Mer­ck­'s Keytru­da builds a com­mand­ing lead in front­line lung can­cer with da­ta from two more land­mark tri­als

CHICA­GO — Mer­ck came to AS­CO as the dom­i­nant in­dus­try play­er in front­line lung can­cer. It’s go­ing to leave AS­CO with that rep in­tact — at the ex­pense of its heavy­weight ri­vals in the field still play­ing catch-up.

Roy Baynes

In two key stud­ies out this morn­ing, the phar­ma gi­ant spelled out pos­i­tive, crit­i­cal­ly im­por­tant da­ta un­der­scor­ing Keytru­da’s abil­i­ty to fight a broad seg­ment of the cas­es in the first-line lung can­cer field as a monother­a­py, with the Keytru­da/chemo com­bo the best op­tion (so far) in front­line squa­mous cas­es, where Roche tried — and large­ly failed — to el­bow ahead this week­end.

“If you think of the whole front­line lung can­cer field (ex­cept for EGFR and ALK mu­ta­tion cas­es),” says Mer­ck head of glob­al clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment Roy Baynes, “for pret­ty much every­body there is a Keytru­da-based ther­a­py that makes sense for those pa­tients. It would be fair to say, all things be­ing equal, the chemo com­bi­na­tion is a very rea­son­able first-line op­tion.”

But not every­one is go­ing to be able to take the chemo com­bo, in­clud­ing pa­tients with high co-mor­bidi­ties. 

“Giv­en the sit­u­a­tion of all things be­ing equal, the chemo com­bo would be a pre­ferred ther­a­py,” says Baynes. “And if there are cir­cum­stances where chemo is not a pre­ferred ther­a­py, monother­a­py is a rea­son­able op­tion.”

In its monother­a­py study dubbed Keynote-042, pa­tients in the Keytru­da arm hit a me­di­an over­all sur­vival rate of 20 months, a clear­ly promis­ing out­come com­pared to 12.2 months for chemo-so­lo pa­tients with a PD-L1 tu­mor pro­por­tion score (TPS) of ≥50 per­cent. In pa­tients with a TPS of less than 20%, the OS rate was re­duced to 17.7 vs 13 months, and 16.7 vs 12.1 months for the over­all study pop­u­la­tion of pa­tients with a TPS of ≥1%.

The ‘042 study was the longer take of an ear­li­er, faster tri­al num­bered ‘024. And Mer­ck views it as a more thor­ough con­fir­ma­tion of what it saw in that quick take.  

Then there’s Keynote-407, a com­bi­na­tion of Keytru­da and chemo for front­line squa­mous NSCLC  which had es­sen­tial­ly the same de­sign as Roche’s IM­pow­er131, with Tecen­triq. Mer­ck’s team post­ed an im­pres­sive 36% re­duc­tion in the risk of death, a haz­ard ra­tio that won’t es­cape the at­ten­tion of spe­cial­ists. The Keytru­da com­bi­na­tion hit a me­di­an OS of 15.9 months com­pared to 11.3 months in the chemother­a­py-alone group. The me­di­an PFS was 6.4 months for the Keytru­da com­bi­na­tion com­pared with 4.8 months for chemother­a­py alone. 

And at the sec­ond in­ter­im read­out, the ORR was 57.9% for the com­bo com­pared to 38.4% for the chemother­a­py group. 

Roche has yet to see an OS ad­van­tage, but the PFS was close at 6.3 months for the Roche check­point vs 5.6 months for the con­trol — just a 3 week ad­van­tage. As al­ways when you com­pare da­ta on drugs that were not in a head-to-head tri­al, it’s prob­lem­at­ic to as­sess ri­val ther­a­pies. But with­out com­pet­i­tive OS re­sults, Roche is left with a small ad­van­tage in PFS that won’t com­pare well for an­a­lysts cov­er­ing the area.

The new da­ta sets will al­so in­evitably draw com­par­isons with Bris­tol-My­ers Squibb’s work with Op­di­vo. Bris­tol-My­ers has faced some stiff crit­i­cism for its set­backs as well as its tri­al de­signed in lung can­cer, where they’ve been a con­sis­tent run­ner up to Mer­ck.

The re­sults build on the re­cent­ly re­leased da­ta from Keynote-189 for non­squa­mous non-small cell lung can­cer, where re­searchers say that their com­bo of Keytru­da and chemo clear­ly beat out chemo alone on over­all sur­vival, though the fi­nal OS rate for the com­bi­na­tion has not yet been reached.

For Mer­ck, it’s an­oth­er chance to cel­e­brate pos­i­tive out­comes as ri­vals strug­gle to make their case for their drugs.

“As we look at the lung can­cer are­na,” Baynes adds, “we com­plet­ed 5 ran­dom­ized, con­trolled tri­als, with sur­vival ben­e­fits in all 5. It’s quite re­mark­able.”

Not every­one is pro­vid­ing Mer­ck with a stand­ing ova­tion, though. Some prac­ti­tion­ers in the field feel that those groups with a low­er TPS score on PD-L1 are def­i­nite­ly not get­ting a tremen­dous amount of help from Keytru­da. Here’s a note from lung can­cer ex­pert Jack West — a tho­racic on­col­o­gist at the Swedish Can­cer In­sti­tute at Swedish Med­ical Cen­ter — about my sto­ry:

Though I com­plete­ly agree that re­sults over­all are im­pres­sive and that Mer­ck is more or less run­ning the ta­ble with pem­bro in ad­vanced NSCLC, I need to high­light that the re­sults are not as fa­vor­able as your lan­guage would syggest for the pa­tients with low PD-L1 on KEYNOTE-042. The num­bers you use for pa­tients with low­er tu­mor PD-L1 ex­pres­sion in­clude the pa­tients with high PD-L1, who prop up the re­sults for the en­tire tri­al. When the re­sults of the 042 tri­al are looked at for pa­tients with PD-L1 1-49%, there is no ef­fi­ca­cy ad­van­tage for pem­bro. This doesn’t mean that on­col­o­gists and pa­tients won’t fa­vor it for com­pa­ra­ble ef­fi­ca­cy and more fa­vor­able tol­er­a­bil­i­ty than chemo, but it’s im­por­tant to clar­i­fy that the num­bers you’re pre­sent­ing for the “PD-L1 less than 20%” are ac­tu­al­ly not the num­bers for that sub­set alone but the num­bers for that sub­set com­bined with the larg­er num­ber of pa­tients with high­er tu­mor PD-L1 ex­pres­sion. The re­sults are pooled and mere­ly don’t “de-se­lect” the low PD-L1 group when they present “PD-L1 <50%” or “PD-L1 < 20%”, but they al­ways in­clude the pa­tients with high­er PD-L1 who are prop­ping up the tri­al over­all. And this is the sub­group for whomp pem­bro alone has been the stan­dard of care for more than 18 months, for whom we’d al­ready con­sid­er chemo alone an es­tab­lished in­fe­ri­or ap­proach in the US and wouldn’t en­roll on KN-042 these days.

Mer­ck has been pour­ing bil­lions of dol­lars in­to its Keytru­da pipeline, and the in­vest­ment has paid off hand­some­ly with a block­buster fran­chise and a col­lec­tion of more than 750 tri­als — an ex­plo­sion of clin­i­cal re­search. Five years ago, says Baynes, Mer­ck was at AS­CO with one pre­sen­ta­tion. For AS­CO 2018, it’s pre­sent­ing 140.

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.

As dis­as­ter struck, Ab­b­Vie’s Rick Gon­za­lez swooped in on Al­ler­gan with an of­fer Brent Saun­ders couldn’t say no to

Early March was a no good, awful, terrible time for Allergan CEO Brent Saunders. His big lead drug had imploded in a Phase III disaster and activists were after his hide — or at least his chairman’s title — as the stock price continued a steady droop that had eviscerated share value for investors.

But it was a perfect time for AbbVie CEO Rick Gonzalez to pick up the phone and ask Saunders if he’d like to consider a “strategic” deal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CEO Pascal Soriot via Getty Images

As­traZeneca's jug­ger­naut PARP play­er Lyn­parza scoops up an­oth­er dom­i­nant win in PhI­II as the FDA adds a 'break­through' for Calquence

AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group under José Baselga keeps churning out hits.

Wednesday morning the pharma giant and their partners at Merck parted the curtains on a successful readout for their Phase III PAOLA-1 study, demonstrating statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for women with ovarian cancer in a first-line maintenance setting who added their PARP Lynparza to Avastin. This is their second late-stage success in ovarian cancer, which will help stave off rivals like GSK.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.