trends in the healthcare industry and new challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic are causing professionals in clinical practice and research to reevaluate spirometry’s deployment methods and best practices.

Paul Hudson (Getty Images)

Sanofi, Glax­o­SmithK­line jump back in­to the PhI­II race for a Covid vac­cine — as the win­ners con­gre­gate be­hind the fin­ish line

Sanofi got out early in the race to develop a vaccine using more of a traditional approach, then derailed late last year as their candidate failed to work in older people. Now, after likely missing the bus for the bulk of the world’s affluent nations, they’re back from that embarrassing collapse with a second attempt using GSK’s adjuvant that may get them back on track — with a potential Q4 launch that the rest of the world will be paying close attention to.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 105,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

SCO­TUS de­clines to re­view En­brel biosim­i­lar case, tee­ing up 30+ years of ex­clu­siv­i­ty and $20B more for Am­gen’s block­buster

As the House Oversight Committee is set to grill AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez on Tuesday over tactics to block competition for its best-selling drug of all time, another decision on Capitol Hill on Monday opened the door for billions more in Amgen profits over the next eight years.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied Novartis subsidiary Sandoz’s petition to review a Federal Circuit’s July 2020 decision concerning its biosimilar Erelzi (etanercept-szzs), which FDA approved in 2016 as a biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel (etanercept). Samsung’s Enbrel biosimilar Eticovo also won approval in 2019 and remains sidelined.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 105,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

How to man­u­fac­ture Covid-19 vac­cines with­out the help of J&J, Pfiz­er or Mod­er­na? Bi­ol­yse sees the dif­fi­cul­ties up close

When Biolyse, an Ontario-based manufacturer of sterile injectables, forged a deal with Bolivia last week to manufacture up to 50 million J&J Covid-19 vaccine doses, the agreement kicked off what will prove to be a test case for how difficult the system of compulsory licenses is to navigate.

The first problem: When Biolyse asked J&J, via a March letter, to license its Covid-19 vaccine, manufacture it in Canada and pay 5% royalties on shipments to needy, low-income countries, J&J rejected the offer, refusing to negotiate. J&J also did not respond to a request for comment.

No­var­tis' En­tresto takes its 2nd fail­ure of the week­end at ACC, show­ing no ben­e­fit in most dire heart fail­ure pa­tients

Novartis’ Entresto started the ACC weekend off rough with a trial flop in heart attack patients, slowing the drug’s push into earlier patients. Now, an NIH-sponsored study is casting doubt on Entresto’s use in the most severe heart failure patients, another black mark on the increasingly controversial drug’s record.

Entresto, a combination of sacubitril and valsartan, could not beat out valsartan alone in an outcomes head-to-head for severe heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to data presented Monday at the virtual American College of Cardiology meeting.

In­cyte keeps rolling on top­i­cal cream for JAK in­hibitor, pass­ing two PhI­II tests in vi­tili­go

As Incyte prepares to potentially hit the market with a topical formulation of its cash cow ruxolitinib in atopic dermatitis, the Wilmington, DE-based company is beefing up its data package for another indication: vitiligo.

Incyte released Phase III results from two of its clinical vitiligo programs Monday morning, saying both studies met their primary endpoints of patients achieving at least 75% improvement from baseline in repigmentation of the face. The data will likely lead Incyte to ask for approval in both the US and Europe for those older than 12 before the end of the year.

Re­gen­eron's Evkeeza shows promise in curb­ing high triglyc­erides, but will ge­net­ic dis­par­i­ties lim­it use?

When Regeneron scored an early approval for lipid lowering antibody Evkeeza back in February, the drugmaker cracked open a new pathway to lower abnormally high cholesterol levels. Now, Regeneron is chasing high triglycerides as well with some promising mid-stage data — but will genetic restrictions limit the drug’s use?

Regeneron’s Evkeeza (evinacumab) cut median triglyceride levels by more than 800 mg/dL (57%) in patients with a rare disorder causing abnormally high triglyceride levels compared with an overall increase of 50 mg/dL (1.8%) in participants on placebo, according to Phase II data presented Sunday at the virtual American College of Cardiology meeting.

Tim Mayleben (L) and Sheldon Koenig (Esperion)

On the heels of a sting­ing Q1 set­back, Es­pe­ri­on's long­time cham­pi­on is ex­it­ing the helm and turn­ing the wheel over to a mar­ket­ing pro

Just days after getting stung by criticism from a badly disappointed group of analysts, there’s a big change happening today at the helm of Esperion $ESPR.

Longtime CEO Tim Mayleben, who championed the company for 9 years from early clinical through a lengthy late-stage drive to successfully get their cholesterol drug approved for a significant niche of patients in the US, is out of the C suite, effective immediately. Sheldon Koenig — hired at the end of 2020 with a resume replete with Big Pharma CV sales experience —  is stepping into his place, promising to right a badly listing commercial ship that’s been battered by market forces.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 105,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Days ahead of Am­gen split, Cy­to­ki­net­ics reads out post-hoc da­ta sug­gest­ing heart drug works bet­ter in sick­er pa­tients — but can the CEO win over skep­tics?

While Cytokinetics’ heart drug technically met its primary endpoint back in November, it missed a key secondary endpoint — reduction in cardiovascular death — which eventually cost the company two partnerships. Now the team is back with data suggesting the drug works better in sicker patients, and it’s planning a trip to the FDA.

In a post-hoc analysis, which can be a very difficult sale at the FDA, Cytokinetics separated patients from the Phase III GALACTIC-HF study into four quartiles based on ejection fraction, a measurement of how well the left ventricle pumps blood with each heartbeat. Patients in the lower two quartiles — those with an EF of 22% or lower, and between 29% to 32% — saw a 15% and 17% relative risk reduction of heart failure events and cardiovascular death combined, Cytokinetics reported at ACC. No difference was seen in the upper two quartiles.