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.

Scoop: Boehringer qui­et­ly shut­ters a PhII for one of its top drugs — now un­der re­view

Boehringer Ingelheim has quietly shut down a small Phase II study for one of its lead drugs.

The private pharma player confirmed to Endpoints News that it had shuttered a study testing spesolimab as a therapy for Crohn’s patients suffering from bowel obstructions.

A spokesperson for the company tells Endpoints:

Taking into consideration the current therapeutic landscape and ongoing clinical development programs, Boehringer Ingelheim decided to discontinue our program in Crohn’s disease. It is important to note that this decision is not based on any safety findings in the clinical trials.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Vas Narasimhan (Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

No­var­tis de­tails plans to axe 8,000 staffers as Narasimhan be­gins sec­ond phase of a glob­al re­org

We now know the number of jobs coming under the axe at Novartis, and it isn’t small.

The pharma giant is confirming a report from Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger that it is chopping 8,000 jobs out of its 108,000 global staffers. A large segment will hit right at company headquarters in Basel, as CEO Vas Narasimhan axes some 1,400 of a little more than 11,000  jobs in Switzerland.

The first phase of the work is almost done, the company says in a statement to Endpoints News. Now it’s on to phase two. In the statement, Novartis says:

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 144,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lina Gugucheva, NewAmsterdam Pharma CBO

Phar­ma group bets up to $1B-plus on the PhI­II res­ur­rec­tion of a once dead-and-buried LDL drug

Close to 5 years after then-Amgen R&D chief Sean Harper tamped the last spade of dirt on the last broadly focused CETP cholesterol drug — burying their $300 million upfront and the few remaining hopes for the class with it — the therapy has been fully resurrected. And today, the NewAmsterdam Pharma crew that did the Lazarus treatment on obicetrapib is taking another big step on the comeback trail with a €1 billion-plus regional licensing deal, complete with close to $150 million in upfront cash.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 144,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

How pre­pared is bio­phar­ma for the cy­ber dooms­day?

One of the largest cyberattacks in history happened on a Friday, Eric Perakslis distinctly remembers.

Perakslis, who was head of Takeda’s R&D Data Sciences Institute and visiting faculty at Harvard Medical School at the time, had spent that morning completing a review on cybersecurity for the British Medical Journal. Moments after he turned it in, he heard back from the editor: “Have you heard what’s going on right now?”

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Aurobindo Pharma co-founders P. V. Ram Prasad Reddy (L) and K. Nityananda Reddy

Au­robindo Phar­ma re­ceives warn­ing let­ter from In­di­a's SEC fol­low­ing more FDA ques­tion marks

Indian-based generics manufacturer Aurobindo Pharma has been in the crosshairs of the FDA for several years now, but the company is also attracting attention from regulators within the subcontinent.

According to the Indian business news site Business Standard, a warning letter was sent to the company from the Securities Exchange Board of India, or SEBI.

The letter is related to disclosures made by the company on an ongoing FDA audit of the company’s Unit-1 API facility in Hyderabad, India as well as observations made by the US regulator between 2019 and 2022.

Ankit Mahadevia, Spero CEO

Spero’s UTI can­di­date gets the CRL ham­mer as the com­pa­ny falls in­to pen­ny stock sta­tus

Spero Therapeutics has been struggling in the past few years, dealing with FDA holds and staff reductions amidst a rough biotech market, and the latest news from the Massachusetts-based company confirms what it anticipated in May: a CRL.

The company was slapped with the no-go for its NDA, the biotech disclosed Monday. The company was seeking approval for tebipenem HBr oral tablets, intended for the treatment of adult patients with complicated urinary tract infection, or cUTI, including pyelonephritis. The FDA had set a PDUFA date of June 27.

(AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe)

Some phar­ma com­pa­nies promise to cov­er abor­tion-re­lat­ed trav­el costs — while oth­ers won't go that far yet

As the US Department of Health and Human Services promises to support the millions of women who would now need to cross state lines to receive a legal abortion, a handful of pharma companies have said they will pick up employees’ travel expenses.

GSK, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, BeiGene, Alnylam and Gilead have all committed to covering abortion-related travel expenses just four days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and revoked women’s constitutional right to an abortion.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 144,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Herriot Tabuteau, Axsome CEO (Owen Hoffmann/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)

Ax­some's long de­layed de­pres­sion drug is back up for la­bel dis­cus­sions at the FDA, trig­ger­ing a big spike in the share price

Axsome’s on-and-off quest to obtain an FDA approval for their depression drug AXS-05 is back on again.

After the markets closed on Monday, the biotech issued a short, simple alert in an SEC filing saying the team had “received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) proposed labeling for the Company’s AXS-05 product candidate with respect to its New Drug Application (the “NDA”) for AXS-05 for the treatment of major depressive disorder. The Company is reviewing the proposed labeling and will reply to the FDA to secure final labeling agreement.”

New Charles River Laboratories High Quality (HQ) Plasmid DNA Centre of Excellence at Bruntwood SciTech’s Alderley Park in Cheshire, United Kingdom. (Charles River)

Charles Riv­er Lab­o­ra­to­ries to start cell and gene ther­a­py man­u­fac­tur­ing at UK site in Sep­tem­ber

While Massachusetts-based Charles River Laboratories has been on an acquisition spree, they are not against planting their flag. The latest move by the company sees them crossing the pond to establish a manufacturing site in the UK.

The company on Tuesday opened its cell and gene therapy manufacturing center at Bruntwood SciTech’s Alderley Park in Cheshire, United Kingdom. The expansion follows Charles River’s acquisition of Cognate BioServices and Cobra Biologics in 2021 for $875 million. Cognate is a plasmid DNA, viral vector and cell therapy CDMO.