Pfiz­er vs J&J: Re­searchers are duk­ing it out for the cham­pi­onship ti­tle in non­metasta­t­ic prostate can­cer

Pfiz­er $PFE and J&J $JNJ have come down to the wire with piv­otal da­ta on non­metasta­t­ic prostate can­cer. And there are bil­lions of dol­lars in rev­enue on the line here.

Both com­pa­nies post­ed their ab­stracts be­ing re­viewed at AS­CO’s Gen­i­touri­nary Can­cers Sym­po­sium Mon­day evening. And while sci­en­tists frown on com­par­ing da­ta from two dif­fer­ent stud­ies, you can bet that an­a­lysts will be lin­ing up the re­sults side-by-side to see who will come out ahead.

Mace Rothen­berg, Pfiz­er

On the one hand you have Pfiz­er, which post­ed an im­pres­sive 21.9-month im­prove­ment  in metas­ta­sis-free sur­vival for prostate can­cer — 36.6 months vs 14.7 months [P < .0001] — for Xtan­di as well as time to first use of new an­ti­neo­plas­tic ther­a­py (39.6 mo vs 17.7 mo [P < .0001]) and time to PSA pro­gres­sion (37.2 mo vs 3.9 mo).

On the oth­er is J&J, which is fight­ing hard to re­tain patent pro­tec­tion on Zyti­ga, which along with Xtan­di has changed the stan­dard of care in prostate can­cer. Study­ing a next-gen drug dubbed apa­lu­tamide, their piv­otal tri­al hit a me­di­an MFS rate of 40.5 months vs 16.2 months in the place­bo group. “Sec­ondary end­points (TTM, PFS, and Sym­Prog) were all sig­nif­i­cant­ly im­proved.”

That’s a 24.3-month im­prove­ment in MFS, which was 2.4 months bet­ter than its ri­val ther­a­py at Pfiz­er.

But is that big enough to make a siz­able dif­fer­ence?

You can ex­pect to see a lot of com­men­tary on this top­ic in the com­ing days, es­pe­cial­ly with J&J’s Zyti­ga fran­chise hang­ing in the bal­ance in a fed­er­al cour­t­house. But don’t ex­pect Pfiz­er to back away be­cause the ex­per­i­men­tal con­tender got the edge on MFS.

“When we saw this (da­ta)” on Xtan­di, says Mace Rothen­berg, the chief de­vel­op­ment of­fi­cer for Pfiz­er’s on­col­o­gy group, “we were sur­prised and ex­tra­or­di­nar­i­ly pleased. This is not a re­sult in the gray area.”

“Out of my 30 years ex­pe­ri­ence,” adds Rothen­berg, “the haz­ard ra­tio for the pri­ma­ry and sec­ondary end­points are the best I’ve ever had a hand in.”

In­ves­ti­ga­tors have been par­tic­u­lar­ly in­ter­est­ed in pa­tients with rapid­ly ris­ing PSA scores, a high-risk group that may be par­tic­u­lar­ly in need of a ther­a­py like this. There’s al­so been more re­search on the link be­tween metas­ta­sis-free sur­vival and over­all sur­vival, which they’ve been pay­ing rapt at­ten­tion to. And with a trend to­ward a sur­vival ben­e­fit in the study at this stage, Rothen­berg thinks that the OS re­sults will line up nice­ly when the da­ta ma­ture.

Mark Wild­gust, J&J

Of course, J&J thinks ex­act­ly the same thing about apa­lu­tamide.

“The re­sults are in­cred­i­bly com­pelling,” says Mark Wild­gust, vice pres­i­dent of med­ical af­fairs for J&J, who worked on this study with his on­col­o­gy team and gave me a pre­view of the da­ta. Not on­ly is the im­prove­ment in MFS dra­mat­i­cal­ly clear, it’s al­so im­por­tant­ly that pa­tients’ qual­i­ty of life scores demon­strat­ed that the im­prove­ment didn’t come with a sig­nif­i­cant cost of ad­verse events.

Wild­gust al­so cau­tions that J&J will be able to re­veal more about the sec­ondary end­points in their study lat­er this week, which he be­lieves will add to the prod­uct pro­file that they’re build­ing.

J&J shouldn’t have long to wait be­fore the FDA sig­nals whether it is buy­ing in­to the next-gen prostate can­cer ther­a­py, with a PDU­FA date set for April, just two months away.

Eval­u­ate Phar­ma has pegged 2022 sales at $1.6 bil­lion for apa­lu­tamide, flag­ging some of the zeal that an­a­lysts have for this drug.

The phar­ma gi­ant land­ed this drug in their $1 bil­lion ac­qui­si­tion of Aragon close to 5 years ago. And top ex­ecs have backed it up, high­light­ing block­buster ex­pec­ta­tions.

It’s a siz­able mar­ket. Rothen­berg says that there are 20,000 men di­ag­nosed with non-metasta­t­ic prostate can­cer each year in the US.

“We feel very con­fi­dent in the re­sults we’ve gen­er­at­ed and the ex­pe­ri­ence we’ve had,” adds Rothen­berg, who is al­so quick to cau­tion against di­rect com­par­isons like this. All of these stud­ies are like­ly to in­clude sub­tle nu­ances that could af­fect ag­gre­gate out­comes. At the same time, he’s ready to spell out why he thinks Xtan­di is the su­pe­ri­or drug.

Xtan­di “has been on the mar­ket 6 years, 185,000 men have re­ceived Xtan­di, which has es­tab­lished a very strong and large foun­da­tion of ev­i­dence” like­ly to make prac­ti­tion­ers feel com­fort­able about us­ing their drug in this cat­e­go­ry, he says.

It’s in the hands of reg­u­la­tors now, but giv­en the way the FDA has viewed piv­otal da­ta and likes to back new choic­es for prac­ti­tion­ers, both of these drugs look like strong con­tenders for an ap­proval lat­er in the year. And that would leave the two gi­ants con­tin­u­ing to duke it out for mar­ket share — to the ben­e­fit of all the pa­tients fight­ing prostate can­cer.

Ben Davies, an as­so­ciate pro­fes­sor of urol­o­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pitts­burgh, had this to say on Twit­ter:

Looks like min­i­mal dif­fer­ences. I’ll go with ap­proval for apa­lu­timide. Xtan­di will al­so get a new in­di­ca­tion. Ad­ver­tis­ing dol­lars will win the day? Or deals with PBMs (while they are still here).


Im­age: Shut­ter­stock

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yuval Cohen, Corbus CEO (Corbus via YouTube)

An­oth­er Cor­bus pro­gram hits the skids af­ter late-stage flop, plum­met­ing the small biotech's shares

Corbus Pharmaceuticals’ plans to position lenabasum as a pipeline-in-a-product aren’t going so well.

After shelving a program in scleroderma, the Norwood, MA-based biotech has revealed that its lead candidate failed both the primary and secondary endpoints in another Phase III trial.

Lenabasum failed to show a statistically significant difference in total improvement compared with placebo in treating dermatomyositis, a rare disease that causes muscle inflammation and skin rash, the company said Thursday. The news sent Corbus’ $CRBP stock spiraling around 30% early Thursday morning.

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.