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

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 59,600+ 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 59,600+ 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 59,600+ 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 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sanofi takes a $260M hit to ex­tri­cate it­self from a dis­as­trous al­liance with Lex­i­con

Sanofi spent $300 million in cash to get into a $1.7 billion alliance with Lexicon on their SGLT1/2 diabetes drug sotagliflozin. And now that the drug has been spurned by the FDA after burning through a program that provided mixed late-stage data and a late shot at a last-place finish, the French pharma giant is forking over another $260 million to get out of the deal.

Sanofi’s unhappiness was already apparent when the company — now under new CEO Paul Hudson — posted a statement back in July that they were dropping the deal. But it wasn’t that simple. 

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ 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.