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.

Un­lock­ing ESG strate­gies for growth with Gilead Sci­ences

RBC Capital Markets explores what is material in ESG for biopharma companies with the ESG leads at Gilead Sciences. Gilead has long focused on sustainability but recognized a more robust framework was needed. Based on a materiality assessment, Gilead’s ESG strategy today focuses first on drug access and pricing, while also addressing D&I and climate change. Find out why Gilead’s board is “acutely aware” of the contribution that ESG makes to firm’s overall success.

What con­tro­ver­sy? Eli Lil­ly plots Alzheimer's BLA fil­ing lat­er this year as FDA taps more an­ti-amy­loid drugs as break­throughs

The FDA is keeping the good news coming for Alzheimer’s drug developers. And Eli Lilly is taking them up on it.

Amid continued controversy around whether Biogen’s new flagship drug, Aduhelm, should have been approved at all — and swelling, heated debates surrounding its $56,000 price tag — the agency had no issue handing them and their Japanese partner Eisai a breakthrough therapy designation for a second anti-amyloid beta antibody, lecanemab, late Wednesday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 110,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hervé Hoppenot, Incyte CEO (Jeff Rumans)

ODAC echoes FDA con­cern over In­cyte PD-1, as Paz­dur sig­nals broad­er shift for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval

After the FDA lambasted their PD-1 ahead of an adcomm earlier this week, Incyte ran into new trouble Thursday as ODAC panelists voted against an accelerated OK by a wide margin.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee recommended with a 13-4 vote to defer a regulatory decision on Incyte’s retifanlimab until after more data can be collected from a placebo-controlled trial. The PD-1 therapy is due for a PDUFA date in late July after receiving priority review earlier this year.

New FDA doc­u­ments show in­ter­nal dis­sent on Aduhelm ap­proval

In a lengthy review document and a pair of memos from top officials, the FDA released on Tuesday night its most detailed argument yet for approving Biogen’s intensely controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab.

The documents amount to an agency attempt to quench the firestorm their decision kindled, as outside advisors members resigned and experts warned that an unproven drug now could stretch Medicare’s budget to a breaking point. Ultimately, the documents show how CDER director Patrizia Cavazzoni and Office of New Drugs director Peter Stein both concurred with FDA neuroscience head Billy Dunn on the accelerated approval while the staff at FDA’s Office of Biostatistics did not think an approval was warranted.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 110,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Richard Pazdur (vis AACR)

FDA en­cour­ages in­clud­ing in­cur­able can­cer pa­tients in tri­als, re­gard­less of pri­or ther­a­pies

The FDA on Thursday called to include those with incurable cancers (when there is no potential for cure or for prolonged/near normal survival) in appropriate clinical trials, regardless of whether they have received existing alternative treatments.

Historically, many cancer clinical trials have required that participating patients previously received multiple therapies, according to Richard Pazdur, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Karen Flynn, Catalent

Q&A: When the pan­dem­ic struck, Catal­en­t's CCO had just joined the team

Karen Flynn came aboard Catalent’s team just in time.

The company was going through a surge of changes, and she had been brought over from her role as CCO of West Pharmaceutical Services to serve in the same capacity for the New Jersey-based CDMO. Then a few months later, the pandemic was in full-force.

Since then, Catalent’s been in hyper-expansion mode. In early May, it acquired Promethera’s Hepatic Cell Therapy Support SA subsidiary and its 32,40-square-foot facility in Gosselies, Belgium. Prior to that, the company acquired Belgian CDMO Delphi Genetics, wrapped up the expansion of an already-existing site in Madison, WI and added an ultra-low temperature freezer partner in Sterling. As Emergent has botched millions of doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, the company has swooped in to move that production to its Maryland plant as well.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 110,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

On heels of Aduhelm ap­proval, Bris­tol My­ers jumps back in­to Alzheimer's race

Bristol Myers Squibb last put major resources behind an Alzheimer’s drug nearly a decade ago, when their own attempt at targeting amyloid flamed out in mid-stage studies. They invented another molecule, a Tau-targeted antibody, but jettisoned it to Biogen in 2017 as they dropped out of neuroscience altogether.

But on Thursday, the New York pharma announced they were getting back in the game. Bristol Myers exercised an $80 million option to bring a tau-targeted antibody from Prothena into a Phase I study. The opt-in, which Bristol Myers triggered ahead of analyst expectations, opens the door for another $1.7 billion in milestones down the road.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 110,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Elizabeth Warren (Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors call for hear­ing to ex­am­ine how Medicare will han­dle Bio­gen's new Alzheimer's drug

Two top Senate Finance committee senators on Thursday called for a hearing to examine the questions and challenges for Medicare arising from the FDA’s recent approval of Biogen’s Aduhelm, the controversial new drug approved to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

In a letter to Senate Finance chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) and ranking member Mike Crapo (R-ID), subcommittee chair Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) hinted at making policy changes to enable Medicare to more directly connect prescription drug pricing to clinical effectiveness. They raised questions about the “dramatic implications for our health care system” from the approval, which they said “stretch well beyond the scope of FDA’s jurisdiction.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 110,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

James Peyer, Cambrian

Can a cell ther­a­py treat mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy? A Ger­man bil­lion­aire's an­ti-ag­ing start­up is try­ing to find out

Gene therapy companies have faced huge hurdles trying to deliver healthy genes into muscular dystrophy patients’ muscle cells, so here’s an idea: Why don’t we just replace the muscle cells themselves?

Over the last two years, Vita Therapeutics has been exploring that possibility, building on early stem cell work from Johns Hopkins professor Peter Andersen. And on Tuesday they announced a $32 million Series A to begin to move their first therapy into the clinic, where they hope it will help rebuild muscle in patients with a type of dystrophy that afflicts the arms and legs.