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.

Cell and Gene Con­tract Man­u­fac­tur­ers Must Em­brace Dig­i­ti­za­tion

The Cell and Gene Industry is growing at a staggering 30% CAGR and is estimated to reach $14B by 20251. A number of cell, gene and stem cell therapy sponsors currently have novel drug substances and products and many rely on Contract Development Manufacturing Organizations (CDMO) to produce them with adherence to stringent regulatory cGMP conditions. Cell and gene manufacturing for both autologous (one to one) and allogenic (one to many) treatments face difficult issues such as: a complex supply chain, variability on patient and cellular level, cell expansion count and a tight scheduling of lot disposition process. This complexity affects quality, compliance and accountability in the entire vein-to-vein process for critically ill patients.

Phase III read­outs spell dis­as­ter for Genen­tech’s lead IBD drug

Roche had big plans for etrolizumab. Eyeing a hyper-competitive IBD and Crohn’s market where they have not historically been a player, the company rolled out 8 different Phase III trials, testing the antibody for two different uses across a range of different patient groups.

On Monday, Roche released results for 4 of those studies, and they mark a decided setback for both the Swiss pharma and their biotech sub Genentech, potentially spelling an end to a drug they put over half-a-decade and millions of dollars behind.

Warren Huff, Reata CEO

Rea­ta sug­gests Friedre­ich's atax­ia pro­gram could be de­layed, send­ing stock plung­ing

Reata Pharmaceuticals $RETA made waves last October when its drug omaveloxolone produced positive trial results in treating a rare neurological disorder, but the candidate’s path forward became much murkier Monday.

In a report of quarterly earnings, the biotech divulged that the FDA is considering delaying omaveloxolone’s NDA pending completion of a second trial. That could push back approval by at least a year given that the target population, individuals with Friedreich’s ataxia, is limited and progression of the hard-to-treat illness is notoriously slow. The Covid-19 pandemic would also hinder Reata’s ability to complete an additional trial.

DFC CEO Adam Boehler and Kodak CEO Jim Continenza (Kodak)

Covid-19 roundup: Cure­Vac beefs up its uni­corn IPO dreams as bil­lion­aire own­er takes this Covid-19 mR­NA play­er on a forced march to Nas­daq; Ko­dak's $765M deal is put on hold

When CureVac initially jotted down $100 million for its IPO raise a couple of weeks ago, it seemed small. The German mRNA player, after all, had jumped into a Covid-19 race that swelled the sails of Moderna and BioNTech by tens of billions. And after raising $640 million in a slate of deals, $100 million in a hot market like this seemed like a pittance in the bigger scheme of things.

Today, we got a look at a figure that probably comes closer to the game-changing number the top execs probably have in mind. Selling 15.3 million shares at the high end of their $14 to $16 range would net a $243 million bounty. Majority owner Dietmar Hopp is putting in another €100 million, bringing the total to around $350 million. And what are the chances they want to do even better than that?

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Eric Shaff (Seres)

UP­DAT­ED: Af­ter a 4-year so­journ, strug­gling mi­cro­bio­me pi­o­neer Seres claims a break­out PhI­II come­back. And shares re­spond in fren­zied spike

Almost exactly 4 years ago, Seres Therapeutics $MCRB experienced one of those soul-crunching failures that can raise big questions about a biotech’s future. Out front in their pursuit of a gut punch to C. difficile infection (CDI), the Phase II test was a flat failure, and investors wiped out a billion dollars of equity value that never returned in the years that followed.

Seres, though, pressed ahead, changing out CEOs a year ago — bidding Merck vet Roger Pomerantz farewell from the C suite — and pushing through a Phase III, hoping that amping up the dosage would make the key difference. And this morning, they unveiled a claim that they had aced the Phase III and positioned themselves for a run at a landmark FDA OK.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Michel Vounatsos, Biogen CEO (via YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Bio­gen scores a pri­or­i­ty re­view for its Alzheimer's drug ad­u­canum­ab, mov­ing one gi­ant leap for­ward in its con­tro­ver­sial quest

Biogen scored a big win at the FDA today as regulators accepted their application for the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab and gave it a priority review.

The PDUFA date is March 7, 2021.

Significantly, Biogen says it did not use its priority review voucher to win special treatment at the FDA. The agency handed that out gratis.

That’s the ideal scenario Biogen was looking for as disappointed analysts wondered aloud about the delayed application earlier in the year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vi­da Ven­tures co-leads Dyne's $115M megaround for next-gen oli­go ther­a­pies aimed square­ly at mus­cles

Dyne Therapeutics started out last April with a modest $50 million to mine targeted muscle disease therapies from its in-house conjugate technology. The biotech has now convinced more investors that it’s got gems on its hands, closing $115 million in fresh financing to push its next-gen oligonucleotide drugs into the clinic.

Vida Ventures and Surveyor Capital led the round, joined by a group of other new backers including Wellington Management Company, Logos Capital and Franklin Templeton.

Eli Lil­ly teams with Pieris on HER2+ tu­mors; Op­di­vo + Yer­voy best chemo in mesothe­lioma

Despite the FDA putting a partial clinical hold on its lead program only a few weeks ago, Boston-based Pieris Pharmaceuticals is plowing forward with a new collaboration.

Pieris will work with Eli Lilly to further advance studies on PRS-343, a 4-1BB/HER2 bispecific for HER2-positive tumors, in combination with the latter’s ramucirumab and paclitaxel for the second-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive gastric cancer in a single-arm, Phase II study.

In­novent and Eli Lil­ly chal­lenge Mer­ck­'s mega-block­buster Keytru­da in non-small cell lung can­cer field

China-based Innovent Biologics and its multinational ally Eli Lilly shared Phase III evidence that their PD-1 inhibitor combo can delay the progression of nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

But the drugmakers will face stiff competition in China from Merck’s Keytruda, the ruling PD-1 which is already approved to treat both squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC and boasts positive overall survival rates.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 86,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.