Peter Marks, CBER (MDA USA via Twitter)

Pe­ter Marks on Covid-19 vac­cine ef­fi­ca­cy, EUAs and chal­lenge tri­als

A week af­ter the FDA is­sued guid­ance on vac­cines to pre­vent Covid-19, Pe­ter Marks, di­rec­tor of the Cen­ter for Bi­o­log­ics Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search, shed light on the rea­son­ing be­hind the agency’s 50% ef­fi­ca­cy thresh­old and where the agency stands on chal­lenge tri­als and emer­gency use au­tho­riza­tions.

Ef­fi­ca­cy and ap­proval

In its guid­ance, FDA said it ex­pect­ed spon­sors to demon­strate a vac­cine is at least 50% ef­fec­tive in a place­bo-con­trolled tri­al, with an ad­just­ed low­er bound of >30%.

Dur­ing a tele­con­fer­ence with the Al­liance for a Stronger FDA on Wednes­day, Marks ex­plained that the 50% fig­ure is based on what the agency could tol­er­ate for ef­fi­ca­cy. “Can we show you some cal­cu­la­tion of how we got there? No,” he said, not­ing that the agency does not typ­i­cal­ly set spe­cif­ic ef­fi­ca­cy tar­gets in its vac­cine guid­ance.

“If you go much low­er than 50% then the low­er bounds of things start to get to a place where vac­cines may have very lit­tle ef­fi­ca­cy,” Marks added. “On the oth­er hand, if we held that num­ber at 70% to 80% … we may not have a vac­cine un­til there’s herd im­mu­ni­ty that’s oc­curred nat­u­ral­ly.”

How­ev­er, Marks said that erad­i­cat­ing the virus will like­ly re­quire a more ef­fec­tive vac­cine. “We’re go­ing to need a vac­cine that’s prob­a­bly in the or­der of 70% ef­fec­tive and 70%, at least, of the pop­u­la­tion is go­ing to need to take it,” he said.

Based on those pa­ra­me­ters, Marks said that piv­otal tri­als for Covid-19 vac­cines will need to be large. “Large means tens of thou­sands of peo­ple, prob­a­bly … some­where be­tween ten to fif­teen thou­sand in­di­vid­u­als in each arm of a ran­dom­ized tri­al to get to the kind of pow­er that you need here.”

Marks could not com­ment on how quick­ly vac­cine could be avail­able but said, “We’re not go­ing to have one in ear­ly fall, it’s go­ing to take months.”

As stat­ed in the agency’s guid­ance, Marks stressed that ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval is not ap­pro­pri­ate un­til there are com­pelling sur­ro­gate end­points.

“Giv­en the cur­rent lack of da­ta that we have in­form­ing im­mune cor­re­lates of pro­tec­tion, we’re telling peo­ple that the clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment pro­gram should pur­sue tra­di­tion­al ap­proval, based on di­rect ev­i­dence of vac­cine ef­fi­ca­cy,” Marks said. “Af­ter a few vac­cines come through the pipeline, we may un­der­stand what a good im­mune cor­re­late of pro­tec­tion is, but we don’t yet know that an­ti­bod­ies are the be-all-end-all of pro­tect­ing against COVID-19.”

Marks al­so ex­pand­ed on whether the agency would con­sid­er is­su­ing an emer­gency use au­tho­riza­tion for a Covid-19 vac­cine.

“We re­al­ly be­lieve that the most like­ly sit­u­a­tion in which an emer­gency use au­tho­riza­tion would be is­sued would be af­ter some in­ter­im analy­sis that shows vac­cine ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty, be­fore a for­mal sub­mis­sion is made to the FDA of a li­cen­sure ap­pli­ca­tion and FDA has had a chance to do its nor­mal re­view,” he said.

Chal­lenge tri­als

One of the more eye­brow-rais­ing as­pects of FDA’s guid­ance was a sec­tion dis­cussing the po­ten­tial for chal­lenge tri­als, or con­trol hu­man in­fec­tion mod­els, where­in vol­un­teers are in­ten­tion­al­ly ex­posed to a pathogen. In its guid­ance, FDA sug­gests that such tri­als could be en­ter­tained, “If it is no longer pos­si­ble to demon­strate vac­cine ef­fec­tive­ness by way of con­duct­ing clin­i­cal dis­ease end­point ef­fi­ca­cy stud­ies.”

“Why can’t we do that for COVID-19?” Marks asked. “Well, there are prob­a­bly a cou­ple rea­sons. One of which is that you don’t have some­thing that cures COVID-19 100% of the time or near 100% of the time.” Marks said there are oth­er is­sues that would need to be worked out be­fore such tri­als would be fea­si­ble, in­clud­ing im­prov­ing our un­der­stand­ing of the dis­ease and de­ter­min­ing which strain of the virus to use.

“This could be a way to­wards re­al­ly fa­cil­i­tat­ing get­ting an an­swer, if we had a res­cue treat­ment and if we knew more about the re­la­tion­ship be­tween car­riage and in­fec­tion, but right now it gives peo­ple some eth­i­cal heart­burn and sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly it’s com­pli­cat­ed,” Marks said.

That said, Marks said FDA would con­sid­er pro­pos­als for chal­lenge tri­als based on what was in the pro­to­col and the cir­cum­stances at the time. “It’s not a ‘no’, it’s a ‘we’ll see,’” he said.

Marks added that it might be more fea­si­ble to con­duct chal­lenge tri­als when there are more ef­fec­tive ther­a­peu­tics avail­able to treat the dis­ease. “If we have mon­o­clon­al an­ti­bod­ies that are re­al­ly good at shut­ting down the dis­ease, that could be a game chang­er.”

Safe­ty and qual­i­ty

Marks said that one of the things that “scares me more than any­thing else is that a third or half of Amer­i­cans are hes­i­tant about tak­ing a vac­cine [for COVID-19].” Marks stressed that part of FDA’s job is to as­sure that an even­tu­al vac­cine is safe and high qual­i­ty.

“For any of these vac­cines tar­get­ing SARS-CoV-2, im­por­tant things for us from the stand­point of our guid­ance… will be things like con­sis­ten­cy of man­u­fac­tur­ing, and the need for man­u­fac­tur­ing process­es and con­trols that have ap­pro­pri­ate steps in them, the need to have fa­cil­i­ties in­spect­ed to pro­duce vac­cines un­der good man­u­fac­tur­ing prac­tices, that’s im­por­tant be­cause we re­al­ly do need to make sure that these are go­ing to be high qual­i­ty prod­ucts that when we say they’re safe, they re­al­ly are,” Marks said.

For a look at all End­points News coro­n­avirus sto­ries, check out our spe­cial news chan­nel.


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.

Health­care Dis­par­i­ties and Sick­le Cell Dis­ease

In the complicated U.S. healthcare system, navigating a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease can be remarkably challenging for patients and caregivers. When that illness is classified as a rare disease, those challenges can become even more acute. And when that rare disease occurs in a population that experiences health disparities, such as people with sickle cell disease (SCD) who are primarily Black and Latino, challenges can become almost insurmountable.

David Meek, new Mirati CEO (Marlene Awaad/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Fresh off Fer­Gene's melt­down, David Meek takes over at Mi­rati with lead KRAS drug rac­ing to an ap­proval

In the insular world of biotech, a spectacular failure can sometimes stay on any executive’s record for a long time. But for David Meek, the man at the helm of FerGene’s recent implosion, two questionable exits made way for what could be an excellent rebound.

Meek, most recently FerGene’s CEO and a past head at Ipsen, has become CEO at Mirati Therapeutics, taking the reins from founding CEO Charles Baum, who will step over into the role of president and head of R&D, according to a release.

So what hap­pened with No­var­tis' gene ther­a­py group? Here's your an­swer

Over the last couple of days it’s become clear that the gene therapy division at Novartis has quietly undergone a major reorganization. We learned on Monday that Dave Lennon, who had pursued a high-profile role as president of the unit with 1500 people, had left the pharma giant to take over as CEO of a startup.

Like a lot of the majors, Novartis is an open highway for head hunters, or anyone looking to staff a startup. So that was news but not completely unexpected.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Who are the women su­per­charg­ing bio­phar­ma R&D? Nom­i­nate them for this year's spe­cial re­port

The biotech industry has faced repeated calls to diversify its workforce — and in the last year, those calls got a lot louder. Though women account for just under half of all biotech employees around the world, they occupy very few places in C-suites, and even fewer make it to the helm.

Some companies are listening, according to a recent BIO survey which showed that this year’s companies were 2.5 times more likely to have a diversity and inclusion program compared to last year’s sample. But we still have a long way to go. Women represent just 31% of biotech executives, BIO reported. And those numbers are even more stark for women of color.

Jacob Van Naarden (Eli Lilly)

Ex­clu­sives: Eli Lil­ly out to crash the megablock­buster PD-(L)1 par­ty with 'dis­rup­tive' pric­ing; re­veals can­cer biotech buy­out

It’s taken 7 years, but Eli Lilly is promising to finally start hammering the small and affluent PD-(L)1 club with a “disruptive” pricing strategy for their checkpoint therapy allied with China’s Innovent.

Lilly in-licensed global rights to sintilimab a year ago, building on the China alliance they have with Innovent. That cost the pharma giant $200 million in cash upfront, which they plan to capitalize on now with a long-awaited plan to bust up the high-price market in lung cancer and other cancers that have created a market worth tens of billions of dollars.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

When ef­fi­ca­cy is bor­der­line: FDA needs to get more con­sis­tent on close-call drug ap­provals, agency-fund­ed re­search finds

In the exceedingly rare instances in which clinical efficacy is the only barrier to a new drug’s approval, new FDA-funded research from FDA and Stanford found that the agency does not have a consistent standard for defining “substantial evidence” when flexible criteria are used for an approval.

The research comes as the FDA is at a crossroads with its expedited-review pathways. The accelerated approval pathway is under fire as the agency recently signed off on a controversial new Alzheimer’s drug, with little precedent to explain its decision. Meanwhile, top officials like Rick Pazdur have called for a major push to simplify and clarify all of the various expedited pathways, which have grown to be must-haves for sponsors of nearly every newly approved drug.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 117,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA hands ac­cel­er­at­ed nod to Seagen, Gen­mab's so­lo ADC in cer­vi­cal can­cer, but com­bo stud­ies look even more promis­ing

Biopharma’s resident antibody-drug conjugate expert Seagen has scored a clutch of oncology approvals in recent years, finding gold in what are known as “third-gen” ADCs. Now, another of their partnered conjugates is ready for prime time.

The FDA on Monday handed an accelerated approval to Seagen and Genmab’s Tivdak (tisotumab vedotin-tftv, or “TV”) in second-line patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who previously progressed after chemotherapy rather than PD-(L)1 systemic therapy, the companies said in a release.

President Biden and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla (Patrick Semansky/AP Images)

Chaot­ic ad­comm sees Pfiz­er/BioN­Tech boost­ers re­ject­ed for gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion, but rec­om­mend­ed for old­er and high-risk pop­u­la­tions

With just days before President Joe Biden’s Covid-19 booster rollout is set to go into effect, an FDA advisory committee appeared on the verge of not recommending boosters for anyone in the US before a last-minute change of wording laid the groundwork for older adults to have access to a third dose.

The FDA’s adcomm on Vaccines and Related Biological Products (VRBPAC) roundly rejected Pfizer/BioNTech booster shots for all individuals older than 16 by a 16-2 vote Friday afternoon. Soon after, however, the agency posed committee members a new question limiting booster use to the 65-and-older population and individuals at high risk of disease due to occupational exposure or comorbidities.

The biggest ques­tions fac­ing gene ther­a­py, the XLMTM com­mu­ni­ty, and Astel­las af­ter fourth pa­tient death

After three patients died last year in an Astellas gene therapy trial, the company halted the study and began figuring out how to safely get the program back on track. They would, executives eventually explained, cut the dose by more than half and institute a battery of other measures to try to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Then tragically, Astellas announced this week that the first patient to receive the new regimen had died, just weeks after administration.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.