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

Con­quer­ing a silent killer: HDV and Eiger Bio­Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals

Hepatitis delta, also known as hepatitis D, is a liver infection caused by the hepatitis delta virus (HDV) that results in the most severe form of human viral hepatitis for which there is no approved therapy.

HDV is a single-stranded, circular RNA virus that requires the envelope protein (HBsAg) of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) for its own assembly. As a result, hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection occurs only as a co-infection in individuals infected with HBV. However, HDV/HBV co-infections lead to more serious liver disease than HBV infection alone. HDV is associated with faster progression to liver fibrosis (progressing to cirrhosis in about 80% of individuals in 5-10 years), increased risk of liver cancer, and early decompensated cirrhosis and liver failure.
HDV is the most severe form of viral hepatitis with no approved treatment.
Approved nucleos(t)ide treatments for HBV only suppress HBV DNA, do not appreciably impact HBsAg and have no impact on HDV. Investigational agents in development for HBV target multiple new mechanisms. Aspirations are high, but a functional cure for HBV has not been achieved nor is one anticipated in the forseeable future. Without clearance of HBsAg, anti-HBV investigational treatments are not expected to impact the deadly course of HDV infection anytime soon.

Am­gen chops 172 more staffers in R&D, op­er­a­tions and sales amid neu­ro­science ex­it, rev­enue down­turn

Neuroscience wasn’t the only unit that’s being hit by a reorganization underway at Amgen. As well as axing 149 employees in its Cambridge office, the company has disclosed that 172 others nationwide, including some from its Thousand Oaks, CA headquarters, are being let go.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ahead of strate­gic up­date, new Sanofi CEO mulls op­tions for con­sumer health­care arm — re­ports

Big pharma has made moves to sharpen its focus on developing new medicines, while slow-growing consumer health divisions fall by the wayside. Looks like another large drugmaker is considering a similar move. On Thursday, reports citing sources indicated that Sanofi is reportedly mulling a joint venture, sale, or a public listing of its consumer health arm.

The French group is in discussions for options that could value the division at $30 billion, Bloomberg and Reuters reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The triple crown in biotech: An all-or-noth­ing bet on an FDA ap­proval of 3 drugs over 16 months starts to­day

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $74 billion Celgene deal closed as expected Wednesday evening. And now a new clock has begun to tick down for Celgene shareholders who came away from the deal with CVRs — contingent value rights — worth $9 or nothing. Those CVRs start trading today as $BMYRT.

The new deadline they have is the end of March 2021, a little more than 16 months from now, when Bristol-Myers will need to gain approvals on 3 late-stage drugs it’s picking up in the buyout: Ozanimod and liso-cel (JCAR017) are due up at the end of 2020, with bb2121 deadlined at the end of Q1 in 2021.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Genap­sys fi­nal­ly un­veils vaunt­ed se­quencer, but can it dent Il­lu­mi­na?

Hesaam Esfandyarpour holds what looks like a mini-cooler up to the computer screen in his California office.

Esfandyarpour is in his late-30s, with crows feet creeping up against a youthful face. He wears a gray polo and the device in his hand — with its hard plastic-looking shell, blue-and-white pattern, and a white plastic paddle resembling a handle jutting out the front — might contain diced strawberries and peanut-butter sandwiches to meet mom and the kids at a SoCal park. Instead, Esfandyarpour tells me it’s going to change medicine and biopharma research.

UP­DAT­ED: Make that 2 ap­proved RNAi drugs at Al­ny­lam af­ter the FDA of­fers a speedy OK on ul­tra-rare dis­ease drug

Seventeen years into the game, Alnylam’s pivot into commercial operations is picking up speed.
The bellwether biotech $ALNY has nabbed their second FDA OK for an RNAi drug, this time for givosiran, the only therapy now approved for acute hepatic porphyria. This second approval came months ahead of the February deadline — even after winning priority review following their ‘breakthrough’ title earlier.
AHP is an extremely rare disease, with some 3,000 patients in Europe and the US, not all diagnosed, and analysts have projected peak revenue of $600 million to $700 million a year. The drug will be sold as Givlaari.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Ricks. Eli Lilly

Eli Lil­ly touts $400M man­u­fac­tur­ing ex­pan­sion, 100 new jobs to much fan­fare in In­di­anapo­lis — even though it's been chop­ping staff

Eli Lilly is pouring in $400 million to beef up manufacturing facilities at its home base of Indianapolis. The investment, which was lauded by the city’s mayor, is expected to create 100 new jobs.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 66,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Brii Bio backs in­fec­tious dis­ease start­up while ink­ing deal for its lead TB drug, dou­bling down on an­tibi­otics

Almost two years after leaving GSK to launch Brii Bio with a whopping $260 million in funding, Zhi Hong is seeing the trans-Pacific infectious disease specialist he set out to build take shape.

“Our pipeline is coming together,” he told Endpoints News, with 12 partnered assets plus some internal programs.

As its latest partner, AN2 Therapeutics, comes into the limelight for the first time with a $12 million seed round, so is Brii’s plans in the antibiotics space. Brii has obtained China rights to AN2’s antibacterial targeting mycobacterium tuberculosis for multi-drug resistant TB, which it says is in the clinical stage.

No­var­tis, Bay­er, Long­wood back ge­nomics start­up to speed search for im­munother­a­py tar­gets

Nearly a century passed between the first proto-immunotherapy attempts in cancer — crude and obscure but nonetheless with some scientific basis — and Jim Allison’s first T cell paper. Thirty-plus years flipped between the discovery of CTLA-4 as an off-switch and the approval of Yervoy. Twenty-two rolled between PD-1’s isolation and Opdiva and Keytruda. 

Longwood co-founder Lea Hachigian is betting she can hasten that. It’s a bet on newly established single-cell genomic analysis tech and the ability to crunch endless troves of data at a rate few others can, and investors including Leaps by Bayer and Novartis Venture Fund just put $39 million behind it. They call it Immunitas.