Phar­ma­co­ge­net­ics: FDA re­leas­es ta­ble of gene-drug in­ter­ac­tions

The FDA on Thurs­day pub­lished a ta­ble iden­ti­fy­ing more than 50 gene-drug in­ter­ac­tions that the agency says are sup­port­ed by sci­en­tif­ic ev­i­dence and an­nounced it is con­sid­er­ing new ap­proach­es to eval­u­at­ing phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic as­so­ci­a­tions.

“Con­sis­tent with our mis­sion to pro­tect and pro­mote pub­lic health, we be­lieve it is im­por­tant to take steps now to help en­sure that claims be­ing made for phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic tests of­fered to­day are ground­ed in sound sci­ence to avoid in­ap­pro­pri­ate man­age­ment of pa­tients’ med­ica­tions,” said Cen­ter for De­vices and Ra­di­o­log­i­cal Health Di­rec­tor Jeff Shuren and Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search Di­rec­tor Janet Wood­cock.


The re­lease of the ta­ble comes af­ter years of grap­pling over how the FDA should ap­proach phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic (PGx) test­ing and the broad­er field of lab­o­ra­to­ry de­vel­oped tests (LDTs). In 2018, the FDA is­sued a safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tion and state­ment ad­vis­ing that many ge­net­ic tests pur­port­ing to pre­dict a pa­tient’s re­sponse to med­ica­tions have not been re­viewed by the agency and may not be sup­port­ed by sci­en­tif­ic or clin­i­cal ev­i­dence.

At the same time, var­i­ous in­dus­try groups, in­clud­ing the Amer­i­can Clin­i­cal Lab­o­ra­to­ry As­so­ci­a­tion (ACLA) and the Coali­tion to Pre­serve Ac­cess to Phar­ma­coge­nomics In­for­ma­tion, have pushed back against the FDA’s ef­forts to crack down on phar­ma­co­ge­net­ics tests.

In a cit­i­zen pe­ti­tion filed last month on be­half of the Coali­tion to Pre­serve Ac­cess to Phar­ma­coge­nomics In­for­ma­tion, law firm Hy­man, Phelps & Mc­Na­ma­ra called on the FDA to re­vise its safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tion to state that test mak­ers “may com­mu­ni­cate in­for­ma­tion about gene-drug in­ter­ac­tions as part of ge­net­ic test re­ports to the ex­tent that such in­for­ma­tion is sup­port­ed by ad­e­quate ev­i­dence and is not con­traindi­cat­ed by in­for­ma­tion in drug la­bels.”

Phar­ma­co­ge­net­ics As­so­ci­a­tions Table

The FDA says the ta­ble is “in­tend­ed to pro­vide the agency’s view of the state of the cur­rent sci­ence in phar­ma­co­ge­net­ics” and in­cludes es­tab­lished gene-drug in­ter­ac­tions that ap­pear in la­bel­ing and some in­ter­ac­tions that, while not ap­pear­ing in la­bel­ing, are sup­port­ed by suf­fi­cient sci­en­tif­ic ev­i­dence.

The ta­ble al­so de­notes phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic as­so­ci­a­tions that may in­di­cate an im­pact on a drug’s safe­ty or a pa­tient’s re­sponse and gene-drug as­so­ci­a­tions for which an im­pact has not been es­tab­lished.

The FDA stress­es that the ta­ble is not com­plete and that it will con­tin­ue to re­view sci­en­tif­ic ev­i­dence, in­clud­ing guide­lines de­vel­oped by the Clin­i­cal Phar­ma­co­ge­net­ics Im­ple­men­ta­tion Con­sor­tium, to ex­pand the list. The agency has al­so opened a pub­lic dock­et to so­lic­it com­ments from stake­hold­ers on spe­cif­ic phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic as­so­ci­a­tions that should or should not be con­sid­ered for the ta­ble.

The ta­ble comes with a host of dis­claimers, in­clud­ing that, “Each pa­tient’s ge­net­ic make­up is on­ly one of many fac­tors that may im­pact drug con­cen­tra­tions and re­sponse,” and that the FDA does not nec­es­sar­i­ly en­dorse phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic tests for in­ter­ac­tions in­clud­ed on the list.

The FDA al­so says the ta­ble “is not in­tend­ed to af­fect cur­rent reg­u­la­to­ry re­quire­ments or poli­cies, in­clud­ing the FDA’s pol­i­cy re­gard­ing com­pan­ion di­ag­nos­tics. Nor is the ta­ble in­tend­ed to make an as­sess­ment on the safe and ef­fec­tive use of, or reg­u­la­to­ry re­quire­ments for, tests that de­tect vari­ants in the ref­er­enced genes, or to pro­vide com­pre­hen­sive in­for­ma­tion on the de­scribed gene-drug in­ter­ac­tions.”

De­spite those dis­claimers, the list could of­fer in­sight to phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic test mak­ers on what the agency con­sid­ers suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence to sup­port spe­cif­ic phar­ma­co­ge­net­ic as­so­ci­a­tions.

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.

A new chap­ter in the de­cen­tral­ized clin­i­cal tri­al ap­proach

Despite the promised decentralized trial revolution, we haven’t yet moved the needle in a significant way, although we are seeing far bolder commitments to this as we continue to experience the pandemic restrictions for some time to come. The vision of grandeur is one thing, but operationalizing and execution are another and recognising that change, particularly mid-flight on studies, is worthy of thorough evaluation and consideration in order to achieve success. Here we will discuss one of the critical building blocks of a Decentralized and Remote Trial strategy: TeleConsent; more than paper under glass, it is a paradigm change and key digital enabler.

Su­per-se­cre­tive an­ti-ag­ing biotech Cal­i­co tees up the first vis­i­ble clin­i­cal tri­al of an ex­per­i­men­tal drug. And it’s for can­cer?

Over the past 7 years, Calico has been so much more than your average, run-of-the-mill secretive biotech players. It’s a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, to repurpose an old Winston Churchill line dating from the time he confronted the Iron Curtain surrounding Stalin’s thoughts.

Launched by industry legend Art Levinson of Genentech fame, with the infinitely deep pockets of Google for support, one of the few big headlines the anti-aging biotech has sparked focused on a major alliance with AbbVie — a giant outfit that conversely likes to show off its drug prospects whenever it can. Together, they’ve been focused on diseases that limit life span — quite an arc of ailments.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

RBC's Bri­an Abra­hams holds a mock ad­comm on Bio­gen's iffy ad­u­canum­ab da­ta — and most of these ex­perts don't see a path to an ap­proval

As catalysts go, few loom larger than the aducanumab adcomm slated for Nov. 6.

With its big franchise under assault, Biogen is betting the ranch that its mixed late-stage Alzheimer’s data can squeak past the experts and regulators and get onto the market. And the topic — after a decade of Alzheimer’s R&D disasters in what still represents the El Dorado of drug markets — remains in the center ring of discussions around late-stage pipeline prospects.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Derek Chalmers, Cara Ther

Cara lines up a $440M deal for US rights to its late-stage drug for se­vere itch, with $150M cash on the ta­ble

With plans afoot to file an NDA for what could be its first approved drug, Cara Therapeutics is pivoting its focus to commercialization. And Swiss company Vifor Pharma is willing to surrender up to $440 million to market the candidate in the US.

Cara $CARA CEO Derek Chalmers said an NDA submission is coming this quarter for their intravenous drug Korsuva in chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus (CKD-aP), a severe itching condition. The Stamford, CT-based biotech read out positive topline data from a Phase III pivotal study back in April, and announced plans to approach EMA regulators shortly after filing with the FDA.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Joe Biden (Carolyn Kaster, AP Images)

What about the Ger­man ne­go­ti­a­tion mod­el? Biden steers drug pric­ing de­bate to a show­down

From an ill-fated proposal to ban rebates for pharmacy benefit managers to an executive order demanding a “most-favored-nation price” for Medicare, if nothing else President Donald Trump has introduced Americans to a flurry of ideas to rein in pharma, an industry he once accused of “getting away with murder.” And now we’re getting the first glimpse of what a Joe Biden presidency might mean for prescription drug pricing.

Covid-19 roundup: Pars­ing Bourla, a top an­a­lyst sees im­proved chances for Pfiz­er vac­cine; Fau­ci: No sur­prise that Trump was hit by Covid-19

With a medley of adverse events hobbling the late-stage development of vaccines and drugs, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s latest — extended — timeline for the mRNA approach they’re working on with BioNTech is giving some top analysts added confidence that the pharma giant can come up with the regulatory goods next month.

Parsing Bourla’s language in his comments last week, SVB Leerink’s Geoffrey Porges notes that Bourla’s decision to say they “may” be able to nail down the positive efficacy of their vaccine in a matter of days — a big change from his earlier certainty — may also indicate a delay on that to early November.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

IN8bio CEO William Ho (IN8bio)

Bring­ing their ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied gam­ma delta T cells to Nas­daq, IN8bio files for $86M IPO

The biotech IPO parade continues marching forward as 2020 turns toward the fourth quarter.

IN8bio, a New York-based company focused on genetically modified gamma delta T cell therapies, filed to go public Friday seeking an $86 million raise. The company has two clinical-stage candidates being studied in glioblastoma and leukemia, respectively.

By any stretch of the imagination, 2020 has already been a huge year for biotech, and nowhere does it appear more obvious than the vast amounts of companies hitting the public market.

Daniel O'Day, Gilead CEO (Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Gilead feels the heat as close al­ly Gala­pa­gos re­ports a big set­back on one of their top ex­per­i­men­tal drugs

The bad news keeps stacking up at Galapagos — which quite likely just lost control of a billion-dollar deal — and by extension their close partners at Gilead.

The biotech $GLPG reported after the bell Thursday that GLPG1972, one of their top development programs, flat failed a mid-stage study for osteoarthritis, flunking the primary and all secondary endpoints.

Testing 3 different doses of their drug, which relies on ADAMTS-5 inhibition, investigators concluded that none of them triggered a statistically significant response — as measured by cartilage thickness.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 91,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

News brief­ing: Ab­b­Vie and Roche's Ven­clex­ta scores an­oth­er FDA OK; Im­muno­Gen nabs Chi­na deal with $40M cash

AbbVie and Roche’s Venclexta has gotten a new FDA thumbs up.

The pair announced Monday that regulators have approved the drug in combination with azacitidine or low-dose cytarabine for newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults who are 75 or older or those who can’t undergo intensive chemotherapy. This follows the drug’s accelerated approval in 2018 and positive data from two Phase III confirmatory trials.