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

Hal Barron, GSK

Break­ing the death spi­ral: Hal Bar­ron talks about trans­form­ing the mori­bund R&D cul­ture at GSK in a crit­i­cal year for the late-stage pipeline

Just ahead of GlaxoSmithKline’s Q2 update on Wednesday, science chief Hal Barron is making the rounds to talk up the pharma giant’s late-stage strategy as the top execs continue to woo back a deeply skeptical investor group while pushing through a whole new R&D culture.

And that’s not easy, Barron is quick to note. He told the Financial Times:

I think that culture, to some extent, is as hard, in fact even harder, than doing the science.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Some Big Phar­mas stepped up their game on da­ta trans­paren­cy — but which flunked the test?

The nonprofit Bioethics International has come out with their latest scorecard on data transparency among the big biopharmas in the industry — flagging a few standouts while spotlighting some laggards who are continuing to underperform.

Now in its third year, the nonprofit created a new set of standards with Yale School of Medicine and Stanford Law School to evaluate the track record on trial registration, results reporting, publication and data-sharing practice.

Busy Gilead crew throws strug­gling biotech a life­line, with some cash up­front and hun­dreds of mil­lions in biobucks for HIV deal

Durect $DRRX got a badly needed shot in the arm Monday morning as Gilead’s busy BD team lined up access to its extended-release platform tech for HIV and hepatitis B.

Gilead, a leader in the HIV sector, is paying a modest $25 million in cash for the right to jump on the platform at Durect, which has been using its technology to come up with an extended-release version of bupivacaine. The FDA rejected that in 2014, but Durect has been working on a comeback.

In­tec blitzed by PhI­II flop as lead pro­gram fails to beat Mer­ck­'s stan­dard com­bo for Parkin­son’s

Intec Pharma’s $NTEC lead drug slammed into a brick wall Monday morning. The small-cap Israeli biotech reported that its lead program — coming off a platform designed to produce a safer, more effective oral drug for Parkinson’s — failed the Phase III at the primary endpoint.

Researchers at Intec, which has already seen its share price collapse over the past few months, says that its Accordion Pill-Carbidopa/Levodopa failed to prove superior to Sinemet in reducing daily ‘off’ time. 

Cel­gene racks up third Ote­zla ap­proval, heat­ing up talks about who Bris­tol-My­ers will sell to

Whoever is taking Otezla off Bristol-Myers Squibb’s hands will have one more revenue stream to boast.

The drug — a rising star in Celgene’s pipeline that generated global sales of $1.6 billion last year — is now OK’d to treat oral ulcers associated with Behçet’s disease, a common symptom for a rare inflammatory disorder. This marks the third FDA approval for the PDE4 inhibitor since 2014, when it was greenlighted for plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Francesco De Rubertis

Medicxi is rolling out its biggest fund ever to back Eu­rope's top 'sci­en­tists with strange ideas'

Francesco De Rubertis built Medicxi to be the kind of biotech venture player he would have liked to have known back when he was a full time scientist.

“When I was a scientist 20 years ago I would have loved Medicxi,’ the co-founder tells me. It’s the kind of place run by and for investigators, what the Medicxi partner calls “scientists with strange ideas — a platform for the drug hunter and scientific entrepreneur. That’s what I wanted when I was a scientist.”

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter a decade, Vi­iV CSO John Pot­tage says it's time to step down — and he's hand­ing the job to long­time col­league Kim Smith

ViiV Healthcare has always been something unique in the global drug industry.

Owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer — with GSK in the lead as majority owner — it was created 10 years ago in a time of deep turmoil for the field as something independent of the pharma giants, but with access to lots of infrastructural support on demand. While R&D at the mother ship inside GSK was souring, a razor-focused ViiV provided a rare bright spot, challenging Gilead on a lucrative front in delivering new combinations that require fewer therapies with a more easily tolerated regimen.

They kept a massive number of people alive who would otherwise have been facing a death sentence. And they made money.

And throughout, John Pottage has been the chief scientific and chief medical officer.

Until now.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Vlad Coric (Biohaven)

In an­oth­er dis­ap­point­ment for in­vestors, FDA slaps down Bio­haven’s re­vised ver­sion of an old ALS drug

Biohaven is at risk of making a habit of disappointing its investors.

Late Friday the biotech $BHVN reported that the FDA had rejected its application for riluzole, an old drug that they had made over into a sublingual formulation that dissolves under the tongue. According to Biohaven, the FDA had a problem with the active ingredient used in a bioequivalence study back in 2017, which they got from the Canadian drugmaker Apotex.

Apotex, though, has been a disaster ground. The manufacturer voluntarily yanked the ANDAs on 31 drugs — in late 2017 — after the FDA came across serious manufacturing deficiencies at their plants in India. A few days ago, the FDA made it official.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chas­ing Roche's ag­ing block­buster fran­chise, Am­gen/Al­ler­gan roll out Avastin, Her­ceptin knock­offs at dis­count

Let the long battle for biosimilars in the cancer space begin.

Amgen has launched its Avastin and Herceptin copycats — licensed from the predecessors of Allergan — almost two years after the FDA had stamped its approval on Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb) and three months after the Kanjinti OK (trastuzumab-anns). While the biotech had been fielding biosimilars in Europe, this marks their first foray in the US — and the first oncology biosimilars in the country.