Sarep­ta's Ex­ondys 51 is not cost-ef­fec­tive, nor par­tic­u­lar­ly ben­e­fi­cial for DMD pa­tients — ICER

Par­ents with chil­dren suf­fer­ing from Duchenne mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy (DMD) — a rare, pro­gres­sive mus­cle wast­ing dis­ease that dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly af­fects young boys — cheered in 2016 when Sarep­ta Ther­a­peu­tics’ Ex­ondys 51 (eteplirsen) was con­tro­ver­sial­ly ap­proved by the FDA, un­der pres­sure from pa­tient ad­vo­cates and de­spite stiff op­po­si­tion from with­in and out­side the agency. Crit­ics lam­bast­ed the agency’s de­ci­sion, cit­ing in­suf­fi­cient da­ta — and now, an in­creas­ing­ly in­flu­en­tial ICER has con­curred: The un­der­ly­ing ev­i­dence sup­port­ing the drug is sparse, and giv­en its cur­rent pric­ing, it is cer­tain­ly not cost-ef­fec­tive.

There are rough­ly 6,000 young boys suf­fer­ing from DMD — caused by the ab­sence of dy­s­trophin, a pro­tein that helps keep mus­cle cells in­tact — in the Unit­ed States. Symp­toms tend to kick in and pro­gres­sive­ly wors­en be­tween the ages of 3 to 5, lead­ing the pa­tient to be typ­i­cal­ly wheel­chair-bound by their ear­ly teens. Even­tu­al­ly, pa­tients suc­cumb to the dis­ease by their 30s. Cor­ti­cos­teroids, which work by di­min­ish­ing in­flam­ma­tion and lim­it­ing the im­mune sys­tem’s ac­tiv­i­ty, are com­mon­ly used to treat DMD.

The gener­ic steroid pred­nisone is al­so fre­quent­ly used to treat DMD. In 2017, the cor­ti­cos­teroid de­flaza­cort, brand­ed Em­flaza, was al­so sanc­tioned FDA ap­proval, with an eye-pop­ping $89,000-per-pa­tient an­nu­al price tag by Marathon Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals. Marathon did not in­vent the drug, and pre­vi­ous­ly US pa­tients had been able to im­port it for as lit­tle as $1,000. Un­der fire for its pric­ing, Marathon agreed to be ac­quired by PTC Ther­a­peu­tics $PTCT, which pledged to re­duce the price.

ICER eval­u­at­ed the ef­fi­ca­cy, safe­ty and cost-ef­fec­tive­ness of four treat­ments, in its draft re­port on Wednes­day. It looked at the steroids de­flaza­cort and pred­nisone — as well as the ex­on-skip­ping drugs: the ap­proved eteplirsen and the ex­per­i­men­tal golodirsen (both come from Sarep­ta $SRPT, and each treat­ment is de­signed to treat a dif­fer­ent sub­set of DMD pa­tients).

Over­all, the ev­i­dence sup­port­ing each of the four treat­ments is lack­ing, and their im­pact on pa­tients un­clear, ICER found.

De­spite ev­i­dence that cor­ti­cos­teroid treat­ment ben­e­fits all DMD pa­tients, the “op­ti­mal dos­ing…and du­ra­tion of ther­a­py re­main un­clear. Rel­a­tive­ly small clin­i­cal tri­als have pro­vid­ed on­ly short-term ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta, even though long-term use…is the norm,” ICER re­view­ers said. “Al­though ob­ser­va­tion­al stud­ies have pro­vid­ed longer-term da­ta, un­cer­tain­ty about the nat­ur­al his­to­ry of the dis­ease, lack of con­sis­tent dos­ing and out­come mea­sures, and a pauci­ty of com­par­i­son da­ta be­tween cor­ti­cos­teroids leave a sub­stan­tial gap in un­der­stand­ing the ef­fi­ca­cy and ad­verse ef­fects of long term steroid ther­a­py, par­tic­u­lar­ly with re­spect to dif­fer­ences be­tween de­flaza­cort and pred­nisone.”

Ob­ser­va­tion­al — but in­con­sis­tent — da­ta sug­gests there may be some greater ben­e­fit on mo­tor func­tion with de­flaza­cort, and the mag­ni­tude of the ben­e­fits may be small, re­view­ers said, adding that de­flaza­cort has not been shown to im­prove pul­monary func­tion out­comes com­pared with pred­nisone. Giv­en the side-ef­fects of cor­ti­cos­teroids, de­flaza­cort has been in the spot­light for its po­ten­tial of small­er ad­verse-events: Un­de­sired weight gain ap­pears to be greater with pred­nisone than de­flaza­cort, while cataract for­ma­tion and re­duc­tion in growth ap­pear to be greater with de­flaza­cort, the non-prof­it found.

For ex­on-skip­ping ther­a­pies — which are de­signed to work by skip­ping the delet­ed ex­on, al­low­ing the re­main­der to join and form a com­plete gene to boost dy­s­trophin pro­duc­tion — da­ta are “lim­it­ed to sur­ro­gate out­comes from very small tri­als, and the thresh­old for dy­s­trophin ex­pres­sion suf­fi­cient for mean­ing­ful clin­i­cal im­prove­ment has yet to be de­fined,” re­view­ers said, not­ing that over­all, eteplirsen and golodirsen treat­ment re­sults “in very small in­creas­es in dy­s­trophin.”

Ex­treme­ly lim­it­ed ran­dom­ized da­ta for eteplirsen did not show im­prove­ments in the six-minute walk test, ver­sus place­bo — al­though no func­tion­al out­come re­sults have been re­port­ed for golodirsen. The safe­ty pro­file of eteplirsen ap­pears to be be­nign, and no safe­ty da­ta are yet avail­able golodirsen, they added.

ICER con­duct­ed its cost-ef­fec­tive­ness analy­sis us­ing qual­i­ty-ad­just­ed-life-years (QALYs), a mea­sure of the state of health of a per­son or group in which the ben­e­fits — in terms of length of life — are ad­just­ed to re­flect the qual­i­ty of life.

DMD drug dos­ing is weight-based, and ICER used to cal­cu­late cost-ef­fec­tive­ness us­ing an­nu­al cost es­ti­mates for a 40 kg pa­tient.

Source: ICER

Click on the im­age to see the full-sized ver­sion

Based on the avail­able ev­i­dence, when com­pared to pred­nisone, de­flaza­cort is pro­ject­ed to have very high costs rel­a­tive to its ben­e­fits, ICER said.

The ICER re­port does not ac­cu­rate­ly rep­re­sent Em­flaza’s re­al val­ue, a PTC spokesper­son told End­points News in an emailed state­ment. “ICER’s re­liance on the QALY stan­dard is not par­tic­u­lar­ly use­ful for eval­u­at­ing the ac­tu­al needs of in­di­vid­ual pa­tients with rare dis­or­ders and the im­pact Em­flaza has on the lives of pa­tients and fam­i­lies…”.

In ad­di­tion, “(P)reser­va­tion of am­bu­la­tion and up­per ex­trem­i­ty func­tion were not re­flect­ed in the cost analy­sis giv­en the da­ta demon­strat­ed that pa­tients tak­ing de­flaza­cort were able to have near­ly an ad­di­tion­al 3 years of am­bu­la­tion over pa­tients tak­ing pred­nisone,” the spokesper­son added.

For eteplirsen, at its cur­rent price, no plau­si­ble treat­ment ef­fects were found to make this treat­ment reach cost-ef­fec­tive­ness thresh­olds be­low the $150,000 bench­mark, per QALY gained. Sim­i­lar re­sults are ex­pect­ed of golodirsen if it is priced sim­i­lar to eteplirsen, ICER con­clud­ed.

Sarep­ta, un­sur­pris­ing­ly, was not hap­py with ICER’s find­ings. In a state­ment, the com­pa­ny called the in­sti­tute’s ap­proach “fa­tal­ly flawed” as it re­lates to rare and ge­net­ic dis­ease and ill-equipped to “ac­com­mo­date the FDA ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval process”.

“If the goal is to sup­port a cost ef­fec­tive­ness ap­proach that pro­motes true in­no­va­tion while act­ing as a watch­dog for waste in the sys­tem, ICER is fail­ing,” Sarep­ta said on Thurs­day.

ICER’s DMD draft re­port is now open to pub­lic com­ment un­til June 18. Akin to NICE in the UK, ICER is an in­de­pen­dent body that an­a­lyzes the cost-ef­fec­tive­ness of drugs and oth­er med­ical ser­vices in the Unit­ed States. Un­like NICE, though, ICER is not gov­ern­ment-af­fil­i­at­ed, but its de­ter­mi­na­tions are be­com­ing in­creas­ing­ly piv­otal with re­spect to pay­ers and law­mak­ers.


Im­age: Kristof­fer Trip­plaar for Sipa USA. AP Im­ages

2023 Spot­light on the Fu­ture of Drug De­vel­op­ment for Small and Mid-Sized Biotechs

In the context of today’s global economic environment, there is an increasing need to work smarter, faster and leaner across all facets of the life sciences industry.  This is particularly true for small and mid-sized biotech companies, many of which are facing declining valuations and competing for increasingly limited funding to propel their science forward.  It is important to recognize that within this framework, many of these smaller companies already find themselves resource-challenged to design and manage clinical studies themselves because they don’t have large teams or in-house experts in navigating the various aspects of the drug development journey. This can be particularly challenging for the most complex and difficult to treat diseases where no previous pathway exists and patients are urgently awaiting breakthroughs.

Kristen Hege, Bristol Myers Squibb SVP, early clinical development, oncology/hematology and cell therapy (Illustration: Assistant Editor Kathy Wong for Endpoints News)

Q&A: Bris­tol My­er­s' Kris­ten Hege on cell ther­a­py, can­cer pa­tients and men­tor­ing the next gen­er­a­tion

Kristen Hege leads Bristol Myers Squibb’s early oncology discovery program carrying on from the same work at Celgene, which was acquired by BMS in 2019. She’s known for her early work in CAR-T, having pioneered the first CAR-T cell trial for solid tumors more than 25 years ago.

However, the eminent physician-scientist is more than just a drug developer mastermind. She’s also a practicing physician, mother to two young women, an avid backpacker and intersecting all those interests — a champion of young women and people of color in STEM and life sciences.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Gossamer Bio CEO Faheem Hasnain at Endpoints' #BIO22 panel (J.T. MacMillan Photography for Endpoints News)

Gos­samer’s Fa­heem Has­nain de­fends a round of pos­i­tive PAH da­ta as a clear win. But can these PhII re­sults stand up to scruti­ny?

Gossamer Bio $GOSS posted a statistically significant improvement for its primary endpoint in the key Phase II TORREY trial for lead drug seralutinib on Tuesday morning. But CEO Faheem Hasnain has some explaining to do on the important secondary of the crucial six-minute walk distance test — which will be the primary endpoint in Phase III — as the data on both endpoints fell short of expectations, missing one analyst’s bar on even modest success.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

US sup­ports ex­ten­sion for Covid-19 IP waiv­er de­ci­sion

After much debate, the US government is now calling for a deadline extension to discuss a controversial potential IP waiver for Covid-19 diagnostics and therapeutics.

Over the last five months, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said it has consulted with members of Congress, public health advocates, organized labor groups, academics, think tanks, companies and trade associations on the WTO’s recent TRIPS agreement, which established a 5-year waiver of certain patent requirements on Covid-19 vaccines.

Mar­ket­ingRx roundup: Phar­mas lay off Twit­ter ads for an­oth­er week; WPP un­cov­ers LGBTQ+ mar­ket­ing find­ings

When Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk tweeted this weekend, “Just a note to thank advertisers for returning to Twitter,” he likely wasn’t talking about big pharma companies. The vast majority of the top spending pharma advertisers had not returned last week, according to updated tracking data Pathmatic for Endpoints News.

Only three pharma advertisers spent any money at all, which is about the same as the past several weeks. AstraZeneca rejoined the active advertiser list, although at $700 spent hardly worth a personal Musk expression of gratitude. GSK remained active with $3,500 spent ad much lower than its previous spending, according to the Pathmatics data. Only Bayer spent any significant amount in advertising, with $244,000 spent last week, but that’s a considerable drop from almost $500,000 spent on OTC, prescription and corporate Twitter ads in each of the previous two weeks.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rick Modi, Affinia Therapeutics CEO

Ver­tex-part­nered gene ther­a­py biotech Affinia scraps IPO plans

Affinia Therapeutics has ditched its plans to go public in a relatively closed-door market that has not favored Nasdaq debuts for the drug development industry most of this year. A pandemic surge in 2020 and 2021 opened the doors for many preclinical startups, which caught Affinia’s attention and gave the gene therapy biotech confidence in the beginning days of 2022 to send in its S-1.

But on Friday, Affinia threw in the S-1 towel and concluded now is not the time to step onto Wall Street. The biotech has put out few public announcements since the spring of this year. Endpoints News picked the startup as one of its 11 biotechs to watch last year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bob Duggan, Summit Therapeutics co-CEO

Bounc­ing from ma­jor set­back, Sum­mit hands out $500M cash for can­cer drug — thanks to a loan from bil­lion­aire CEO

After hitting a dead end with Summit Therapeutics’ lead program, Bob Duggan has found the drug that he believes will usher into a compelling second act. So compelling, in fact, that it involves $500 million cash — and he’s taking money out of his own pocket to fund the deal.

Striking a partnership with Akeso Therapeutics out of China, Summit is bringing in a bispecific antibody that blocks both PD-1 and VEGF called ivonescimab. Akeso, which has a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific approved in China, has already taken ivonescimab into multiple clinical trials, including a Phase III in lung cancer.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilmore O’Neill, Editas Medicine CEO

Ed­i­tas re­ports ear­ly-stage da­ta from two pa­tients in sick­le cell dis­ease

One company is moving forward in its bid to make a cell therapy for sickle cell disease viable — and after previous setbacks, including a hold earlier this year, execs are touting some really early data.

Editas Medicine announced Tuesday morning that it had positive safety and efficacy data from two patients in a Phase I/II trial investigating EDIT-301, a cell therapy candidate that Editas developed. Safety was measured in both patients, and efficacy data are from only the first patient dosed.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Jonathan Montagu, HotSpot Therapeutics CEO

Ab­b­Vie puts up $40M to li­cense a treat­ment from HotSpot Ther­a­peu­tics

HotSpot Therapeutics has managed to gain some steam financially in the past few years, as the company wrangled several multi-million dollar raises. But its latest deal not only puts more cash into its pockets, it also connects with a major name in pharma.

On Tuesday, AbbVie and HotSpot announced they have entered an “exclusive” global collaboration, with the option to license HotSpot’s IRF5 program, which is designed to treat autoimmune diseases. The deal will see AbbVie hand HotSpot $40 million upfront, with the biotech eligible to receive $295 million in “option fees” and R&D milestones.