Se­nior FDA of­fi­cials warned that ap­prov­ing $300,000 Duchenne drug will low­er agency stan­dards

In the end, Sarep­ta did many things wrong when it came to de­vel­op­ing a new drug for Duchenne mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy. But it got one very im­por­tant part right. The biotech, with the sup­port of a le­gion of ad­vo­cates in the pa­tient com­mu­ni­ty, won over Janet Wood­cock to their side ear­ly on.

The pow­er­ful CDER di­rec­tor pushed for an ap­proval even in the face of a heat­ed de­bate in­side the FDA, as se­nior of­fi­cials weighed in in op­po­si­tion to her stand. The act­ing chief sci­en­tist at the agency, Lu­ciana Bo­rio, ar­gued that an ap­proval would low­er the agency’s stan­dards and en­cour­age oth­er de­vel­op­ers to pur­sue the same kind of lob­by­ing cam­paigns em­ployed at Sarep­ta. And she ac­cused Sarep­ta of act­ing ir­re­spon­si­bly by know­ing­ly push­ing “mis­lead­ing” in­for­ma­tion about the drug. El­lis Unger, di­rec­tor of the of­fice of drug eval­u­a­tion, scoffed at the da­ta Sarep­ta of­fered, call­ing the drug a “sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly el­e­gant place­bo.”

But FDA Com­mis­sion­er Robert Califf re­fused to over­rule Wood­cock’s de­ci­sion to OK eteplirsen, de­spite shar­ing some of the ma­jor ob­jec­tions raised by of­fi­cials who op­posed putting this drug on the mar­ket at Sarep­ta’s price of $300,000 a year.

Califf’s sum­ma­ry re­view of the ex­tra­or­di­nary show­down over eteplirsen point to prob­lems that would have eas­i­ly killed prac­ti­cal­ly any oth­er mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion. But with the cen­ter di­rec­tor tak­ing a pas­sion­ate stand in fa­vor of the drug, the com­mis­sion­er says he de­cid­ed that he would de­fer to Wood­cock in view of his lack of tech­ni­cal ex­per­tise in the mat­ter and a suf­fi­cient record of ev­i­dence to war­rant its move in­to the mar­ket.

Both Unger and Bo­rio op­posed Wood­cock’s de­ci­sion to grant an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval for eteplirsen, ac­cord­ing to the Sep­tem­ber 16 memo from Califf as well as their own mem­os. Califf set out to de­ter­mine if the FDA was sig­nif­i­cant­ly low­er­ing the bar for an ap­proval, but ul­ti­mate­ly de­cid­ed that Wood­cock was pur­su­ing a well es­tab­lished track record for be­ing will­ing to take tough, eth­i­cal stands in­side the agency, rather than buck­ling to a lob­by­ing cam­paign.

Ac­cord­ing to Bo­rio, who says that Wood­cock was lean­ing to­ward an OK in 2014, an ap­proval of this flawed ap­pli­ca­tion may set a dan­ger­ous prece­dent that will en­cour­age des­per­ate pa­tients to mount a fu­ri­ous as­sault in fa­vor of oth­er drug ap­provals. Her po­si­tion, out­lined in the memo:

Grant­i­ng ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval here on the ba­sis of the da­ta sub­mit­ted could make mat­ters worse for pa­tients with no ex­ist­ing mean­ing­ful ther­a­pies — both by dis­cour­ag­ing oth­ers from de­vel­op­ing ef­fec­tive ther­a­pies for DMD and by en­cour­ag­ing oth­er de­vel­op­ers to seek ap­proval for se­ri­ous con­di­tions be­fore they have in­vest­ed the time and re­search nec­es­sary to es­tab­lish whether a prod­uct is like­ly to con­fer clin­i­cal ben­e­fit. If we were to ap­prove eteplirsen with­out sub­stan­tial ev­i­dence of ef­fec­tive­ness, or on the ba­sis of a sur­ro­gate end­point with a triv­ial treat­ment ef­fect, we would quick­ly find our­selves in the po­si­tion of hav­ing to ap­prove a myr­i­ad of in­ef­fec­tive treat­ments for groups of des­per­ate pa­tients.

Unger, who warned that the safe­ty pro­file of eteplirsen is not yet known and that pa­tients tak­ing the drug could die from treat­ment, was scathing in his as­sess­ment of the ther­a­py.

By al­low­ing the mar­ket­ing of an in­ef­fec­tive drug, es­sen­tial­ly a sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly el­e­gant place­bo, thou­sands of pa­tients and their fam­i­lies would be giv­en false hope in ex­change for hard­ship and risk. I ar­gue that this would be un­eth­i­cal and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive. There could al­so be sig­nif­i­cant and un­jus­ti­fied fi­nan­cial costs – if not to pa­tients, to so­ci­ety.

And the re­view doc­u­ments in­clud­ed Wood­cock’s ex­tra­or­di­nary ar­gu­ment that Sarep­ta need­ed an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval to help its stock price, so it could fund ad­di­tion­al work.

She opined that Sarep­ta in par­tic­u­lar “need­ed to be cap­i­tal­ized.” She not­ed that the spon­sor’s stock went down af­ter the AC meet­ing and went up af­ter FDA sent the June 3, 2016 let­ter. Dr. Wood­cock cau­tioned that, if Sarep­ta did not re­ceive ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval for eteplirsen, it would have in­suf­fi­cient fund­ing to con­tin­ue to study eteplirsen and the oth­er sim­i­lar drugs in its pipeline. She stat­ed that, with­out an ap­proval in cas­es such as eteplirsen, pa­tients would aban­don all hope of ap­proval for these types of prod­ucts and would “lapse in­to a po­si­tion of” self-treat­ment.

Sig­nif­i­cant de­fi­cien­cies in the eteplirsen pro­gram, says Califf, in­clude a con­sen­sus that “the poor qual­i­ty of many of the biop­sies and the fail­ure of the spon­sor to im­ple­ment a high-qual­i­ty pro­ce­dure for as­say val­i­da­tion” made it im­pos­si­ble to con­sid­er much of the da­ta in the ap­pli­ca­tion. They all agreed that the drug pro­duced lev­els of dy­s­trophin that were “small com­pared with ex­pec­ta­tions at the out­set of tri­als in hu­mans.”

Sarep­ta “tout­ed” a study that used un­re­li­able mea­sures of the as­say, lead­ing the com­pa­ny to over­state pro­tein ex­pres­sion in fol­low-up biop­sies. That study was de­bunked by FDA ex­perts, Califf says, and should be cor­rect­ed or re­tract­ed. Bo­rio was much more crit­i­cal of Sarep­ta. Her memo states:

I would be re­miss if I did not note that the spon­sor has ex­hib­it­ed se­ri­ous ir­re­spon­si­bil­i­ty by play­ing a role in pub­lish­ing and pro­mot­ing se­lec­tive da­ta dur­ing the de­vel­op­ment of this prod­uct. Not on­ly was there a mis­lead­ing pub­lished ar­ti­cle with re­spect to the re­sults of Study 201/202147 –which has nev­er been re­tract­ed—but Sarep­ta al­so is­sued a press re­lease re­ly­ing on the mis­lead­ing ar­ti­cle and its find­ings.

There is a dis­tinct pos­si­bil­i­ty, the FDA feels, that in­creas­ing the dose would pro­vide enough dy­s­trophin ex­pres­sion, the key bio­mark­er for this dis­ease, to make it work as hoped. But it’s on­ly been test­ed in an­i­mals, nev­er in hu­mans — at least not yet.

And if Sarep­ta had done what the FDA was telling the com­pa­ny to do, says Califf, then they would prob­a­bly al­ready have enough com­pelling da­ta in hand to make a de­ci­sion based on the mer­its of the drug.

Wood­cock ac­tu­al­ly de­cid­ed in fa­vor of an ap­proval on May 4, af­ter tak­ing an “ex­ten­sive and ear­ly in­volve­ment” on the drug, which raised con­cerns about in­ter­fer­ence with “the in­tegri­ty of sci­en­tif­ic re­views” at low­er lev­els in the FDA. Wood­cock com­plet­ed her fi­nal mem­o­ran­dum be­fore Unger had had a chance to com­plete his own.

Once she de­ter­mined her po­si­tion, Wood­cock nev­er budged. Ul­ti­mate­ly, that was enough. What­ev­er else hap­pens, Wood­cock was proved right about Sarep­ta’s stock price. Shares are up 86% in mid-af­ter­noon trad­ing. In a call with an­a­lysts Mon­day af­ter­noon, com­pa­ny of­fi­cials say they will file for an ear­ly ap­proval in Eu­rope be­fore the end of this year.

Un­pack­ing the Aduhelm de­ci­sion, Ver­tex's half full glass, a $525M J&J breakup, and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

By now you have surely read about the FDA’s controversial approval of Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug and all its reverberations. But I’d still recommend checking out the meaty recap below to make sure you didn’t miss all the angles that the Endpoints team has covered. If you’d rather look ahead, look no further than our three-day virtual panels next week at BIO, where we will discuss what the new normal means for every part of the industry.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

What does a clear ma­jor­i­ty of the bio­phar­ma in­dus­try think of the FDA ap­proval of ad­u­canum­ab? 'Hor­ri­fy­ing' 'Dan­ger­ous' 'Con­fus­ing' 'Dis­as­ter'

Over the years, we’ve become used to seeing a consensus emerge early in our industry polls at Endpoints News. And when we took the pulse of drug hunters on the heels of a controversial FDA approval for aducanumab this week, it became immediately apparent that the vast majority of our readers — heavily concentrated among biopharma staffers and execs — were incensed by what they had just witnessed.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Aaron Kesselheim (Scott Eisen/AP Images for AIDS Healthcare Foundation)

Har­vard’s Aaron Kessel­heim re­signs from ex­pert pan­el in wake of ad­u­canum­ab OK, blast­ing FDA for ‘worst drug ap­proval de­ci­sion in re­cent U.S. his­to­ry'

A third member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee has resigned in the wake of Biogen’s controversial Aduhelm approval, slamming the agency as he left and further deepening the controversy surrounding the decision.

Harvard University professor Aaron Kesselheim quit in protest Thursday afternoon, calling the Aduhelm OK “probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history.” Kesselheim follows both Joel Perlmutter, a neurologist from Washington University in St. Louis, and David Knopman, a neurologist from the Mayo Clinic, out the door.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Knopman (Mayo Clinic via YouTube)

A sec­ond ad­comm mem­ber aban­dons his post in af­ter­math of con­tro­ver­sial ad­u­canum­ab de­ci­sion

As the fallout from the FDA’s approval of Alzheimer’s med aducanumab grows, a second member of the adcomm overseeing that drug’s review has walked away. But even with two experts now having resigned from that committee in protest, is there enough broad-level outrage to prevent another aducanumab from getting approved?

The FDA on Wednesday lost another member of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee as Mayo Clinic neurologist David Knopman hit the exit over the agency’s decision to approve Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm despite the committee’s near-unanimous vote against it.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA au­tho­rizes about 10M J&J vac­cine dos­es, trash­es 60M more from trou­bled Emer­gent plant

The FDA on Friday released about 10 million doses of J&J’s vaccine for use, and disposed of another 60 million doses that were manufactured at the now-shuttered Emergent BioSolutions facility in Baltimore where cross-contamination occurred.

The agency said it’s not yet ready to allow the Emergent plant to be included in the J&J EUA, but that may occur soon. FDA came to the decision to authorize some of the doses after reviewing facility records and quality testing results.

Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner, at Thursday's Senate Appropriations hearing (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors lam­bast new Alzheimer’s drug’s price but give Janet Wood­cock a free pass on the ap­proval de­ci­sion

Senate Finance Democrats took aim at Biogen’s pricey new Alzheimer’s drug on Thursday, but members on both sides of the aisle at a separate appropriations hearing didn’t question acting FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock on the approval.

“I was appalled that Biogen priced their Alzheimer’s drug approved by the FDA at $56,000 per year — I’m not going to debate whether this is effective or not, but it’s double the household median income for Michiganders over the age of 65,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said at the finance hearing.

Reshma Kewalramani, Vertex CEO (BIO via YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Ver­tex strikes out on its lat­est big shot at a rare ge­net­ic dis­ease. But they're go­ing to keep on swing­ing

It’s been several months since Vertex culled one of its small molecules for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), taking a big hit after evidence of liver damage surfaced in a key Phase II trial. Now we learned that the company has whiffed on its second shot, and there’s nothing left in the clinic to treat the rare genetic disease — but that won’t stop it from trying.

Despite avoiding the safety issues that plagued the last candidate, Vertex $VRTX is taking the axe to VX-864 after Phase II results revealed the magnitude of the drug’s response is “unlikely to translate into substantial clinical benefit.” As a result of the news, the company’s stock fell 12.5% after hours.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 109,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA plans new stud­ies on ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval dis­clo­sures in bio­phar­ma ads

When people read biopharma companies’ websites about new drugs approved via the FDA’s accelerated pathway, like Biogen’s new Alzheimer’s drug, do they understand that these drugs may only be reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and still require confirmatory studies?

That’s what the FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion wants to firm up as an agency analysis of direct-to-consumer websites for accelerated approval drugs previously found that only 21% of the disclosures used language directly from the label.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

As it ex­pands its foot­print, Mod­er­na reach­es deal to man­u­fac­ture Covid-19 vac­cine dos­es in Mid­dle East

While the UAE leads the world with the highest percentage of residents vaccinated, neighboring Saudi Arabia — home to nearly 35 million people — has lagged behind significantly. On Friday, Moderna announced that it has partnered with the Saudi pharmaceutical company Tabuk to manufacture its jab and future variant-specific boosters in the country.

Tabuk will hold marketing authorization for the vaccine in Saudi Arabia, and the agreement gives them the possibility of distributing future Moderna mRNA products.