Pa­tient ex­pe­ri­ence da­ta: Sanofi re­searchers call for more con­sis­ten­cy from FDA

Re­searchers at drug­mak­er Sanofi are call­ing on the FDA to make its pub­li­ca­tion of pa­tient ex­pe­ri­ence da­ta (PED) in re­view doc­u­men­ta­tion more con­sis­tent af­ter re­view­ing ap­pli­ca­tions ap­proved in the first full year af­ter a re­quire­ment of the 21st Cen­tu­ry Cures Act com­pelled the agency to do so.

Un­der Sec­tion 3001 of the 21st Cen­tu­ry Cures Act, the FDA is re­quired to “pub­lish a brief state­ment on any pa­tient ex­pe­ri­ence da­ta or re­lat­ed in­for­ma­tion that was part of the ap­pli­ca­tion” for ap­pli­ca­tions sub­mit­ted af­ter 16 June 2017.

In 2018, the FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search (CDER) ap­proved 59 nov­el drugs and bi­o­log­ics. Of those, 48 ap­pli­ca­tions (81.4%) in­clud­ed a Sec. 3001 PED ta­ble with­in the re­view doc­u­men­ta­tion. Among the 11 prod­ucts that did not in­clude a PED ta­ble, sev­en were sub­mit­ted to the FDA pri­or to the im­ple­men­ta­tion date for Sec. 3001.

Among the 48 ap­pli­ca­tions that in­clud­ed a PED ta­ble, the re­searchers found that 34 (70.8%) re­port­ed us­ing PED dur­ing the re­view. Of those 34 ap­pli­ca­tions, 29 (60.4%) in­clud­ed on­ly spon­sor-sub­mit­ted PED, four (8.3%) in­clud­ed spon­sor- and non­spon­sor-sub­mit­ted PED and one (2.1%) in­clud­ed on­ly non­spon­sor-sub­mit­ted PED.

The sources of the non­spon­sor-sub­mit­ted PED in­clud­ed the FDA pa­tient-fo­cused drug de­vel­op­ment meet­ing sum­maries, a meet­ing be­tween the FDA and pa­tient stake­hold­ers and an FDA ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee meet­ing.

The re­searchers al­so re­viewed the use of PED across prod­ucts with spe­cial reg­u­la­to­ry des­ig­na­tions, in­clud­ing or­phan drug des­ig­na­tion, break­through ther­a­py des­ig­na­tion, fast track des­ig­na­tion, pri­or­i­ty re­view and ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval.

Con­trary to their ex­pec­ta­tions, the re­searchers found that ap­pli­ca­tions with or­phan des­ig­na­tion were less like­ly to in­clude PED in their re­view doc­u­men­ta­tion, with 60.7% of ap­pli­ca­tions with or­phan des­ig­na­tion in­clud­ing PED com­pared to 85% of non-or­phan ap­pli­ca­tions uti­liz­ing PED as part of their re­view.

The re­searchers ob­served a sim­i­lar trend for ap­pli­ca­tions that re­ceived fast track sta­tus or a pri­or­i­ty re­view, not­ing that 61.9% of ap­pli­ca­tions with fast track sta­tus and 64.9% of pri­or­i­ty re­views in­clud­ed PED, while 77.8% of non-fast track and 90.9% non-pri­or­i­ty re­view ap­pli­ca­tions in­clud­ed PED.

On the oth­er hand, prod­ucts grant­ed break­through ther­a­py des­ig­na­tion or ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval were more like­ly to in­clude PED in their re­view doc­u­men­ta­tion.

“In­clu­sion of the PED ta­ble with­in the FDA Re­view Doc­u­men­ta­tion—which are by na­ture high­ly tech­ni­cal and ac­cessed pri­mar­i­ly by spon­sors and aca­d­e­mics—would lim­it their vis­i­bil­i­ty to stake­hold­ers less fa­mil­iar with the FDA reg­u­la­to­ry process (such as pa­tient groups and health­care providers),” the re­searchers write.

The re­searchers al­so point out that while the for­mat of the PED ta­bles in­clud­ed in the re­view doc­u­men­ta­tion were “large­ly con­sis­tent through­out these 48 drug prod­uct ap­pli­ca­tions, the use of the ta­ble by FDA re­view­ers var­ied sig­nif­i­cant­ly,” not­ing that in just over half of the ap­pli­ca­tions (58.3%) the PED ta­ble spec­i­fied the ap­pli­ca­tion sec­tion where PED was dis­cussed. Ad­di­tion­al­ly, the re­searchers say that on­ly nine of the 29 ap­pli­ca­tions that in­clud­ed pa­tient re­port­ed out­come (PRO) da­ta spec­i­fied which PRO in­stru­ment was used.

“Fur­ther, it ap­pears that FDA did not con­sis­tent­ly pub­lish a PED ta­ble for sup­ple­men­tal ap­pli­ca­tions, which are al­so ap­proved un­der FD&C Act 505(b) or PH­SA 351(a)—while this in­for­ma­tion some­times can be ac­cessed by oth­er means, there is no con­sol­i­dat­ed, ‘pub­licly avail­able’ ac­cess to this in­for­ma­tion,” the re­searchers write.

The re­searchers high­light the fact that clin­i­cal out­come as­sess­ments (COAs), in­clud­ing PROs, ac­count­ed for near­ly three-quar­ters (73.2%) of the sources of PED in the ap­pli­ca­tions.

While the re­searchers note that this may be due to both spon­sors and the FDA hav­ing more ex­pe­ri­ence with COAs com­pared to oth­er sources of PED. “Based on the re­sults of this re­view, both the FDA and spon­sors should en­sure that all forms of PED, be­yond COAs, are ap­pro­pri­ate­ly be­ing in­cor­po­rat­ed in­to drug de­vel­op­ment,” they write.

Look­ing ahead, the re­searchers say they ex­pect the FDA to be more con­sis­tent in its han­dling of PED across its re­view di­vi­sions and ar­gue that the re­quire­ments un­der Sec­tion 3001 of the Cures Act should ap­ply to sup­ple­men­tal ap­pli­ca­tions as well.

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, the re­searchers say that the FDA could make its use of PED more ac­ces­si­ble by in­clud­ing a plain lan­guage “pa­tient-fac­ing state­ment de­scrib­ing FDA’s use and ap­pli­ca­tion of PED for each ap­proval,” sim­i­lar to how the agency pro­vides its drug tri­al snap­shots.

The re­searchers al­so ar­gue that the FDA should in­clude or link to its use of PED in its re­views of ap­pli­ca­tions in ap­proved la­bel­ing. “With­out di­rect in­clu­sion in la­bel­ing, or at least a mean­ing­ful and ac­ces­si­ble link­age of the in­for­ma­tion to la­bel­ing, true pub­li­ca­tion of FDA’s use of pa­tient in­put ar­guably has not been ef­fec­tu­at­ed for the ben­e­fit of all users,” the re­searchers write.

FDA Re­port­ed Use of Pa­tient Ex­pe­ri­ence Da­ta in 2018 Drug Ap­provals


RAPS: First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Secretary of health and human services Alex Azar speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House (Photo: AFP)

Trump’s HHS claims ab­solute au­thor­i­ty over the FDA, clear­ing path to a vac­cine EUA

The top career staff at the FDA has vowed not to let politics overrule science when looking at vaccine data this fall. But Alex Azar, who happens to be their boss’s boss, apparently won’t even give them a chance to stand in the way.

In a new memorandum issued Tuesday last week, the HHS chief stripped the FDA and other health agencies under his purview of their rule making ability, asserting all such power “is reserved to the Secretary.” Sheila Kaplan of the New York Times first obtained and reported the details of the September 15 bulletin.

Frank Zhang (AP Images)

Rocked by cus­toms in­ves­ti­ga­tion, Leg­end's CFO takes over as CEO Frank Zhang placed un­der house ar­rest

When Frank Zhang stepped down from GenScript — the contract research group he’s run for 18 years — to take up the CEO post at its CAR-T focused spinout Legend Biotech, he assured analysts that he was in for the long haul.

Just 49 days later, though, he’s been forced to hand back the title.

In a dramatic turn of events, Legend disclosed that Zhang is under house arrest in China as part of a customs investigation involving GenScript. While he remains the chairman, CFO Ying Huang has been tapped to double as interim CEO.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Two wild weeks for Grail end in $8B Il­lu­mi­na buy­out

Grail’s whirlwind two weeks have ended in the wealthy arms of its former founder and benefactors.

Illumina has shelled out $8 billion to reacquire the closely-watched liquid biopsy startup they spun out just 5 years ago and sold off much of its shares just 3 years ago. The deal comes nearly two weeks after the well-heeled startup filed for a potentially massive IPO — one that was disrupted just a week later when Bloomberg reported that Illumina was in talks to buy their former spinout for up to $8 billion.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Israel Lowy (Regeneron)

#ES­MO20: 'As good as any PD-1 out there': Re­gen­eron flash­es PD-(L)1 lung can­cer da­ta to ri­val Mer­ck

Regeneron entered the PD-(L)1 game late, so they devised a two-pronged strategy to catch up with Big Pharma rivals: They would push it into cancers where PD-1s had yet been tested, and they would prove that it’s as powerful in the big indications as any other on the market.

They cleared a hurdle on the first goal Friday, showing a 31% response in patients with the rare skin cancer basal cell carcinoma. And with the data they’re rolling out Monday, Regeneron cancer chief Israel Lowy is ready to declare success on the second.

Roche vaults to the front of the NL­RP3 clin­i­cal race, pay­ing $448M up­front to bag In­fla­zome

Roche is going all in on NLRP3.

The pharma giant is putting down $448 million (€380 million) upfront to snatch Novartis-backed Inflazome, which makes it a clinical player in the space overnight.

Dublin and Cambridge, UK-based Inflazome is the second NLRP3-focused biotech Roche has acquired in less than two years, and although no numbers were disclosed in the Jecure buyout, this is almost certainly a much larger deal.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As­traZeneca pub­lish­es Covid-19 vac­cine PhI­II pro­to­cols in lock­step with Mod­er­na and Pfiz­er. How are they dif­fer­ent?

Following in the steps of Moderna and Pfizer, the other two American drugmakers currently in Phase III trials for their Covid-19 vaccines, AstraZeneca posted its own study protocols over the weekend. The move is the latest in a series of rare peeks behind the curtain, as such blueprints are typically shared once such trials are completed.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the Coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial. As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials. AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company said in a statement.

#ES­MO20: As­traZeneca aims to spur PRO­found shift in prostate can­cer treat­ment with Lyn­parza OS da­ta

AstraZeneca has unveiled the final, mature overall survival data that cemented Lynparza’s first approval in prostate cancer approval — touting its lead against rivals with the only PARP inhibitor to have demonstrated such benefit.

But getting the Merck-partnered drug to the right patients remains a challenge, something the companies are hoping to change with the new data cut.

The OS numbers on the subgroup with BRCA1/2 or ATM-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer are similar to the first look on offer when the FDA expanded the label in May: Lynparza reduced the risk of death by 31% versus Xtandi and Zytiga. Patients on Lynparza lived a median of 19.1 months, compared to 14.7 months for the anti-androgen therapies (p = 0.0175).

Eli Lilly CSO Dan Skovronsky (file photo)

UP­DAT­ED: #ES­MO20: Eli Lil­ly shows off the da­ta for its Verzenio suc­cess. Was it worth $18 bil­lion?

The press release alone, devoid of any number except for the size of the trial, added nearly $20 billion to Eli Lilly’s market cap back in June. Now investors and oncologists will get to see if the data live up to the hype.

On Sunday at ESMO, Eli Lilly announced the full results for its Phase III MonarchE trial of Verzenio, showing that across over 5,000 women who had had HR+, HER2- breast cancer, the drug reduced the odds of recurrence by 25%. That meant 7.8% of the patients on the drug arm saw their cancers return within 2 years, compared with 11.3% on the placebo arm.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sebastian Nijman (file photo)

Roche looks to ge­net­ic mod­i­fiers for new drug tar­gets, team­ing up with Dutch biotech in $375M deal

Roche is gambling on a new way of discovering drug targets and, ultimately, promising to infuse more than $375 million into a small biotech if all goes well.

A spinout of the Netherlands Cancer Institute and Oxford University, Scenic Biotech set out to pioneer a field that’s gaining some traction among top VCs in the US: to harness the natural protecting powers of genetic modifiers — specific genes that suppress a disease phenotype.