No­var­tis now says that it paid Trump's at­tor­ney $1.2M — and then throws ex-CEO Joe Jimenez un­der the bus

BioReg­num — The view from John Car­roll


John Car­roll, Ed­i­tor

With No­var­tis stuck square­ly in the mid­dle of a me­dia fren­zy cen­tered on pay­ments it made to a shell com­pa­ny con­trolled by Michael Co­hen, the per­son­al at­tor­ney for Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, the phar­ma gi­ant of­fered a few more de­tails Wednes­day about their re­la­tion­ship. It starts with an ad­mis­sion that No­var­tis ac­tu­al­ly paid Co­hen more than a mil­lion dol­lars, and it was fol­lowed by an ex­tra­or­di­nary pri­vate ad­mis­sion that then CEO Joe Jimenez was sold on the no­tion that Co­hen could pri­vate ac­cess to the ad­min­is­tra­tion.

In their new state­ment you can see in its en­tire­ty be­low, No­var­tis says it en­gaged with Co­hen in ear­ly 2017, agree­ing to pay the pres­i­dent’s at­tor­ney $100,000 a month for 12 months to pro­vide guid­ance on “health­care pol­i­cy mat­ters.” Af­ter their first meet­ing, No­var­tis said, the phar­ma gi­ant de­ter­mined that Co­hen “would be un­able to pro­vide the ser­vices that No­var­tis had an­tic­i­pat­ed,” and de­cid­ed to call a halt to any fu­ture meet­ings. The pay­ments, how­ev­er, had to con­tin­ue un­der the con­tract.

No­var­tis then ve­he­ment­ly de­nied a sug­ges­tion by Stormy Daniels’ at­tor­ney Michael Ave­nat­ti — who re­vealed a few of the $99,980 pay­ments from No­var­tis as well as more cor­po­rate con­tri­bu­tions and a $500,000 pay­out from Russ­ian oli­garch Vik­tor Vek­sel­berg — that the pay­ments could have been tied to a high-pro­file din­ner soon-to-be No­var­tis CEO Vas Narasimhan at­tend­ed in Davos with Trump at the end of Jan­u­ary. He wasn’t in­volved in any way, No­var­tis in­sists in­dig­nant­ly.

Sug­ges­tions to the con­trary clear­ly mis­rep­re­sent the facts and can on­ly be in­tend­ed to fur­ther per­son­al or po­lit­i­cal agen­das as to which No­var­tis should not be a part.

No­var­tis then re­peat­ed its as­ser­tion that it had been in con­tact with the spe­cial coun­sel’s of­fice un­der Robert Mueller and now con­sid­ers the mat­ter with the pres­i­dent’s chief fix­er closed.

But not quite.

Deeply em­bar­rassed at be­ing caught up in the Michael Co­hen/Stormy Daniels scan­dal, se­nior ex­ecs at No­var­tis fol­lowed up with some re­porters to throw Jimenez un­der the bus by ac­knowl­edg­ing that the com­pa­ny was pay­ing for ac­cess to the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion, on the ex-CEO’s or­ders.

Co­hen “con­tact­ed us af­ter the new ad­min­is­tra­tion was in place,” the of­fi­cial told NBC News. “He was promis­ing ac­cess to the new ad­min­is­tra­tion.”

That’s old fash­ioned in­flu­ence ped­dling, if true.

Cit­ing a com­pa­ny in­sid­er, Stat News’ Ed Sil­ver­man re­ports that Co­hen reached out to Jimenez di­rect­ly, and that the CEO then di­rect­ed the com­pa­ny to make the deal. And even though the arrange­ment quick­ly de­railed, the com­pa­ny claims, Co­hen lat­er went back to new CEO Vas Narasimhan for a new deal, who re­ject­ed the over­ture.

The in­sid­er told Stat:

“With a new ad­min­is­tra­tion com­ing in, ba­si­cal­ly, all the tra­di­tion­al con­tacts dis­ap­peared and they were all new play­ers. We were try­ing to find an in­road in­to the ad­min­is­tra­tion. Co­hen promised ac­cess to not just Trump, but al­so the cir­cle around him. It was al­most as if we were hir­ing him as a lob­by­ist.”

That nar­ra­tive un­der­scores the com­pa­ny’s laser fo­cus on pro­tect­ing Narasimhan, at the ex­pense of Jimenez, who left at the be­gin­ning of Feb­ru­ary af­ter a long run at the top.

I’ve been try­ing to reach Jimenez di­rect­ly, but with­out suc­cess. A com­pa­ny spokesper­son told me he didn’t know how to con­tact the ex-CEO.

The Co­hen fi­as­co adds to No­var­tis’ grow­ing list of eth­i­cal woes, in­clud­ing is­sues with the way it re­ward­ed doc­tors in Chi­na. And it faces even big­ger ques­tions with its ap­proach to US pol­i­cy, which will be the sub­ject of a much an­tic­i­pat­ed speech by Trump on Fri­day.

You can ex­pect more ques­tions on No­var­tis’ role in the scan­dal af­ter that ap­pear­ance, par­tic­u­lar­ly if the ad­min­is­tra­tion goes easy on Big Phar­ma in try­ing to keep Trump’s re­peat­ed promise to “slash” drug prices.

Here’s the state­ment:

In Feb­ru­ary 2017, short­ly af­ter the elec­tion of Pres­i­dent Trump, No­var­tis en­tered in­to a one year agree­ment with Es­sen­tial Con­sul­tants.  With the re­cent change in ad­min­is­tra­tion, No­var­tis be­lieved that Michael Co­hen could ad­vise the com­pa­ny as to how the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion might ap­proach cer­tain US health­care pol­i­cy mat­ters, in­clud­ing the Af­ford­able Care Act.   The agree­ment was for a term of one year, and paid Es­sen­tial Con­sul­tants 100,000 USD per month.  In March 2017, No­var­tis had its first meet­ing with Michael Co­hen un­der this agree­ment.  Fol­low­ing this ini­tial meet­ing, No­var­tis de­ter­mined that Michael Co­hen and Es­sen­tial Con­sul­tants would be un­able to pro­vide the ser­vices that No­var­tis had an­tic­i­pat­ed re­lat­ed to US health­care pol­i­cy mat­ters and the de­ci­sion was tak­en not to en­gage fur­ther.  As the con­tract un­for­tu­nate­ly could on­ly be ter­mi­nat­ed for cause, pay­ments con­tin­ued to be made un­til the con­tract ex­pired by its own terms in Feb­ru­ary 2018.

The en­gage­ment of Es­sen­tial Con­sul­tants pre­dat­ed Vas Narasimhan be­com­ing No­var­tis CEO and he was in no way in­volved with this agree­ment.  Con­trary to re­cent me­dia re­ports, this agree­ment was al­so in no way re­lat­ed to the group din­ner Dr. Narasimhan had at the World Eco­nom­ic Fo­rum in Davos with Pres­i­dent Trump and 15 Eu­rope based in­dus­try lead­ers.  Sug­ges­tions to the con­trary clear­ly mis­rep­re­sent the facts and can on­ly be in­tend­ed to fur­ther per­son­al or po­lit­i­cal agen­das as to which No­var­tis should not be a part.

In terms of the Spe­cial Coun­sel’s of­fice, No­var­tis was con­tact­ed in No­vem­ber 2017 re­gard­ing the com­pa­ny’s agree­ment with Es­sen­tial Con­sul­tants. No­var­tis co­op­er­at­ed ful­ly with the Spe­cial Coun­sel’s of­fice and pro­vid­ed all the in­for­ma­tion re­quest­ed.  No­var­tis con­sid­ers this mat­ter closed as to it­self and is not aware of any out­stand­ing ques­tions re­gard­ing the agree­ment.

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Deborah Dunsire. Lundbeck

Deb­o­rah Dun­sire is pay­ing $2B for a chance to leap di­rect­ly in­to a block­buster show­down with a few of the world's biggest phar­ma gi­ants

A year after taking the reins as CEO of Lundbeck, Deborah Dunsire is making a bold bid to beef up the Danish biotech’s portfolio of drugs in what will likely be a direct leap into an intense rivalry with a group of giants now carving up a growing market for new migraine drugs.

Bright and early European time the company announced that it will pay up to about $2 billion to buy Alder, a little biotech that is far along the path in developing a quarterly IV formulation for a CGRP drug aimed at cutting back the number of crippling migraines patients experience each month.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lisa M. DeAngelis, MSKCC

MSK picks brain can­cer ex­pert Lisa DeAn­ge­lis as its next CMO — fol­low­ing José Basel­ga’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­it

It’s official. Memorial Sloan Kettering has picked a brain cancer expert as its new physician-in-chief and CMO, replacing José Baselga, who left under a cloud after being singled out by The New York Times and ProPublica for failing to properly air his lucrative industry ties.

His replacement, who now will be in charge of MSK’s cutting-edge research work as well as the cancer care delivered by hundreds of practitioners, is Lisa M. DeAngelis. DeAngelis had been chair of the neurology department and co-founder of MSK’s brain tumor center and was moved in to the acting CMO role in the wake of Baselga’s departure.

Penn team adapts CAR-T tech, reengi­neer­ing mouse cells to treat car­diac fi­bro­sis

After establishing itself as one of the pioneer research centers in the world for CAR-T cancer therapies, creating new attack vehicles to eradicate cancer cells, a team at Penn Medicine has begun the tricky transition of using the basic technology for heart repair work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks. Moderna

The mR­NA uni­corn Mod­er­na has more ear­ly-stage hu­man da­ta it wants to show off — reach­ing new peaks in prov­ing the po­ten­tial

The whole messenger RNA field has attracted billions of dollars in public and private investor cash gambled on the prospect of getting in on the ground floor. And this morning Boston-based Moderna, one of the leaders in the field, wants to show off a few more of the cards it has to play to prove to you that they’re really in the game.

The whole hand, of course, has yet to be dealt. And there’s no telling who gets to walk with a share of the pot. But any cards on display at this point — especially after being accused of keeping its deck under lock and key — will attract plenty of attention from some very wary, and wired, observers.

“In terms of the complexity and unmet need,” says Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer, “this is peak for what we’ve accomplished.”

Moderna has two Phase I studies it wants to talk about now.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

It's not per­fect, but it's a good start: FDA pan­elists large­ly en­dorse Aim­mune's peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­py

Two days after a fairly benign review from FDA staff, an independent panel of experts largely endorsed the efficacy and safety of Aimmune’s peanut allergy therapy, laying the groundwork for approval with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS).

Traditionally, peanut allergies are managed by avoidance, but the threat of accidental exposure cannot be nullified. Some allergists have devised a way to dose patients off-label with peanut protein derived from supermarket products to wean them off their allergies. But the idea behind Aimmune’s product was to standardize the peanut protein, and track the process of desensitization — so when accidental exposure in the real world invariably occurs, patients are less likely to experience a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rit­ter bombs fi­nal PhI­II for sole lac­tose in­tol­er­ance drug — shares plum­met

More than two years ago Ritter Pharmaceuticals managed to find enough silver lining in its Phase IIb/III study — after missing the top-line mark — to propel its lactose intolerance toward a confirmatory trial. But as it turned out, the enthusiasm only set the biotech and its investors up to be sorely disappointed.

This time around there’s little left to salvage. Not only did RP-G28 fail to beat placebo in reducing lactose intolerance symptoms, patients in the treatment group actually averaged a smaller improvement. On a composite score measuring symptoms like abdominal pain, cramping, bloating and gas, patients given the drug had a mean reduction of 3.159 while the placebo cohort saw a 3.420 drop on average (one-sided p-value = 0.0106).

Ear­ly snap­shot of Ad­verum's eye gene ther­a­py sparks con­cern about vi­sion loss

An early-stage update on Adverum Biotechnologies’ intravitreal gene therapy has triggered investor concern, after patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) saw their vision deteriorate, despite signs that the treatment is improving retinal anatomy.

Adverum, on Wednesday, unveiled 24-week data from the OPTIC trial of its experimental therapy, ADVM-022, in six patients who have been administered with one dose of the therapy. On average, patients in the trial had severe disease with an average of 6.2 anti-VEGF injections in the eight months prior to screening and an average annualized injection frequency of 9.3 injections.

Alex Ar­faei trades his an­a­lyst's post for a new role as biotech VC; Sanofi vet heads to Vi­for

Too often, Alex Arfaei arrived too late. 

An analyst at BMO Capital Markets, he’d meet with biotech or pharmaceutical heads for their IPO or secondary funding and his brain, trained on a biology degree and six years at Merck and Endo, would spring with questions: Why this biomarker? Why this design? Why not this endpoint? Not that he could do anything about it. These execs were coming for clinical money; their decisions had been made and finalized long ago.