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.

Health­care Dis­par­i­ties and Sick­le Cell Dis­ease

In the complicated U.S. healthcare system, navigating a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease can be remarkably challenging for patients and caregivers. When that illness is classified as a rare disease, those challenges can become even more acute. And when that rare disease occurs in a population that experiences health disparities, such as people with sickle cell disease (SCD) who are primarily Black and Latino, challenges can become almost insurmountable.

The End­points 11: They've got mad mon­ey and huge am­bi­tions. It's time to go big or go home

These days, selecting a group of private biotechs for the Endpoints 11 spotlight begins with a sprint to get ahead of IPOs and the M&A teams at Big Pharma. I’ve had a couple of faceplants earlier this year, watching some of the biotechs on my short list choose a quick leap onto Nasdaq or into the arms of a buyer.

Vividion, you would have been a great pick for the Endpoints 11. I’m sorry I missed you.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Dave Lennon, former president of Novartis Gene Therapies

So what hap­pened with No­var­tis Gene Ther­a­pies? Here's your an­swer

Over the last couple of days it’s become clear that the gene therapy division at Novartis has quietly undergone a major reorganization. We learned on Monday that Dave Lennon, who had pursued a high-profile role as president of the unit with 1,500 people, had left the pharma giant to take over as CEO of a startup.

Like a lot of the majors, Novartis is an open highway for head hunters, or anyone looking to staff a startup. So that was news but not completely unexpected.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Jacob Van Naarden (Eli Lilly)

Ex­clu­sives: Eli Lil­ly out to crash the megablock­buster PD-(L)1 par­ty with 'dis­rup­tive' pric­ing; re­veals can­cer biotech buy­out

It’s taken 7 years, but Eli Lilly is promising to finally start hammering the small and affluent PD-(L)1 club with a “disruptive” pricing strategy for their checkpoint therapy allied with China’s Innovent.

Lilly in-licensed global rights to sintilimab a year ago, building on the China alliance they have with Innovent. That cost the pharma giant $200 million in cash upfront, which they plan to capitalize on now with a long-awaited plan to bust up the high-price market in lung cancer and other cancers that have created a market worth tens of billions of dollars.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

FDA+ roundup: Bs­U­FA III ready for show­time, court tells FDA to re-work com­pound­ing plan, new guid­ance up­dates and more

The FDA has now spelled out what exactly will be included in the third iteration of Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) from 2023 through 2027, which similarly to the prescription drug deal, sets fees that industry has to pay for submitting applications, in exchange for firm timelines that the agency must meet.

This latest deal includes several sweeteners for the biosimilar industry, which has yet to make great strides in the US market, with shorter review timelines for safety labeling updates and updates to add or remove an indication that does not contain efficacy data.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Who are the women su­per­charg­ing bio­phar­ma R&D? Nom­i­nate them for this year's spe­cial re­port

The biotech industry has faced repeated calls to diversify its workforce — and in the last year, those calls got a lot louder. Though women account for just under half of all biotech employees around the world, they occupy very few places in C-suites, and even fewer make it to the helm.

Some companies are listening, according to a recent BIO survey which showed that this year’s companies were 2.5 times more likely to have a diversity and inclusion program compared to last year’s sample. But we still have a long way to go. Women represent just 31% of biotech executives, BIO reported. And those numbers are even more stark for women of color.

Bob Duggan, Summit CEO (via Summit Investments)

The FDA ob­jects to biotech bil­lion­aire Bob Dug­gan’s PhI­II plans — and he’s not budg­ing

Summit Therapeutics, the Cambridge, MA-based biotech run by billionaire investor Bob Duggan, has found itself in the FDA’s crosshairs.

Last month, Summit announced its intent to combine two Phase III studies for its experimental C. difficile treatment, ridinilazole, into one trial in a process that involved changing the primary endpoint. But regulators do not agree with the new endpoint, the biotech revealed in an SEC filing Tuesday, raising questions about ridinilazole’s ongoing development.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 117,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Joshua Liang, Clover Biopharmaceuticals CEO

With world still in sore need of dos­es, Clover says its Covid-19 vac­cine is 67% ef­fec­tive in Phase III

With concerns about the Delta variant rising and much of the world still in desperate need of vaccine doses, a Chinese biotech announced Wednesday that a new shot has shown positive results in a large trial against Covid-19, including new variants.

Clover Biopharmaceuticals announced Wednesday that its vaccine candidate showed 79% efficacy against the Delta variant in a Phase II/III trial dubbed Spectra, and 67% effective against Covid-19 overall.

Jean Bennett (Brent N. Clarke/Invision/AP Images)

Lux­tur­na in­ven­tor Jean Ben­nett starts a new gene ther­a­py com­pa­ny to tack­le rare dis­eases left be­hind by phar­ma, VCs

A few years ago Jean Bennett found herself in a surprising place for a woman who invented the first gene therapy ever approved in the United States: No one, it seemed, wanted her work.

Bennett, who designed and co-developed Luxturna, approved in 2018 for a rare form of blindness, had kept building new gene therapies for eye diseases at her University of Pennsylvania lab. But although the results in animals looked promising, pharma companies and investors kept turning down the pedigreed ophthalmology professor.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 117,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.