The FDA rais­es hopes for Alzheimer's drugs with a new set of draft rules. But are they go­ing too far?

Bioreg­num
The view from John Car­roll

For years now the gold stan­dard for R&D in Alzheimer’s has fo­cused on gen­er­at­ing con­vinc­ing ev­i­dence that any new ther­a­py be­ing stud­ied could slow the cog­ni­tive de­cline of pa­tients and help pre­serve their abil­i­ty to per­form the kind of dai­ly func­tions that can keep a pa­tient in­de­pen­dent for a longer pe­ri­od of time.

That’s a hur­dle no one has man­aged to clear for well over a decade. So now, with late-stage clin­i­cal fail­ures pil­ing up, the FDA has set off down a path to adapt those stan­dards as re­searchers are pushed in­ex­orably in­to ear­li­er and ear­li­er forms of the dis­ease, ahead of the brain dam­age in­flict­ed by Alzheimer’s.

In a set of draft guid­ances, the agency es­sen­tial­ly pro­posed to of­fer an ap­proval path­way for new drugs that could pre­vent the on­set of the dev­as­tat­ing symp­toms of Alzheimer’s if drug de­vel­op­ers could hit ac­cept­able bio­mark­ers that in­di­cate the drug is work­ing. And they’re like­ly go­ing to con­tin­ue with a new gold stan­dard that will fo­cus on long-term cog­ni­tion alone, low­er­ing the bar for drugs for an enor­mous and grow­ing mar­ket.

David Miller

David Miller, the clin­i­cal vice pres­i­dent of Brack­et, a tech provider which spe­cial­izes in Alzheimer’s stud­ies, tells me the draft guid­ance hit just af­ter a meet­ing of the Alzheimer’s As­so­ci­a­tion re­search group, which was dis­cussing how you might be able to use a mix of mark­ers for amy­loid be­ta and tau — two tox­ic pro­teins fre­quent­ly cit­ed as like­ly trig­gers — along­side  neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive mark­ers to iden­ti­fy pa­tients who could be en­rolled at a very ear­ly point in the dis­ease.

“It’s ahead of where it was,” Miller says about their un­der­stand­ing of pre-symp­to­matic bio­mark­ers. “There’s been an im­prove­ment in our un­der­stand­ing of how these bio­mark­ers work to­geth­er, where there might be im­prove­ment. That doesn’t mean we are where we need to be, but we are get­ting clos­er.”

“We need to fig­ure out ways to do mea­sure­ments bet­ter, sen­si­tive to ear­li­er stages of the dis­ease, look­ing at cog­ni­tion and func­tion for more sen­si­tive ways of do­ing it,” says Miller.

One of the big chal­lenges, he adds, will be to set up cri­te­ria for new stud­ies that al­low de­vel­op­ers to ac­cu­rate­ly track bio­mark­ers with a con­sis­tent fo­cus on a clear­ly de­fined group of pa­tients en­rolled in stud­ies around the world. And per­haps one way is to re­ly on more pa­tient re­port­ed out­comes, where the pa­tient them­selves track their con­di­tion.

The move “is a big deal to com­pa­nies,” Maria Car­ril­lo, chief sci­ence of­fi­cer for the Alzheimer’s As­so­ci­a­tion, told Bloomberg. “It is a clear state­ment that the FDA un­der­stands that the sci­ence of Alzheimer’s has evolved.”

What’s dri­ving the shift?

These draft guid­ances, which will have to be for­mal­ly re­viewed with time to gath­er more feed­back from pa­tients, physi­cians and de­vel­op­ers, come af­ter a drum­beat of late-stage fail­ures is rais­ing ques­tions about what sci­en­tists ac­tu­al­ly know about this dis­ease. Eli Lil­ly tried three times to pro­duce piv­otal ev­i­dence that solanezum­ab could in­flu­ence the course of the dis­ease by clear­ing amy­loid be­ta, and failed. The com­pa­ny now has so­la in a study to see if it can pre­vent the dis­ease in at-risk pa­tients.

Ear­li­er this week Mer­ck flagged a clear fail­ure for its BACE drug verube­ce­s­tat, which moves up­stream in the bi­ol­o­gy of de­vel­op­ing amy­loid be­ta. It has now failed in both mild-to-mod­er­ate as well as pro­dro­mal pa­tients. Ax­o­vant took a failed drug from Glax­o­SmithK­line and smashed in­to a sub­group flop re­cent­ly, leav­ing the biotech bad­ly wound­ed. And Pfiz­er added to the lat­est se­ries of set­backs with its de­ci­sion to dump its en­tire neu­ro­sciences ef­fort and move on in oth­er ar­eas — fol­low­ing the ex­its of big play­ers like As­traZeneca and Glax­o­SmithK­line over the years.

That doesn’t mean that R&D has stopped. Any new drug that can help pa­tients, or pa­tients at risk, is like­ly to be a block­buster win­ner, and that has helped fill the cash re­serves of new biotechs like De­nali, lin­ing up with longterm play­ers like Take­da, which had its own re­cent set­back.

The march to study­ing drugs at an ear­li­er and ear­li­er stage of the dis­ease has been un­der­way now for at least 5 years, so the move to­ward pre-symp­to­matic groups is a nat­ur­al step in that evo­lu­tion. How­ev­er, shift­ing away from gold stan­dard end­points to­ward an evolv­ing set of bio­mark­ers al­so rais­es the prospect that the FDA will ap­prove new drugs that even­tu­al­ly prove that they don’t ac­tu­al­ly do any­thing to af­fect the course of the dis­ease, rais­ing hopes and cost­ing bil­lions with­out any re­al ben­e­fit.

Stand­ing still, though, is no longer an op­tion.

The em­pha­sis at the FDA now is to en­cour­age suc­cess­ful drug de­vel­op­ment by rec­og­nized ex­perts. If they start toe­ing the line on pro­fes­sion­al stan­dards for ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty, you can ex­pect to see the pen­du­lum swing back again some­time in the fu­ture.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi CEO (Getty Images)

Sanofi CEO Paul Hud­son has $23B burn­ing a hole in his pock­et. And here are some hints on how he plans to spend that

Sanofi has reaped $11.1 billion after selling off a big chunk of its Regeneron stock at $515 a share. And now everyone on the M&A side of the business is focused on how CEO Paul Hudson plans to spend it.

After getting stung in France for some awkward politicking — suggesting the US was in the front of the line for Sanofi’s vaccines given American financial support for their work, versus little help from European powers — Hudson now has the much more popular task of managing a major cash cache to pull off something in the order of a big bolt-on. Or two.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The Advance Clinical leadership team: CEO Yvonne Lungershausen, Sandrien Louwaars - Director Business Development Operations, Gabriel Kremmidiotis - Chief Scientific Officer, Ben Edwards - Chief Strategy Officer

How Aus­tralia De­liv­ers Rapid Start-up and 43.5% Re­bate for Ear­ly Phase On­col­o­gy Tri­als

About Avance Clinical

Avance Clinical is an Australian owned Contract Research Organisation that has been providing high-quality clinical research services to the local and international drug development industry for 20 years. They specialise in working with biotech companies to execute Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials to deliver high-quality outcomes fit for global regulatory standards.

As oncology sponsors look internationally to speed-up trials after unprecedented COVID-19 suspensions and delays, Australia, which has led the world in minimizing the pandemic’s impact, stands out as an attractive destination for early phase trials. This in combination with the streamlined regulatory system and the financial benefits including a very favourable exchange rate and the R & D cash rebate makes Australia the perfect location for accelerating biotech clinical programs.

Pablo Legorreta, founder and CEO of Royalty Pharma AG, speaks at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Cap­i­tal­iz­ing Pablo: The world’s biggest drug roy­al­ty buy­er is go­ing pub­lic. And the low-key CEO di­vulges a few se­crets along the way

Pablo Legorreta is one of the most influential players in biopharma you likely never heard of.

Over the last 24 years, Legorreta’s Royalty Pharma group has become, by its own reckoning, the biggest buyer of drug royalties in the world. The CEO and founder has bought up a stake in a lengthy list of the world’s biggest drug franchises, spending $18 billion in the process — $2.2 billion last year alone. And he’s become one of the best-paid execs in the industry, reaping $28 million from the cash flow last year while reserving 20% of the cash flow, less expenses, for himself.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Dan O'Day, Gilead CEO (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Gilead leas­es part­ner rights to TIG­IT, PD-1 in a $2B deal with Ar­cus. Now comes the hard part

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has brokered his way to a PD-1 and lined up a front row seat in the TIGIT arena, inking a deal worth close to $2 billion to align the big biotech closely with Terry Rosen’s Arcus. And $375 million of that comes upfront, with cash for the buy-in plus equity, along with $400 million for R&D and $1.22 billion in reserve to cover opt-in payments and milestones..

Hotly rumored for weeks, the 2 players have formalized a 10-year alliance that starts with rights to the PD-1, zimberelimab. O’Day also has first dibs on TIGIT and 2 other leading programs, agreeing to an opt-in fee ranging from $200 million to $275 million on each. There’s $500 million in potential TIGIT milestones on US regulatory events — likely capped by an approval — if Gilead partners on it and the stars align on the data. And there’s another $150 million opt-in payments for the rest of the Arcus pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis jumps in­to Covid-19 vac­cine hunt, as Big Phar­ma and big biotech com­mit to bil­lions of dos­es

After spending most of the pandemic on the sidelines, Novartis is offering its aid in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

AveXis, the Swiss pharma’s gene therapy subsidiary, has agreed to manufacture the vaccine being developed by Massachusetts Eye and Ear and Massachusetts General Hospital. The biotech will begin manufacturing this month, while the vaccine undergoes further preclinical testing. They’ve agreed to provide the vaccine for free for clinical trials beginning in the second half of 2020, but have not disclosed financials for after.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Bryan Roberts, Venrock

Ven­rock sur­vey shows grow­ing recog­ni­tion of coro­n­avirus toll, wan­ing con­fi­dence in ar­rival of vac­cines and treat­ments

When Venrock partner Bryan Roberts went to check the results from their annual survey of healthcare leaders, what he found was an imprint of the pandemic’s slow arrival in America.

The venture firm had sent their form out to hundreds of insurance and health tech executives, investors, officials and academics on February 24 and gave them two weeks to fill it out. No Americans had died at that point but the coronavirus had become enough of a global crisis that they included two questions about the virus, including “Total U.S. deaths in 2020 from the novel coronavirus will be:”.

Stymied by the pan­dem­ic, Im­munomedic­s' new CEO bows out, tak­ing a mil­lion bucks plus perks as he heads out the vir­tu­al ex­it

Just a little more than a month since taking over as the latest CEO to helm Immunomedics, $IMMU Harout Semerjian is exiting the company after being confronted by “logistical” obstacles thrown up by the pandemic that made it impossible for him to move from London to carry out the job. And he’s getting a little over a million dollars in cash plus perks to grease the skids on the way out.

Word of the changeup arrived right after the market closed Wednesday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck R&D chief (YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Backed by BAR­DA, Mer­ck jumps in­to Covid-19: buy­ing out a vac­cine, part­ner­ing on an­oth­er and adding an­tivi­ral to the mix

Merck execs are making a triple play in a sudden leap into the R&D campaign against Covid-19. And they have more BARDA cash backing them up on the move.

Tuesday morning the pharma giant simultaneously announced plans to buy an Austrian biotech that has been working on a preclinical vaccine candidate, added a collaboration on another vaccine with the nonprofit IAVI and inked a deal with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on an early-stage antiviral.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Hoey (Vaxxas)

In for the long vac­cine game, Mer­ck buys in­to patch de­liv­ery tech with pan­dem­ic po­ten­tial

When Merck dived into the R&D fray for a Covid-19 vaccine earlier this week, execs made it clear that they’re not necessarily looking to be first — with CEO Ken Frazier throwing cold water on the hotly-discussed 12- to 18-month timelines. But when it does emerge from behind, the pharma giant clearly expects to play a significant part.

Part of that will depend on next-generation delivery technology that reshapes the world’s imagination of a vaccine.