President Donald Trump (via AP Images)

Signs of an 'Oc­to­ber Vac­cine Sur­prise' alarm ca­reer sci­en­tists. HHS con­tin­ues to claim Azar “will de­fer com­plete­ly to the FDA"

Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, who seems in­tent on an­nounc­ing a Covid-19 vac­cine be­fore Elec­tion Day, could legal­ly au­tho­rize a vac­cine over the ob­jec­tions of ex­perts, of­fi­cials at the FDA and even vac­cine man­u­fac­tur­ers, who have pledged not to re­lease any vac­cine un­less it’s proved safe and ef­fec­tive.

In pod­casts, pub­lic fo­rums, so­cial me­dia and med­ical jour­nals, a grow­ing num­ber of promi­nent health lead­ers say they fear that Trump — who has re­peat­ed­ly sig­naled his de­sire for the swift ap­proval of a vac­cine and his dis­plea­sure with per­ceived de­lays at the FDA — will take mat­ters in­to his own hands, run­ning roughshod over the usu­al reg­u­la­to­ry process.

It would re­flect an­oth­er at­tempt by a norm-break­ing ad­min­is­tra­tion, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nom­i­nee op­posed to ex­ist­ing abor­tion rights and the Af­ford­able Care Act, to in­ject pol­i­tics in­to sen­si­tive pub­lic health de­ci­sions. Trump has re­peat­ed­ly con­tra­dict­ed the ad­vice of se­nior sci­en­tists on Covid-19 while push­ing con­tro­ver­sial treat­ments for the dis­ease.

If the ex­ec­u­tive branch were to over­rule the FDA’s sci­en­tif­ic judg­ment, a vac­cine of lim­it­ed ef­fi­ca­cy and, worse, un­known side ef­fects could be rushed to mar­ket.

The wor­ries in­ten­si­fied over the week­end, af­ter Alex Azar, the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s sec­re­tary of Health and Hu­man Ser­vices, as­sert­ed his agency’s rule-mak­ing au­thor­i­ty over the FDA. HHS spokesper­son Caitlin Oak­ley said Azar’s de­ci­sion had no bear­ing on the vac­cine ap­proval process.

Vac­cines are typ­i­cal­ly ap­proved by the FDA. Al­ter­na­tive­ly, Azar — who re­ports di­rect­ly to Trump — can is­sue an emer­gency use au­tho­riza­tion, even be­fore any vac­cines have been shown to be safe and ef­fec­tive in late-stage clin­i­cal tri­als.

“Yes, this sce­nario is cer­tain­ly pos­si­ble legal­ly and po­lit­i­cal­ly,” said Jer­ry Avorn, a pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine at Har­vard Med­ical School, who out­lined such an event in the New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine. He said it “seems fright­en­ing­ly more plau­si­ble each day.”

Vac­cine ex­perts and pub­lic health of­fi­cials are par­tic­u­lar­ly vexed by the pos­si­bil­i­ty be­cause it could ru­in the frag­ile pub­lic con­fi­dence in a Covid-19 vac­cine. It might put sci­en­tif­ic au­thor­i­ties in the po­si­tion of urg­ing peo­ple not to be vac­ci­nat­ed af­ter years of coax­ing hes­i­tant par­ents to ig­nore base­less fears.

Physi­cians might refuse to ad­min­is­ter a vac­cine ap­proved with in­ad­e­quate da­ta, said Preeti Malani, chief health of­fi­cer and pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan in Ann Ar­bor, in a re­cent we­bi­nar. “You could have a safe, ef­fec­tive vac­cine that no one wants to take.” A re­cent KFF poll found that 54% of Amer­i­cans would not sub­mit to a Covid-19 vac­cine au­tho­rized be­fore Elec­tion Day.

Af­ter this sto­ry was pub­lished, an HHS of­fi­cial said that Azar “will de­fer com­plete­ly to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to ap­prove a vac­cine pro­duced through the gov­ern­ment’s Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed ef­fort.

“The idea the Sec­re­tary would ap­prove or au­tho­rize a vac­cine over the FDA’s ob­jec­tions is pre­pos­ter­ous and be­trays ig­no­rance of the trans­par­ent process that we’re fol­low­ing for the de­vel­op­ment of the OWS vac­cines,” HHS chief of staff Bri­an Har­ri­son wrote in an email.

White House spokesper­son Judd Deere dis­missed the sci­en­tists’ con­cerns, say­ing Trump cared on­ly about the pub­lic’s safe­ty and health. “This false nar­ra­tive that the me­dia and De­moc­rats have cre­at­ed that pol­i­tics is in­flu­enc­ing ap­provals is not on­ly false but is a dan­ger to the Amer­i­can pub­lic,” he said.

Usu­al­ly, the FDA ap­proves vac­cines on­ly af­ter com­pa­nies sub­mit years of da­ta prov­ing that a vac­cine is safe and ef­fec­tive. But a 2004 law al­lows the FDA to is­sue an emer­gency use au­tho­riza­tion with much less ev­i­dence, as long as the vac­cine “may be ef­fec­tive” and its “known and po­ten­tial ben­e­fits” out­weigh its “known and po­ten­tial risks.”

Many sci­en­tists doubt a vac­cine could meet those cri­te­ria be­fore the elec­tion. But the terms might be legal­ly vague enough to al­low the ad­min­is­tra­tion to take such steps.

Mon­cef Slaoui, chief sci­en­tif­ic ad­vis­er to Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed, the gov­ern­ment pro­gram aim­ing to more quick­ly de­vel­op Covid-19 vac­cines, said it’s “ex­treme­ly un­like­ly” that vac­cine tri­al re­sults will be ready be­fore the end of Oc­to­ber.

Trump, how­ev­er, has in­sist­ed re­peat­ed­ly that a vac­cine to fight the pan­dem­ic that has claimed 200,000 Amer­i­can lives will be dis­trib­uted start­ing next month. He re­it­er­at­ed that claim Sat­ur­day at a cam­paign ral­ly in Fayet­teville, NC.

The vac­cine will be ready “in a mat­ter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pan­dem­ic from Chi­na.”

Al­though phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies have launched three clin­i­cal tri­als in the Unit­ed States, no one can say with cer­tain­ty when those tri­als will have enough da­ta to de­ter­mine whether the vac­cines are safe and ef­fec­tive.

  • Of­fi­cials at Mod­er­na, whose vac­cine is be­ing test­ed in 30,000 vol­un­teers, have said their stud­ies could pro­duce a re­sult by the end of the year, al­though the fi­nal analy­sis could take place next spring.
  • Pfiz­er ex­ec­u­tives, who have ex­pand­ed their clin­i­cal tri­al to 44,000 par­tic­i­pants, boast that they could know their vac­cine works by the end of Oc­to­ber.
  • As­traZeneca’s US vac­cine tri­al, which was sched­uled to en­roll 30,000 vol­un­teers, is on hold pend­ing an in­ves­ti­ga­tion of a pos­si­ble vac­cine-re­lat­ed ill­ness.

Sci­en­tists have warned for months that the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion could try to win the elec­tion with an “Oc­to­ber sur­prise,” au­tho­riz­ing a vac­cine that hasn’t been ful­ly test­ed. “I don’t think peo­ple are crazy to be think­ing about all of this,” said William Schultz, a part­ner in a Wash­ing­ton, DC, law firm who served as a for­mer FDA com­mis­sion­er for pol­i­cy and as gen­er­al coun­sel for HHS.

“You’ve got a pres­i­dent say­ing you’ll have an ap­proval in Oc­to­ber. Every­body’s won­der­ing how that could hap­pen.”

In an opin­ion piece pub­lished in The Wall Street Jour­nal, con­ser­v­a­tive for­mer FDA com­mis­sion­ers Scott Got­tlieb and Mark Mc­Clel­lan ar­gued that pres­i­den­tial in­tru­sion was un­like­ly be­cause the FDA’s “thor­ough and trans­par­ent process doesn’t lend it­self to med­dling. Any de­vi­a­tion would quick­ly be ap­par­ent.”

But the ad­min­is­tra­tion has demon­strat­ed a will­ing­ness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been crit­i­cized for is­su­ing emer­gency au­tho­riza­tions for two Covid-19 treat­ments that were boost­ed by the pres­i­dent but lacked strong ev­i­dence to sup­port them: hy­drox­y­chloro­quine and con­va­les­cent plas­ma.

Azar has side­lined the FDA in oth­er ways, such as by block­ing the agency from reg­u­lat­ing lab-de­vel­oped tests, in­clud­ing tests for the nov­el coro­n­avirus.

Al­though FDA Com­mis­sion­er Stephen Hahn told the Fi­nan­cial Times he would be will­ing to ap­prove emer­gency use of a vac­cine be­fore large-scale stud­ies con­clude, agency of­fi­cials al­so have pledged to en­sure the safe­ty of any Covid-19 vac­cines.

A se­nior FDA of­fi­cial who over­sees vac­cine ap­provals, Pe­ter Marks, has said he will quit if his agency rub­ber-stamps an un­proven COVID-19 vac­cine.

“I think there would be an out­cry from the pub­lic health com­mu­ni­ty sec­ond to none, which is my worst night­mare — my worst night­mare — be­cause we will so con­fuse the pub­lic,” said Michael Os­ter­holm, di­rec­tor of the Cen­ter for In­fec­tious Dis­ease Re­search and Pol­i­cy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta, in his week­ly pod­cast.

Still, “even if a com­pa­ny did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Os­ter­holm, in his pod­cast. “I hope that we’d nev­er see that hap­pen, but we have to en­ter­tain that’s a pos­si­bil­i­ty.”

In the New Eng­land Jour­nal ed­i­to­r­i­al, Avorn and co-au­thor Dr. Aaron Kessel­heim won­dered whether Trump might in­voke the 1950 De­fense Pro­duc­tion Act to force re­luc­tant drug com­pa­nies to man­u­fac­ture their vac­cines.

But Trump would have to sue a com­pa­ny to en­force the De­fense Pro­duc­tion Act, and the com­pa­ny would have a strong case in re­fus­ing, said Lawrence Gostin, di­rec­tor of George­town’s O’Neill In­sti­tute for Na­tion­al and Glob­al Health Law.

Al­so, he not­ed that Trump could not in­voke the De­fense Pro­duc­tion Act un­less a vac­cine were “sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly jus­ti­fied and ap­proved by the FDA.”


By Liz Sz­abo and JoNel Alec­cia

First pub­lished at KHN (Kaiser Health News) — a non­prof­it news ser­vice cov­er­ing health is­sues. It is an ed­i­to­ri­al­ly in­de­pen­dent pro­gram of KFF (Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion), which is not af­fil­i­at­ed with Kaiser Per­ma­nente.

Patrick Soon-Shiong at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, Jan. 13, 2020 (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Af­ter falling be­hind the lead­ers, dissed by some ex­perts, biotech show­man Patrick Soon-Sh­iong fi­nal­ly gets his Covid-19 vac­cine ready for a tri­al. But can it live up to the hype?

In January, when dozens of scientists rushed to start making a vaccine for the then-novel coronavirus, they were joined by an unlikely compatriot: Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire doctor most famous for making big, controversial promises on cancer research.

Soon-Shiong had spent the last 4 years on his “Cancer Moonshot,” but part of his project meant buying a small Seattle biotech that specialized in making common-cold vectors, called adenoviruses, to train the immune system. The billionaire had been using those vectors for oncology, but the company had also developed vaccine candidates for H1N1, Lassa fever and other viruses. When the outbreak began, he pivoted.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Jude Samulski, Marianne De Backer

Bay­er buys a biotech ‘race horse’ with a $4B deal — $2B in cash — aimed at go­ing big in­to gene ther­a­py

In the latest sign that Big Pharma wants a leading place in the push to develop a new generation of cell and gene therapies, Bayer is stepping up today with a $2 billion cash deal to buy out one of the fast-moving pioneers in the field, while adding up to $2 billion more in milestones if the new pharma subsidiary can deliver the goods.

As part of a continuing series of deals engineered by Bayer BD chief Marianne De Backer, the pharma player has snapped up Asklepios, more commonly referred to in more casual fashion as AskBio. And they are paying top dollar for a Research Triangle Park-based company that raised $225 million a little more than a year ago to back the brainchild of Jude Samulski, the gene therapy pioneer out of the University of North Carolina Gene Therapy Center.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Albert Bourla, AP

UP­DAT­ED: Where's the Pfiz­er ef­fi­ca­cy read­out? CEO Bourla says 'soon,' but you're go­ing to have to wait for it

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had promised repeatedly that the pharma giant would know if its leading Covid-19 vaccine is effective by the end of this month — now just a few days away.

Instead, the company reported early Tuesday that it has yet to conduct any interim efficacy analyses. And it won’t now until sometime next month.

The news was included in a slide for their Q3 report.

In the morning Q3 call with analysts, Bourla says that they expect efficacy data “soon,” but noted that they wouldn’t be able to say anything until all the administrative work was done on the interim, which would take about a week. And he added that Pfizer isn’t going to say anything else about that hot topic until they have the data in hand.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Re­searchers shut­ter 2 Covid-19 stud­ies as mon­i­tors flag Eli Lil­ly an­ti­bod­ies as a flop for pneu­mo­nia, hos­pi­tal­ized pa­tients — but EUA hunt con­tin­ues

Two weeks after the safety data monitoring group advised researchers to hit the hold button on a clinical trial of Eli Lilly’s antibody bamlanivimab (LYCoV55) for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the trial overseers are back with fresh directions to shutter the study after losing faith that the drug could help this group of patients.

The monitors concluded, however, that there were no safety issues involved, which will likely encourage continued belief that Lilly can still nail down an emergency marketing application for less-sick patients.

Cedric Francois, Apellis CEO (Optum via YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: So­bi bets $250M cash, about $1B in mile­stones for rights to a C3 ther­a­py be­ing pushed through 5 piv­otal tri­als

A couple years after licensing Novimmune’s emapalumab and turning around a quick FDA OK, Stockholm-based Sobi is betting up to $1.2 billion for rights to another rare disease drug.

The company is shelling out $250 million upfront and adding up to $915 million in milestones for rights to develop and commercialize Apellis Pharmaceuticals’ drug pegcetacoplan outside the US. Together, the companies will see the systemic C3 therapy through five registrational trials in hematology, nephrology and neurology.

Christian Rommel (via Roche)

Bay­er fol­lows R&D deal spree by raid­ing Roche's can­cer group for its new re­search chief

The day after Bayer signed off on a $4 billion deal designed to put the company among the leaders in gene therapy development, the pharma giant has recruited a new chief for its R&D division. And they opted for an expert in the cancer field.

Christian Rommel, Roche’s head of discovery and early-stage oncology development, has been tapped to take over the job. Joerg Moeller, who got the top research post after early and late-stage development roles were combined 2 years ago, is hitting the exit “to pursue other career opportunities.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Covid-19 roundup: Medicare and Med­ic­aid re­cip­i­ents could re­ceive vac­cines for free — re­port

As Covid-19 cases mount in the US, the White House is expected to announce that Medicare and Medicaid recipients will be able to get an authorized Covid-19 vaccine at no cost to them, per a Politico report.

Four unnamed sources told Politico the following announcement is likely to come from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services this Tuesday or Wednesday: Vaccines granted an EUA will be covered.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

In his­toric Covid-19 ad­comm, vac­cine ex­perts de­bate a sea of ques­tions — but of­fer no clear an­swers

The most widely anticipated and perhaps most widely watched meeting in the FDA’s 113-year history ended late Thursday night with a score of questions and very few answers.

For nearly 9 hours, 18 different outside experts listened to public health agencies and foundations present how the United States’ Covid-19 vaccine program developed through October, and they debated where it should go from there: Were companies testing the right metrics in their massive trials? How long should they track patients before declaring a vaccine safe or effective? Should a vaccine, once authorized, be given to the volunteers in the placebo arm of a trial?

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Three years in­to a PhI­II pro­gram for a failed Duchenne MD drug, Cataba­sis hauls down the flag and ad­mits de­feat

Three years ago, Catabasis CEO Jill Milne and the crew insisted they had found good reason for great cheer once they plumbed the data from their failed study for the Duchenne MD drug edasalonexent. Plunging into the extended open-label data, they said, you could find solid evidence of efficacy. And that justified a try in Phase III.

But they were wrong.

Monday, after the bell, the little biotech acknowledged that their pivotal attempt following the mid-stage flop was another failure. The primary, change in baseline on the North Star Ambulatory Assessment, and the secondary on timed function tests both came up short of statistical significance.