Now that Sarep­ta has bolt­ed out of the barn, the FDA wants to shut the door

John Jenk­ins, Di­rec­tor, Of­fice of New Drugs

Now that the FDA has capped Sarep­ta’s long and con­tro­ver­sial cam­paign to win an ap­proval for its Duchenne mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy drug with an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval, FDA of­fi­cials would like to send a very clear mes­sage to any oth­er biotech look­ing to slug their way for­ward us­ing the same tac­tics: For­get about it.

In a pre­sen­ta­tion at a sum­mit meet­ing of the Na­tion­al Or­ga­ni­za­tion of Rare Dis­eases on Tues­day, John Jenk­ins, di­rec­tor of the of­fice of new drugs at the Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search, sin­gled out the eteplirsen case as a new text­book ex­am­ple of what oth­er com­pa­nies should avoid.

“Path tak­en by Sarep­ta NOT a good mod­el for oth­er de­vel­op­ment pro­grams,” de­clared one of Jenk­ins’ talk­ing points un­der a fi­nal sec­tion marked “lessons learned” from eteplirsen and oth­er cas­es.

What fol­lowed was a litany of sins that FDA in­sid­ers have laid at the door of Sarep­ta, which gained the FDA’s stamp of ap­proval to sell Ex­ondys 51 for $300,000 a year, de­spite the heat­ed ob­jec­tions raised by se­nior of­fi­cials over the lack of safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta laced with barb ob­jec­tions over what was pre­sent­ed. In the end, Sarep­ta was able to gain an ap­proval af­ter pa­tient ad­vo­cates and in­flu­en­tial play­ers in Wash­ing­ton DC de­mand­ed it, with lit­tle more than da­ta from a tiny study that was re­peat­ed­ly chal­lenged by re­view­ers but en­dorsed by Janet Wood­cock and per­mit­ted by Com­mis­sion­er Robert Califf.

Jenk­ins had quite a few points to make, and they re­flect­ed the laun­dry list of is­sues that the agency had spot­light­ed to crit­i­cize Sarep­ta re­peat­ed­ly over the course of its re­view and a de­fense of its po­si­tion in light of the biotech’s chal­lenge, plus a few new ones. The FDA, he said, want­ed to make clear that bad­ly planned pro­grams could on­ly de­lay a re­view and OK; as­says, par­tic­u­lar­ly ones that re­ly on in­va­sive pro­ce­dures with chil­dren, need to be well val­i­dat­ed; stud­ies need to be care­ful­ly blind­ed and ran­dom­ized; ev­i­dence of an im­pact on bio­mark­ers has to be care­ful­ly eval­u­at­ed, ex­clud­ing ‘any’ ef­fect that might reg­is­ter, re­view­ers should not be sub­ject­ed to at­tacks, and so on.

Since Sarep­ta won an ap­proval for eteplirsen, there have been some se­ri­ous con­cerns that the FDA has low­ered its stan­dards to the point that more com­pa­nies were like­ly to fol­low suit, wag­ing a lob­by­ing cam­paign to back in­ad­e­quate tri­al re­sults. NYU bioethi­cist Art Ca­plan told End­points re­cent­ly that more de­vel­op­ers are bound to use Sarep­ta as a role mod­el, not­ing that the in­dus­try and reg­u­la­tors need to come up with a new set of rules that could make some sense when it comes to more such pitch­es on the rare dis­ease front.

Jenk­ins, though, wants to hold the line with a more tra­di­tion­al ap­proach, leav­ing Sarep­ta as the ex­cep­tion that could help prove the rule.

Here’s the full man­i­festo:

• A poor­ly planned and ex­e­cut­ed de­vel­op­ment pro­gram for a rare dis­ease mis­us­es valu­able pa­tient re­sources and serves to de­lay ob­tain­ing the knowl­edge re­quired to un­der­stand the ben­e­fits and risks of a drug to sup­port reg­u­la­to­ry re­view and ap­proval

• FDA pro­vides valu­able ad­vice and guid­ance to spon­sors, we can­not re­quire spon­sors to fol­low our ad­vice

Path tak­en by Sarep­ta NOT a good mod­el for oth­er de­vel­op­ment pro­grams

• As­says for bio­mark­ers should be well val­i­dat­ed be­fore use to avoid ob­tain­ing mis­lead­ing in­for­ma­tion and wast­ing clin­i­cal spec­i­mens

• Par­tic­u­lar­ly true when in­va­sive pro­ce­dure re­quired to col­lect tis­sue in chil­dren

• Rig­or­ous blind­ing and con­trol pro­ce­dures should be in place to min­i­mize bias in as­say in­ter­pre­ta­tion

• Pro­to­col should spec­i­fy blind­ing pro­ce­dures, ad­ju­di­ca­tion meth­ods, in­de­pen­dence of read­ers, etc.

• In many cas­es, ran­dom­ized con­trolled clin­i­cal tri­als rep­re­sent the fastest way to de­ter­mine if a drug is ef­fec­tive

• Ran­dom­ize as ear­ly as pos­si­ble in de­vel­op­ment to avoid po­ten­tial­ly mis­lead­ing and un­in­ter­pretable find­ings from open-la­bel tri­als

• Em­ploy meth­ods to lim­it time on place­bo (e.g., dose-re­sponse, de­layed start, ran­dom­ized with­draw­al, in­ter­im analy­sis)

• Re­port ear­ly tri­al re­sults ac­cu­rate­ly, post hoc analy­ses of failed tri­als are gen­er­al­ly hy­poth­e­sis gen­er­at­ing for next tri­al, not ev­i­dence to sup­port ap­proval

• Knowl­edge of nat­ur­al his­to­ry of dis­ease crit­i­cal to in­tel­li­gent de­sign of clin­i­cal tri­als

• Con­duct nat­ur­al his­to­ry tri­als be­fore clin­i­cal tri­als be­gin

• If a nat­ur­al his­to­ry ex­ter­nal con­trol group is pro­posed, it should be iden­ti­fied prospec­tive­ly to en­sure com­pa­ra­bil­i­ty to treat­ment group

• Nat­ur­al his­to­ry ex­ter­nal con­trol group cre­at­ed post hoc is very dif­fi­cult to in­ter­pret, un­less ef­fect of test drug is very large, due to known and un­known con­found­ing

• Use of ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval path­way should be prospec­tive­ly planned, NOT as a “res­cue” for a failed pro­gram

• Spon­sor and FDA should agree on the sur­ro­gate and drug ef­fect con­sid­ered “rea­son­ably like­ly” to pre­dict clin­i­cal ben­e­fit be­fore un­blind­ing da­ta

• “Any” ef­fect of a drug on a bio­mark­er is not a ba­sis for AA

• Ide­al­ly, the con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al to fur­ther de­fine clin­i­cal ben­e­fit should be start­ed be­fore AA is grant­ed to en­sure the tri­al will be com­plet­ed in a time­ly man­ner

• FDA wel­comes the en­gage­ment of pa­tients and care­givers in help­ing to de­sign de­vel­op­ment pro­grams that will re­sult in drugs that pro­vide mean­ing­ful clin­i­cal ben­e­fit to those with dis­ease

• Ap­proval de­ci­sions must be based on da­ta from ad­e­quate and well-con­trolled clin­i­cal tri­als, which may in­clude PROs and oth­er pa­tient-de­rived mea­sures

• Ex­pe­ri­ence of pa­tients en­rolled in tri­als can be very help­ful; dis­cor­dant re­sults be­tween tri­al da­ta and pa­tient anec­dotes are very hard to rec­on­cile

• FDA re­view­ers are com­mit­ted to fa­cil­i­tat­ing de­vel­op­ment of ef­fec­tive and safe drugs for rare dis­eases

• Up­hold­ing statu­to­ry stan­dards for ap­proval in face of hopes and de­sires of pa­tients, fam­i­lies, spon­sors, and in­vestors is a very dif­fi­cult job

• Per­son­al at­tacks on FDA re­view­ers cre­ates an at­mos­phere of dis­trust and iso­la­tion rather than col­lab­o­ra­tion

• Re­cruit­ment and re­ten­tion of qual­i­fied re­view staff is very chal­leng­ing in such an en­vi­ron­ment

Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk gestures to the audience after being recognized by President Trump following the successful launch of a Falcon 9 rocket at the Kennedy Space Center. (via Getty Images)

Tes­la chief Elon Musk teams up with Covid-19 play­er Cure­Vac to build 'R­NA mi­cro­fac­to­ries'

Elon Musk has joined the global tech crusade now underway to revolutionize vaccine manufacturing — now aimed at delivering billions of doses of a new mRNA vaccine to fight Covid-19. And he’s cutting right to the front.

In a late-night tweet Wednesday, the Tesla chief announced:

Tesla, as a side project, is building RNA microfactories for CureVac & possibly others.

That’s not a lot to go on. But the tweet comes a year after Tesla’s German division in Grohmann and CureVac filed a patent on a “bioreactor for RNA in vitro transcription, a method for RNA in vitro transcription, a module for transcribing DNA into RNA and an automated apparatus for RNA manufacturing.” CureVac, in the meantime, has discussed a variety of plans to build microfactories that can speed up the whole process for a global supply chain.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Elias Zerhouni (Photo by Vincent Isore/IP3/Getty Images)

Elias Zer­houni dis­cuss­es ‘am­a­teur hour’ in DC, the de­struc­tion of in­fec­tious dis­ease R&D and how we need to prep for the next time

Elias Zerhouni favors blunt talk, and in a recent discussion with NPR, the ex-Sanofi R&D and ex-NIH chief had some tough points to make regarding the pandemic response.

Rather than interpret them, I thought it would be best to provide snippets straight from the interview.

On the Trump administration response:

It was basically amateur hour. There is no central concept of operations for preparedness, for pandemics, period. This administration doesn’t want to or has no concept of what it takes to protect the American people and the world because it is codependent. You can’t close your borders and say, “OK, we’re going to be safe.” You’re not going to be able to do that in this world. So it’s a lack of vision, basically just a lack of understanding, of what it takes to protect the American people.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sec­ond death trig­gers hold on Astel­las' $3B gene ther­a­py biotech's lead pro­gram, rais­ing fresh con­cerns about AAV

Seven months after Astellas shelled out $3 billion to acquire the gene therapy player Audentes, the biotech company’s lead program has been put on hold following the death of 2 patients taking a high dose of their treatment. And there was another serious adverse event recorded in the study as well, with a total of 3 “older” patients in the study affected.

The incidents are derailing plans to file for a near-term approval, which had been expected right about now.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

George Yancopoulos (Regeneron)

UP­DAT­ED: Re­gen­eron co-founder George Yan­copou­los of­fers a com­bat­ive de­fense of the po­lice at a high school com­mence­ment. It didn’t go well

Typically, the commencement speech at Yorktown Central School District in Westchester — like most high schools — is an opportunity to encourage students to face the future with confidence and hope. Regeneron president and co-founder George Yancopoulos, though, went a different route.

In a fiery speech, the outspoken billionaire defended the police against the “prejudice and bias against law enforcement” that has erupted around the country in street protests from coast to coast. And for many who attended the commencement, Yancopoulos struck the wrong note at the wrong time, especially when he combatively challenged someone for interrupting his speech with a honk for “another act of cowardness.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pfiz­er shares surge on pos­i­tive im­pact of their mR­NA Covid-19 vac­cine — part­nered with BioN­Tech — in an ear­ly-stage study

Pfizer and their partners at the mRNA specialist BioNTech have published the first glimpse of biomarker data from an early-stage study spotlighting the “robust immunogenicity” triggered by their Covid-19 vaccine, which is one of the leaders in the race to vanquish the global pandemic.

Researchers selected 45 healthy volunteers 18-55 years of age for the study. They were randomized to receive 2 doses, separated by 21 days, of 10 µg, 30 µg, or 100 µg of BNT162b1, “a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified, mRNA vaccine that encodes trimerized SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein RBD.” Their responses were compared against the effect of a natural, presumably protective defense offered by a regular infection.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

An ex­pe­ri­enced biotech is stitched to­geth­er from transpa­cif­ic parts, with 265 staffers and a fo­cus on ‘new bi­ol­o­gy’

Over the past few years, different teams at a pair of US-based biotechs and in labs in Japan have labored to piece together a group of cancer drug programs, sharing a single corporate umbrella with research colleagues in Japan. But now their far-flung operations have been knit together into a single unit, creating a pipeline with 10 cancer drug development programs — going from early-stage right into Phase III — and a host of discovery projects managed by a collective staff of some 265 people.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Joseph Kim, Inovio CEO (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

Pos­i­tive Covid-19 vac­cine da­ta? New mouse study? OWS in­clu­sion? Yep, but some­how, the usu­al tid­bits from In­ovio back­fire

You don’t go more than 40 years in biotech without ever getting a product to market unless you can learn the art of writing a promotional press release. And Inovio captures the prize in baiting the hook.

Tuesday morning Inovio, which has been struggling to get its Covid-19 vaccine lined up for mass manufacturing, put out a release that touched on virtually every hot button in pandemic PR.

There was, first and foremost, an interim snapshot of efficacy from their Phase I program for INO-4800.

Jan van de Winkel, Genmab CEO

Seat­tle Ge­net­ics, Gen­mab turn on TV for a high­light reel in cer­vi­cal can­cer — but a ri­val biotech promis­es a bet­ter show

Seattle Genetics $SGEN and their partners at Genmab $GMAB polished up some positive Phase II numbers for their antibody drug conjugate tisotumab vedotin — you can call it TV — for recurrent cervical cancer. And while they mapped out a shortcut to a potential quick approval, the big challenge for this team is being presented by a rival biotech which muscled its way into the spotlight for the same indication a year ago.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 84,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Dan Gold, MEI Pharma CEO

De­vel­op­ment part­ners at MEI, Helsinn dump a high-risk PhI­II AML study af­ter con­clud­ing it would fail sur­vival goal

Four years after Switzerland’s Helsinn put $25 million of cash on the table for an upfront and near-term milestone to take MEI Pharma’s drug pracinostat into a long-running Phase III trial for acute myeloid leukemia, the partners are walking away from a clinical pileup.

The drug — an HDAC inhibitor — failed to pass muster during a futility analysis, as researchers concluded that pracinostat combined with azacitidine wasn’t going to outperform the control group in the pivotal.