No sur­pris­es in FDA staff re­view for Aim­mune peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­py — fo­cus re­mains on safe­ty, tol­er­a­bil­i­ty pro­file

Ahead of the keen­ly an­tic­i­pat­ed in­de­pen­dent pan­el set to dis­cuss Aim­mune’s peanut al­ler­gy im­munother­a­py on Fri­day, FDA staff is­sued a pre­dictable re­view on Wednes­day, high­light­ing the po­ten­tial safe­ty and tol­er­a­bil­i­ty is­sues as­so­ci­at­ed with the prod­uct, while back­ing its ef­fi­ca­cy.

Tra­di­tion­al­ly, peanut al­ler­gies are man­aged by avoid­ance, but the threat of ac­ci­den­tal ex­po­sure can­not be nul­li­fied. In the Unit­ed States, da­ta sug­gest peanut al­ler­gies af­fect an es­ti­mat­ed 1.2% of the to­tal pop­u­la­tion — this is the mar­ket Aim­mune is itch­ing to ad­dress with its im­munother­a­py.

The prod­uct — AR101 — is ef­fec­tive­ly a small amount of en­cap­su­lat­ed peanut flour. It is first giv­en in es­ca­lat­ing dos­es to es­sen­tial­ly re­set the pa­tient’s im­mune ap­pa­ra­tus — fol­low­ing which a main­te­nance dose is con­tin­u­al­ly ad­min­is­tered to sus­tain de­sen­si­ti­za­tion. The ther­a­py, which is set to be chris­tened Pal­forzia, has been test­ed in two late-stage tri­als, in ad­di­tion to an ex­ten­sion study.

In the 551-pa­tient PAL­ISADES tri­al in the Unit­ed States, pa­tients ei­ther re­ceived Aim­mune’s drug or a place­bo. In the first tranche of the study, pa­tients re­ceived in­creas­ing­ly high­er dos­es of the drug/place­bo for about 22 weeks and then were ad­min­is­tered with 300 mg (main­te­nance dose) of Pal­forzia/place­bo per day for ap­prox­i­mate­ly six months. At the end of that reg­i­men, pa­tients un­der­went a ‘food chal­lenge’ in which their abil­i­ty to in­gest a sin­gle dose of at least 600 mg of peanut pro­tein was mea­sured.

The ef­fi­ca­cy re­sults were dra­mat­ic. About 67% of the pa­tients who re­ceived the drug (250 of 372 par­tic­i­pants) were able to con­sume 600 mg of peanut pro­tein ver­sus 4% in the place­bo group. Over 100 pa­tients en­rolled in a fol­low-on study where they were giv­en Pal­forzia once a day. Near­ly 80% of those pa­tients were able to tol­er­ate at least 1,000 mg of peanut pro­tein, while near­ly half man­aged to with­stand a 2,000 mg dose.

Jayson Dal­las Aim­mune

“Our hy­poth­e­sis is…that once we get to some­where around 3-4-5 years, we will see that the pa­tients are no longer need­ing ther­a­py and we can stop them,” Aim­mune chief Jayson Dal­las said in an in­ter­view with End­points News ahead of the FDA staff re­view.

But da­ta on the safe­ty side caused some pause — 11.6% of pa­tients (43 par­tic­i­pants) giv­en the drug with­drew from the tri­al due to side-ef­fects, ver­sus 2.4% (3 pa­tients) from the place­bo group. Ad­di­tion­al­ly, over the course of the tri­al 14% (52 pa­tients) of Pal­forzia-treat­ed pa­tients re­ceived an ep­i­neph­rine shot, ver­sus 6.5% (8 pa­tients) in the place­bo group.

In their re­view, FDA staff un­der­scored these find­ings af­ter re­view­ing the to­tal­i­ty of the da­ta pre­sent­ed to the agency. “(T)he Pal­forzia treat­ment group had an in­creased num­ber of dis­con­tin­u­a­tions, sys­temic al­ler­gic re­ac­tions and re­ports of eosinophilic esophagi­tis com­pared to the place­bo-treat­ed group, though both groups fol­lowed a peanut avoid­ance di­et,” re­view­ers not­ed.

“(T)hese brief­ing docs look fair­ly be­nign,” Baird’s Bri­an Sko­r­ney wrote in a note. “Im­por­tant­ly, the ef­fi­ca­cy analy­sis looks clear as day and there are no new safe­ty con­cerns raised. We ex­pect the pan­el to be com­plete­ly di­rect­ed to­wards dis­cus­sions around ep­i­neph­rine use and cas­es of eosinophilic esophagi­tis (EoE), things we be­lieve the pa­tient/physi­cian com­mu­ni­ty un­der­stand well and will will­ing­ly ac­cept.”

In his in­ter­view with End­points, Aim­mune chief Dal­las of­fered a com­par­i­son. “The side-ef­fect pro­file that we’re see­ing with our prod­uct is no more than you would ex­pect if you were treat­ing some­body for grass and pollen al­ler­gies, which un­like peanut al­ler­gies, are not life-threat­en­ing.”

There is al­so a mis­con­cep­tion that if ep­i­neph­rine is used, it must be due to a se­vere re­ac­tion, he added. “Some­times par­ents will give their kids ep­i­neph­rine if they get a bit of tin­gling on their tongue…there is ze­ro cor­re­la­tion be­tween us­ing ep­i­neph­rine and the sever­i­ty of a re­ac­tion.”

Some physi­cians have long been dos­ing pa­tients with peanut pow­der oral­ly, al­beit off la­bel, to wean them off their al­ler­gies. So why should physi­cians and pay­ers en­dorse Aim­mune’s prod­uct?

Peanuts can car­ry three dif­fer­ent types of pro­teins that can trig­ger al­ler­gies — and prod­ucts found on su­per­mar­ket shelves, such as peanut flour, peanut but­ter, or cook­ies em­bell­ished with peanuts, con­tain dif­fer­ent con­cen­tra­tions of some or all of these pro­teins. This is why Aim­mune’s prod­uct — which car­ries each pro­tein in equal con­cen­tra­tion — is ben­e­fi­cial, Dal­las as­sert­ed.

In ad­di­tion, when peanuts are boiled, that dis­si­pates those pro­teins to an ex­tent. “You run in­to a sit­u­a­tion where some­body be­lieves they are pro­tect­ed. But in fact, they’re not pro­tect­ed,” he said.

Aim­mune $AIMT and arch-ri­val DBV Tech­nolo­gies $DB­VT have been locked in a race to the fin­ish line to mar­ket their peanut al­ler­gy treat­ments in the Unit­ed States. Aim­mune ef­fec­tive­ly leapfrogged DBV when the lat­ter re­scind­ed an ap­pli­ca­tion to mar­ket its Vi­askin Peanut patch last year in re­sponse to FDA con­cerns about the state of man­u­fac­tur­ing and qual­i­ty con­trol da­ta sub­mit­ted.

In Ju­ly, in­flu­en­tial cost-ef­fec­tive­ness watch­dog ICER con­clud­ed that the ex­ist­ing body of ev­i­dence is not strong enough to sug­gest that AR101 or Vi­askin Peanut of­fer a su­pe­ri­or net health ben­e­fit ver­sus strict peanut avoid­ance, in ad­di­tion to the un­cer­tain­ty sur­round­ing the long-term ef­fects of ei­ther ther­a­py. Both drug de­vel­op­ers con­test­ed the re­port.

An FDA de­ci­sion for AR101 is ex­pect­ed in Jan­u­ary 2020, while DBV sub­mit­ted its mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion in Au­gust. In its cal­cu­la­tions, ICER used an­a­lyst pro­jec­tions to eval­u­ate each ther­a­py’s long-term cost-ef­fec­tive­ness: AR101 at $4,200/year and Vi­askin Peanut at $6,500/year.

Grass and pollen al­ler­gy prod­ucts, af­ter ac­count­ing for dis­counts, cost about $5,000 a year, Dal­las said. “And those are for non-life threat­en­ing events and so we kind of see that as the floor and we’ll sort of work a lit­tle bit around that.”

Ac­cord­ing to Aim­mune, there are more than 1.6 mil­lion chil­dren and teenagers af­fect­ed by peanut al­ler­gies in the Unit­ed States, which rep­re­sents a $1 bil­lion-plus peak sales op­por­tu­ni­ty. Aim­mune’s shares $AIMT rose about 8.6% to $23.97 be­fore the bell on Wednes­day.

The so-far un­tapped mar­ket is ex­pect­ed to grow to $4.5 bil­lion in 2027 glob­al­ly, Glob­al­Da­ta es­ti­mates.

Biotech Half­time Re­port: Af­ter a bumpy year, is biotech ready to re­bound?

The biotech sector has come down firmly from the highs of February as negative sentiment takes hold. The sector had a major boost of optimism from the success of the COVID-19 vaccines, making investors keenly aware of the potential of biopharma R&D engines. But from early this year, clinical trial, regulatory and access setbacks have reminded investors of the sector’s inherent risks.

RBC Capital Markets recently surveyed investors to take the temperature of the market, a mix of specialists/generalists and long-only/ long-short investment strategies. Heading into the second half of the year, investors mostly see the sector as undervalued (49%), a large change from the first half of the year when only 20% rated it as undervalued. Around 41% of investors now believe that biotech will underperform the S&P500 in the second half of 2021. Despite that view, 54% plan to maintain their position in the market and 41% still plan to increase their holdings.

Bio­gen hit by ALS set­back with PhI­II fail­ure for tofersen — but fol­lows a fa­mil­iar strat­e­gy high­light­ing the pos­i­tive

Patients and analysts waiting to hear Sunday how Biogen’s SOD1-ALS drug tofersen fared in Phase III didn’t have to wait long for the top-line result they were all waiting for. The drug failed the primary endpoint on significantly improving the functional and neurologic decline of patients over 28 weeks as well as the extension period for continued observation.

In fact, there was very little difference in response.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 120,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Boehringer nabs FDA's first in­ter­change­abil­i­ty des­ig­na­tion for its Hu­mi­ra com­peti­tor — but will it mat­ter?

The FDA late Friday awarded Boehringer Ingelheim the first interchangeability designation for its Humira biosimilar Cyltezo, meaning that when it launches in July 2023, pharmacists will be able to automatically substitute the Boehringer’s version for AbbVie’s mega-blockbuster without a doctor’s input.

The designation will likely give Boehringer, which first won approval for Cyltezo in 2017, the leg up on a crowded field of Humira competitors.

Reshma Kewalramani, Vertex CEO (YouTube)

Ver­tex gets much-need­ed win with ‘ex­tra­or­di­nary’ first pa­tient re­sults on po­ten­tial di­a­betes cure

Vertex said Monday that the first patient dosed with its cell therapy for type 1 diabetes saw their need for insulin injections vanish almost entirely, a key early step in the decades-long effort to develop a curative treatment for the chronic disease.

The patient, who had suffered five potentially life-threatening hypoglycemic — or low blood sugar — episodes in the year before the therapy, was injected with synthetic insulin-producing cells. After 90 days, the patient’s new cells produced insulin steadily and ramped up their insulin production after a meal like normal cells do, as measured by a standard biomarker for insulin production.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 120,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis de­vel­op­ment chief John Tsai: 'We go deep in the new plat­form­s'

During our recent European Biopharma Summit, I talked with Novartis development chief John Tsai about his experiences over the 3-plus years he’s been at the pharma giant. You can read the transcript below or listen to the exchange in the link above.

John Carroll: I followed your career for quite some time. You’ve had more than 20 years in big pharma R&D and you’ve obviously seen quite a lot. I really was curious about what it was like for you three and a half years ago when you took over as R&D chief at Novartis. Obviously a big move, a lot of changes. You went to work for the former R&D chief of Novartis, Vas Narasimhan, who had his own track record there. So what was the biggest adjustment when you went into this position?

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Susan Galbraith, Executive VP, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca

As­traZeneca on­col­o­gy R&D chief Su­san Gal­braith: 'Y­ou're go­ing to need or­thog­o­nal com­bi­na­tion­s'

 

Earlier in the week we broadcast our 4th annual European Biopharma Summit with a great lineup of top execs. One of the one-on-one conversations I set up was with Susan Galbraith, the oncology research chief at AstraZeneca. In a wide-ranging discussion, Galbraith reviewed the cancer drug pipeline and key trends influencing development work at the pharma giant. You can watch the video, above, or stick with the script below. — JC

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Two drug­mak­ers hit with PDU­FA date de­lays from FDA amid back­log of in­spec­tions

As the FDA is weighed down with more and more pandemic responsibilities, the agency is beginning to miss PDUFA dates with more frequency too. Two different companies on Monday said they received notices that the FDA has not completed their drug reviews on time.

The review of an NDA for Avadel Pharmaceuticals’ candidate treatment for narcolepsy is not coming this month, the company said, and the review of UCB’s BLA for bimekizumab, used to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, will miss its target date as well.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 120,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Terrie Curran, Phathom CEO (Credit: Arcutis)

Phath­om's old Take­da drug bests Pre­vacid in a PhI­II GI tri­al. Next stop? The FDA

There’s no time for rest in biopharma — at least not at Phathom Pharmaceuticals. Just over a month after submitting two NDAs for its lead acid-fighter vonoprazan, the biotech is already lining up a third, and collecting an extra $50 million to push things along.

Vonoprazan met its primary non-inferiority endpoints in a Phase III study comparing it to standard-of-care Prevacid in a type of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) called erosive esophagitis (EE). It also proved superior to the popular heartburn drug by multiple measures, including healing rate and maintenance of healing.

Thomas Lingelbach, Valneva CEO

Small biotech says its Covid-19 vac­cine spurs more an­ti­bod­ies than As­traZeneca’s. Will sup­ply deals come now?

In a first, a small runner-up vaccine developer says its own Covid-19 jab has induced “superior neutralizing antibody titer levels” over AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 when pitted head-to-head in a Phase III trial.

That and non-inferiority in seroconversion rate were the co-primary endpoints of the trial, which recruited 4,012 adult volunteers across the UK.

But on the exploratory endpoint of Covid-19 case counts, Valneva notes that both treatment groups saw a similar number of infections.