Right af­ter Trump blamed high drug prices on cam­paign cash, drug­mak­ers gave more

“The cost of med­i­cine in this coun­try is out­ra­geous,” Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump said at a ral­ly in Louisville, Ky., two months af­ter his in­au­gu­ra­tion. He went on about how iden­ti­cal pills have vast­ly low­er price tags in Eu­rope.

“You know why?” the pres­i­dent asked, be­fore spread­ing his hands wide. “Cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions, who knows. But some­body is get­ting very rich.”

It was March 20, 2017.

The next day, drug­mak­ers do­nat­ed more mon­ey to po­lit­i­cal cam­paigns than they had on any oth­er day in 2017 so far, ac­cord­ing to a Kaiser Health News analy­sis of cam­paign spend­ing in the first half of the year re­port­ed in Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion fil­ings.

Eight phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal po­lit­i­cal ac­tion com­mit­tees made 134 con­tri­bu­tions, spread over 77 politi­cians, on March 21. They spent $279,400 in all, show­er­ing Re­pub­li­cans and De­moc­rats in both leg­isla­tive bod­ies with cam­paign cash, ac­cord­ing to FEC fil­ings. The sec­ond-high­est one-day con­tri­bu­tion tal­ly was $203,500, on June 20.

Bren­dan Fis­ch­er, who di­rects elec­tion re­form pro­grams at the Cam­paign Le­gal Cen­ter, said he found the tim­ing of the con­tri­bu­tions in­ter­est­ing: “I think it’s en­tire­ly pos­si­ble that the drug com­pa­nies sought to cur­ry fa­vor with mem­bers of Con­gress in or­der to head off any sort of po­ten­tial at­tack on their in­dus­try by the press or by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.”

Dur­ing the Louisville ral­ly, Trump al­so promised to low­er drug prices, and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal stocks tum­bled af­ter­ward.

Al­though drug in­dus­try PACs have dif­fer­ent struc­tures and pro­to­cols, they are equipped to mo­bi­lize quick­ly to dis­perse funds to leg­is­la­tors.

“Writ­ing a check doesn’t re­quire much be­yond putting pen to pa­per,” Fis­ch­er said.

FEC records show Mer­ck’s PAC led the way that day, do­nat­ing $148,000 to 60 can­di­dates on March 21. House speak­er Paul Ryan re­ceived three max­i­mum con­tri­bu­tions to his var­i­ous PACs from the drug­mak­er, to­tal­ing $15,000. Be­hind him with $7,500 was Sen­a­tor Tom Carp­er (D-Delawre), who sits on the Sen­ate Fi­nance Com­mit­tee.

Mer­ck spokes­woman Claire Gillep­sie said the con­tri­bu­tions were “not tied to spe­cif­ic events.”

“De­ci­sions on con­tri­bu­tions are made at the be­gin­ning of a cy­cle and are ap­proved by a con­tri­bu­tions com­mit­tee,” she said. A White House of­fi­cial re­ferred re­quests for com­ment to the pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, which did not re­spond.

Com­pa­nies may do­nate funds or lob­by ahead of im­pend­ing leg­isla­tive is­sues and ex­ec­u­tive or­ders, or they may re­act to some­thing a politi­cian says.

“Pres­i­dents get a lot of at­ten­tion to what they say,” said for­mer con­gress­man Lee Hamil­ton, who found­ed the In­di­ana Uni­ver­si­ty Cen­ter on Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Gov­ern­ment af­ter three decades in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. “[Com­pa­nies] have to re­act to that and de­fend the drug prices.”

Over­all, FEC records show Mer­ck spent $242,500 on cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions and $3.7 mil­lion on lob­by­ing in the first half of 2017.

The drug­mak­er, which makes di­a­betes pill Janu­via, can­cer drug Keytru­da and shin­gles vac­cine Zostavax, re­spond­ed to out­rage over drug prices ear­li­er this year by re­veal­ing on its web­site that the av­er­age list prices of its drugs in­creased from 7.4 per­cent to 10.5 per­cent each year since 2010. Mer­ck said dis­counts and re­bates al­so in­creased, mean­ing it took home less mon­ey. But Thom­son Reuters point­ed out that the price in­creas­es out­paced in­fla­tion.

FEC records don’t in­di­cate why a com­pa­ny do­nat­ed to a politi­cian or what that con­tri­bu­tion led to, but when House De­moc­rats ac­cused Con­gress­man Ja­son Chaf­fetz (R-Utah) of fail­ing to sched­ule a hear­ing on pre­scrip­tion drug price hikes in 2015, The In­ter­cept­point­ed out that the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try had been among Chaf­fetz’s top cam­paign con­trib­u­tors.

Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal lob­by­ing dol­lars have al­so swelled in 2017, Kaiser Health News pre­vi­ous­ly re­port­ed. In their dis­clo­sures, drug com­pa­nies list­ed tax re­form and drug pric­ing among is­sues on which they lob­bied Con­gress.

March 21 was al­so the date of the Na­tion­al Re­pub­li­can Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee’s an­nu­al fundrais­ing din­ner, fea­tur­ing Trump as keynote speak­er. The event, which rais­es mon­ey for House Re­pub­li­cans, drew a record-break­ing $30 mil­lion from a va­ri­ety of in­dus­tries, the NR­CC re­port­ed.

But on that day, drug­mak­ers al­so gave gen­er­ous­ly to De­moc­rats and sen­a­tors, ac­cord­ing to FEC fil­ings.

Pfiz­er and No­vo Nordisk PACs do­nat­ed $76,900 and $38,500 on March 21, re­spec­tive­ly, to sev­er­al dozen can­di­dates on March 21, ac­cord­ing to their fil­ings. Five ad­di­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal PACs spent be­tween $1,000 and $5,000 on con­tri­bu­tions that day.

The com­pa­nies say the tim­ing was co­in­ci­den­tal. A No­vo Nordisk spokesman said the March 21 con­tri­bu­tions from its PAC had been sched­uled in ad­vance “and in no way were tied to any spe­cif­ic state­ment.”

Pfiz­er spokes­woman Sharon Castil­lo said it takes three to four weeks to or­ches­trate and ap­prove a PAC con­tri­bu­tion.

“Pfiz­er’s po­lit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions to can­di­dates and elect­ed of­fi­cials from both par­ties are led by two guid­ing prin­ci­ples — pre­serve and fur­ther the in­cen­tives for in­no­va­tion, and pro­tect and ex­pand ac­cess to med­i­cines and vac­cines for the pa­tients we serve,” Castil­lo said.

Pfiz­er’s PAC do­nat­ed more than any phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal PAC in the first half of 2017, con­tribut­ing $418,400 in all — near­ly 70 per­cent more than the first six months of the 2015 elec­tion cy­cle, ac­cord­ing to FEC records. In Feb­ru­ary of this year, the com­pa­ny’s CEO was among sev­er­al ex­ec­u­tives from drug­mak­ing firms and oth­er glob­al com­pa­nies to pen a let­ter to Con­gress in sup­port of tax re­form. In De­cem­ber 2016, Pfiz­er re­ceived a let­ter from the Sen­ate Spe­cial Com­mit­tee on Ag­ing, ask­ing it to ex­plain its price in­creas­es for the opi­oid over­dose re­ver­sal drug, nalox­one.

“Pfiz­er is com­mit­ted to ad­dress­ing the pre­ven­tion, treat­ment and ef­fec­tive re­sponse to the grow­ing opi­oid abuse in the Unit­ed States,” Castil­lo said, adding that the com­pa­ny is do­nat­ing up to 1 mil­lion nalox­one dos­es and $1 mil­lion in grants to­ward opi­oid ad­dic­tion aware­ness ef­forts.

No­vo Nordisk has spent $178,000 on cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions so far this year, or near­ly four times more than it spent the first six months of 2015, ac­cord­ing to its fil­ings with the FEC. The com­pa­ny is one of the top three in­sulin mak­ers, and in Ju­ly, Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) sent the com­pa­nies let­ters ask­ing them to jus­ti­fy their price in­creas­es. In No­vem­ber, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Eli­jah Cum­mings (D-MD) asked the Jus­tice De­part­ment and the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion to in­ves­ti­gate the in­sulin mak­ers for pos­si­ble price col­lu­sion. The com­pa­nies have de­nied the al­le­ga­tions.

“We’re cer­tain­ly aware of pol­i­cy­mak­ers’ con­cerns about the price of in­sulin, and we’re com­mit­ted to col­lab­o­rate with all those in­volved in the health­care sup­ply chain to en­sure pa­tient ac­cess,” said No­vo Nordisk spokesman Ken In­chausti.

“From the pub­lic record, you can’t tell for sure” what prompt­ed the spike in po­lit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions from phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, said Tony Ray­mond, a for­mer an­a­lyst at the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion who found­ed Po­lit­i­cal Mon­ey Line to track cam­paign fi­nance. The PACs could have been “killing two birds with one stone” by do­nat­ing to leg­is­la­tors across the board on the night of the NR­CC fundrais­er, or they could have been re­spond­ing to what Trump said.

“We’re talk­ing about a cou­ple phone calls and then they could couri­er a check over to some­one,” he said.

By Syd­ney Lup­kin and Eliz­a­beth Lu­cas. Orig­i­nal­ly post­ed at Kaiser Health News, a na­tion­al health pol­i­cy news ser­vice that is part of the non­par­ti­san Hen­ry J Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion.

Take­da swoops in to buy lit­tle biotech part­ner and its celi­ac drug poised to 'change stan­dard of care'

Having spent three years carefully grooming PvP Biologics and its drug for celiac disease, Takeda is happy enough with the proof-of-concept data to buy it all.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Grow­ing ac­cep­tance of ac­cel­er­at­ed path­ways for nov­el treat­ments: but does reg­u­la­to­ry ap­proval lead to com­mer­cial suc­cess?

By Mwango Kashoki, MD, MPH, Vice President-Technical, and Richard Macaulay, Senior Director, of Parexel Regulatory & Access

In recent years, we’ve seen a significant uptake in the use of regulatory options by companies looking to accelerate the journey of life-saving drugs to market. In 2018, 73% of the novel drugs approved by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) were designated under one or more expedited development program categories (Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review, and Accelerated Approval).ᶦ

Mi­cro­bio­me Q&A: New study maps the vagi­na's 'op­ti­mal mi­cro­bio­ta' — and its im­pli­ca­tions for bio­phar­ma

The widely-held notion that the “optimal” vaginal microbiota is dominated by one strain of lactic-acid producing bacteria has now been challenged in a new paper, published in Nature Communications on Wednesday, which used advanced gene sequencing methods to map out the most comprehensive gene catalog of the human vaginal microbiome.

Things have changed in the more than 50 years since the concept of vaginal microbiota transplants was proposed and subsequently tainted by a Texas-based gynecologist who transplanted the vaginal fluid of women who had bacterial vaginosis into healthy females, suspecting he had isolated the bacteria responsible for the condition.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Fol­low­ing US, Chi­na hos­pi­tal ef­forts, Gilead plots its own PhI­II tri­als for close­ly watched Covid-19 drug

Gilead is launching its own Phase III trials of remdesivir, the repurposed antiviral that a WHO official called the “one drug right now we think may have real efficacy” against Covid-19 as the novel coronavirus originating from Wuhan, China ravages the world.

Announced just a day after the NIH and the University of Nebraska Medical Center registered their US-based trial online, Gilead’s program will comprise two studies enrolling around 1,000 patients beginning in March. They will recruit primarily in Asian countries but will also include patients from other locations with “high numbers of diagnosed cases,” the company said.

Bio­gen touts new ev­i­dence from the gene ther­a­py com­pa­ny it wa­gered $800M on

A year ago, Biogen made a big bet on a small gene therapy company. Now they have new evidence one of their therapies could work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Anthony Fauci (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: NIH-part­nered Mod­er­na ships off its PhI-ready coro­n­avirus vac­cine can­di­date to a sea of un­cer­tain­ty

Off it goes.

Moderna has shipped the first batch of its mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 from its manufacturing facility in Norwood, Massachusetts, to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, for a pioneering Phase I study.

It’s a hectic race against time. In the 42 days since Moderna selected the sequence they would use to develop their vaccine — a record time, no less — the number of confirmed cases around the world has surged astronomically from a few dozen to over 80,000, per WHO and Johns Hopkins estimates.

The candidate that they came up with, mRNA-1273, encodes for a prefusion stabilized form of the spike protein, which gives the virus its crown shape and plays a key role in transmission. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Oslo-based group better known as CEPI, funded the manufacture of this batch.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

In at least one life-sci hub, gen­der and di­ver­si­ty ini­tia­tives haven’t made a dent

Gender and racial diversity at the top of UK life science companies has hardly budged over the last seven years despite repeated advocacy efforts, according to a new report.

The report, from the recruiting firm Liftstream, found that 14.8% of directors on life sciences boards were women and 21.1% of top executives were women. That’s a modest bump from the 9.8% of directors and 18.1% of executives Liftstream identified in their last report from 2014. The percentage of women CEOs moved from 8% to 9.8%.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Will a 'risk-of­f' mind­set has­ten cell ther­a­py M&A? Io­vance surges on buy­out chat­ter

Is it time for some cell therapy M&A?

Investors of Iovance Biotherapeutics certainly thought so, sending its stock $IOVA up as much as 40% after Bloomberg reported that the cancer-focused biotech is talking to potential buyers.

While 2019 saw a number of high-profile gene therapy company takeovers — led by Roche’s $4.3 billion bid of Spark as Astellas went for Audentes, Biogen snapped up Nightstar and Vertex absorbed Exonics — large players appeared to prefer partnering on the cell therapy front, particularly when it comes to cancer. Hal Barron put his weight behind Rick Klausner’s startup as he rebuilt GlaxoSmithKline’s cancer pipeline. Takeda turned to MD Anderson to license their natural killer cell therapy.

One less ri­val for Im­muno­vant, as Alex­ion aban­dons FcRn in­hibitor

Less than one year after Alexion parted with $25 million upfront to secure access to a second anti-FcRn asset, it is abandoning the experimental drug. The discontinuation, disclosed at the SVB Leerink Global Healthcare Conference in New York during a fireside chat, bodes well for rival Immunovant.

The drug (ABY-039), partnered for development with Sweden’s Affibody, was forsaken on the basis of early-stage data that was not viewed favorably, Baird and SVB Leerink analysts noted.