The gene ther­a­py pric­ing de­bate gets re­al as Spark sets $850,000 charge for its pi­o­neer­ing drug

Years of de­bate, spec­u­la­tion and analy­sis have boiled down to this: Spark $ONCE Ther­a­peu­tics has set an $850,000 whole­sale ac­qui­si­tion cost for the US’s first gene ther­a­py — $425,000 per eye dam­aged by an RPE65 gene mu­ta­tion.

Set to roll out in a mat­ter of weeks, the WAC price for Lux­tur­na falls to­ward the high­er end of an­a­lysts’ bets, which ranged from about $600,000 to just un­der the $1 mil­lion mark for what’s in­tend­ed as a one-time treat­ment for the rare, sight-steal­ing ge­net­ic con­di­tion. Now the high­est priced ther­a­py in the coun­try — out­pac­ing drugs like Spin­raza at $750,000 for the first year of ther­a­py — it falls on Spark to come up with the right pric­ing mod­el that can per­suade pay­ers to cov­er the pro­ce­dure for a small group of un­der 2,000 po­ten­tial pa­tients, with few­er than 20 new pa­tients per year.

Spark’s ex­pe­ri­ence will have an im­mense im­pact on the en­tire gene ther­a­py field, blaz­ing a far wider path that will heav­i­ly in­flu­ence the com­mer­cial for­tunes of a whole wave of gene ther­a­py com­pa­nies look­ing to field once-and-done cures for some of the worst dis­eases to af­flict mankind. And know­ing full well just how much to­day’s close­ly-watched mar­ket­ing plan will be re­viewed by the health­care sys­tem, Spark’s pric­ing team has come up with a mix of re­bates and pro­posed stag­gered pay­ment mod­els de­signed to ease past barbed pay­er bar­ri­ers that can crip­ple any drug launch.

From the time that Jeff Mar­raz­zo first start­ed at the helm of up­start Spark Ther­a­peu­tics about 5 years ago, he’s been think­ing about what the first gene ther­a­py in the US would cost.

And think­ing. And think­ing. And think­ing.

“Did you ever see The Nev­erEnd­ing Sto­ry?” Mar­raz­zo asks me jok­ing­ly in a rare break from his care­ful­ly pre­pared pre­view of the plan, still sound­ing some­what amazed that he’s ac­tu­al­ly reached this stage of the game.

To­day, fi­nal­ly, is the be­gin­ning of an­oth­er im­por­tant chap­ter in the gene ther­a­py sto­ry. And the $850,000 tal­ly Spark is rolling out now is, like all health­care pric­ing in the US, a lot more com­pli­cat­ed than the big round WAC fig­ures peo­ple re­act to.

True to his metic­u­lous na­ture, Mar­raz­zo wants to care­ful­ly ex­plain the mul­ti-tier pay­ment mod­el Spark’s team has been craft­ing and the ob­jec­tive be­hind it all: Not just steer­ing the first gene ther­a­py to an ap­proval, but mak­ing sure that pay­ers will cov­er it so that pa­tients will be able use it to save their vi­sion.

In do­ing this, Mar­raz­zo is al­so acute­ly aware that the first pay­ment mod­el will like­ly heav­i­ly in­flu­ence what and how he charges for a gene ther­a­py for he­mo­phil­ia, now well down the clin­i­cal path. And left un­said is the im­pact that his plan will bear on the en­tire field in­volv­ing blue­bird bio and every­one else press­ing in be­hind him.

Keep in mind, he notes in Busi­ness 101 mode, that there are two key items that de­ter­mine the com­mer­cial val­ue of any new ther­a­py. The price you charge, and the units you sell.

“If the units sold is ze­ro you have ze­ro in the rev­enue line,” says the CEO, what­ev­er the price. And that’s not what Mar­raz­zo and this pub­licly trad­ed com­pa­ny have been in the hunt for.

For some time Mar­raz­zo has re­sist­ed the idea of of­fer­ing re­bates for pa­tients who fail to ben­e­fit fol­low­ing treat­ment. That, he tells me, had more to do with man­ag­ing ex­pec­ta­tions as the com­pa­ny nav­i­gates a com­plex set of hur­dles built in to fed­er­al and com­mer­cial pric­ing poli­cies. But the Spark pric­ing team has worked it out so that un­der one mod­el Spark can of­fer pay­ers un­spec­i­fied re­bates at 30 days and 30 months — which is about the av­er­age amount of time a pa­tient stays in a com­mer­cial plan — if Lux­tur­na falls short of es­tab­lished ef­fi­ca­cy goals on vi­sion.

Michael Sher­man

He al­so per­suad­ed Har­vard Pil­grim CMO Michael Sher­man to of­fer a key en­dorse­ment: “This out­comes-based re­bate arrange­ment is tru­ly in­no­v­a­tive, as it ties pay­ment for the ther­a­peu­tic not on­ly to a short-term goal, but al­so to a longer-term, 30-month as­sess­ment of ef­fi­ca­cy.”

Mar­raz­zo’s not say­ing how much he’s of­fer­ing in re­bates, but when I asked him why not a full re­fund for pa­tients who don’t re­spond ad­e­quate­ly, he said that’s not pos­si­ble. There are so few pa­tients in­volved for each health plan that a full or near full re­bate would take the low­est pos­si­ble price down to ze­ro, which he would have to of­fer to fed­er­al pay­ers — mak­ing it a com­mer­cial dis­as­ter.

To avoid putting hos­pi­tals in a fix over the “buy and bill” re­im­burse­ment mod­el, which leaves them on the hook for the ini­tial cost of the treat­ment, Spark is con­tract­ing di­rect­ly with pay­ers on the price, leav­ing the providers to charge for their end of the pro­ce­dure.

Still in the works is a pro­pos­al to CMS for stag­gered pay­ments, with an up­front amount and bills due through a set pe­ri­od of time. And the com­pa­ny is al­so work­ing on cov­er­ing pa­tients’ out of pock­et costs as part of the over­all price.

Tak­en as a whole, he says, the Spark pric­ing strat­e­gy of­fers the best chance of win­ning cov­er­age for a rad­i­cal­ly new and ex­pen­sive ther­a­peu­tic ap­proach.

In Eu­rope, where the first two gene ther­a­pies have been rolled out to a mere hand­ful of pa­tients in sin­gle pay­er sys­tems, the fail­ure to gain ac­cep­tance has been a vir­tu­al death sen­tence for man­u­fac­tur­ers. Up against a much more in­tri­cate set of US hur­dles, Spark’s team think they have many of the ba­sics worked out.

We’ll know soon whether Mar­raz­zo found the key to open­ing the mar­ket to gene ther­a­pies, or fash­ioned a jour­ney in­to a blind al­ley.

Eli Lil­ly’s first PhI­II show­down for their $1.6B can­cer drug just flopped — what now?

When Eli Lilly plunked down $1.6 billion in cash to acquire Armo Biosciences a little more than a year ago, the stars seemed aligned in its favor. The jewel in the crown they were buying was pegilodecakin, which had cleared the proof-of-concept stage and was already in a Phase III trial for pancreatic cancer.

And that study just failed.

Lilly reported this morning that their cancer drug flopped on overall survival when added to FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-FU, oxaliplatin), compared to FOLFOX alone among patients suffering from advanced pancreatic cancer.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mi­rati preps its first look at their KRAS G12C con­tender, and they have to clear a high bar for suc­cess

If you’re a big KRAS G12C fan, mark your calendars for October 28 at 4:20 pm EDT.

That’s when Mirati $MRTX will unveil its first peek at the early clinical data available on MRTX849 in presentations at the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics in Boston.

Mirati has been experiencing the full effect of a rival’s initial success at targeting the G12C pocket found on KRAS, offering the biotech some support on the concept they’re after — and biotech fans a race to the top. Amgen made a big splash with its first positive snapshot on lung cancer, but deflated sky-high expectations as it proved harder to find similar benefits in other types of cancers.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The FDA will hus­tle up an ex­pe­dit­ed re­view for As­traZeneca’s next shot at a block­buster can­cer drug fran­chise

AstraZeneca paid a hefty price to partner with Daiichi Sankyo on their experimental antibody drug conjugate for HER2 positive breast cancer. And they’ve been rewarded with a fast ride through the FDA, with a straight shot at creating another blockbuster oncology franchise.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sean Parker, AP

Sean Park­er helps cre­ate a CRISPRed cell ther­a­py 2.0 play — and he’s got a high-pro­file set of lead­ers on the team

You can rack up one more high-profile debut effort in the wave of activity forming around cell therapy 2.0. It’s another appealing Bay Area group that’s attracted some of the top hands in the business to a multi-year effort to create a breakthrough. And they have $85 million in hand to make that first big step to the clinic.

Today it’s Ken Drazan and the team at South San Francisco-based ArsenalBio that are coming from behind the curtain for a public bow, backed by billionaire Sean Parker and a collection of investors that includes Beth Seidenberg’s new venture investment operation based in LA.
Drazan — a J&J Innovation vet with a long record of entrepreneurial endeavors — exited the stage in 2018 when his last mission ended as he stepped aside as president of Grail. It wasn’t long, though, before he was helping out with a business plan for ArsenalBio that revolved around the work of a large group of interconnected scientists supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunology.
The biotech started by putting together an “arsenal” of technologies aimed at making cell therapies for cancer much, much better than the rather crude first-generation drugs that hit the market from Novartis and Kite.
Their drugs have become the baseline against which all others are being measured.
“The technology set we’re developing is independent of the chassis,” Drazan tells me. “It doesn’t have to be autologous (extracted from the patient) or allogeneic (off the shelf). It doesn’t have to be a T cell, it could be a B cell.” But they are starting out on the autologous side, where they have the most knowledge and insight into manufacturing techniques.
It also doesn’t have to be close to the clinic.
Drazan expects the biotech will be working its way through preclinical operations for “a few years,” with enough money from the $85 million launch round to get into humans.
By today’s superheated fundraising standards, that’s not a huge amount of cash. Lyell, another cell therapy 2.0 startup we featured last week, raised $600 million in a year, including a big chunk of cash from GlaxoSmithKline. Drazan is interested in dealmaking as well, but he also knows he has the cash necessary to support the company for a good run — a key part of what it takes to bring together a stellar team of top players.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hal Barron, GSK's president of R&D and CSO, speaks to Endpoints News founder and editor John Carroll in London at Endpoints' #UKBIO19 summit on October 8, 2019

[Video] Cel­e­brat­ing tri­al fail­ures, chang­ing the cul­ture and al­ly­ing with Cal­i­for­nia dream­ers: R&D chief Hal Bar­ron talks about a new era at GSK

Last week I had a chance to sit down with Hal Barron at Endpoints’ #UKBIO19 summit to discuss his views on R&D at GSK, a topic that has been central to his life since he took the top research post close to 2 years ago. During the conversation, Barron talked about changing the culture at GSK, a move that involves several new approaches — one of which involves celebrating their setbacks as they shift resources to the most promising programs in the pipeline. Barron also discussed his new alliances in the Bay Area — including his collaboration pact with Lyell, which we covered here — frankly assesses the pluses and minuses of the UK drug development scene, and talks about his plans for making GSK a much more effective drug developer.

This is one discussion you won’t want to miss. Insider and Enterprise subscribers can log-in to watch the video.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

UCB tries to win some re­spect in the crowd­ed pso­ri­a­sis mar­ket with a dual IL-17 ap­proach — and it won't be easy

For a pharma company with about $5 billion in revenue, a couple of respectably sized blockbuster drugs on the market and some high-profile partners like Amgen, Belgium’s UCB has kept an unusually low profile on the pipeline side of things over the years.
Until now.
Just days after striking a $2.1 billion deal to buy Ra Pharmaceuticals and its C5 rival to Soliris, UCB is posting positive top-line Phase III results for a dual IL-17 inhibitor that it’s steering into one of the most competitive commercial spaces in the industry. And despite plenty of obvious challenges as they struggle to roll out Evenity with Amgen and patent expirations loom on its franchise drugs, including Cimzia, the company just may be ready to tackle some of the biggest players on the planet.
In their first of 3 Phase III studies for bimekizumab, researchers touted top-line wins on statistically significant results on clearing plaque psoriasis, including a victory over J&J’s IL-23 contender Stelara on key endpoints. The drug targets both IL-17A and IL-17F, a modification on the IL-17A strategy laid out for Taltz (Eli Lilly) and Cosentyx (Novartis). And the new group also includes J&J’s Tremfya and AbbVie’s Skyrizi.
We don’t know the PASI90 and IGA scores — but UCB knows that with the kind of heavyweight competition it faces with Novartis and others, marginal gains for patients won’t stack up. So we’ll be watching for the hard numbers. And there’s another head-to-head with Cosentyx that will play a big role in pushing up analysts’ projections on peak sales, which currently fall well short of blockbuster status.
UCB hasn’t exactly been in the spotlight for the last few years, but it’s in a position now that the company has to win some respect in R&D, with blockbuster projects that can keep investors’ attention at a time the industry is experiencing booming R&D development efforts around the planet.
It hasn’t been easy. There was a setback on a lupus drug partnered with Biogen. But there have been some advances, with a deal to buy Proximagen’s NDA-ready nasal spray therapy USL261, designed as a rescue therapy for acute repetitive seizures, for $150 million in cash and another $220 million in sales and regulatory milestones. There was even a report that the company was kicking the deflated tires at Acorda, though nothing came of that.
Late last year UCB also committed to spend up to £200 million on a new R&D hub in the UK.
That may not translate into a lot of excitement right now, but they’re trying. And there’s a subtle promise that more deals may be in the works.

Med­ical an­i­ma­tion: Mak­ing it eas­i­er for the site and the pa­tient to un­der­stand

Medical animation has in recent years become an increasingly important tool for conveying niche information to a varied audience, particularly to those audiences without expertise in the specialist area. Science programmes today, for example, have moved from the piece-to-camera of the university professor explaining how a complex disease mechanism works, to actually showing the viewer first-hand what it might look like to shrink ourselves down to the size of an ant’s foot, and travel inside the human body to witness these processes in action. Effectively communicating a complex disease pathophysiology, or the novel mechanism of action of a new drug, can be complex. This is especially difficult when the audience domain knowledge is limited or non-existent. Medical animation can help with this communication challenge in several ways.
Improved accessibility to visualisation
Visualisation is a core component of our ability to understand a concept. Ask 10 people to visualise an apple, and each will come up with a slightly different image, some apples smaller than others, some more round, some with bites taken. Acceptable, you say, we can move on to the next part of the story. Now ask 10 people to visualise how HIV’s capsid protein gets arranged into the hexamers and pentamers that form the viral capsid that holds HIV’s genetic material. This request may pose a challenge even to someone with some virology knowledge, and it is that inability to effectively visualise what is going on that holds us back from fully understanding the rest of the story. So how does medical animation help us to overcome this visualisation challenge?

Swamy Vijayan. Plexium

San Diego up­start de­buts dis­cov­ery en­gine that puts a twist to pro­tein degra­da­tion

For years, the idea of protein degradation — utilizing the cell’s natural garbage disposal system to mark problematic proteins for destruction — remained an elegant but technically difficult concept. But now established as a promising clinical strategy, with major biopharma players such as Bayer, Gilead and Vertex trying to grab a foothold via partnership deals, a San Diego startup is looking to exploit it and push its limits.

CSL ac­cus­es ri­val Pharm­ing of par­tic­i­pat­ing in a scheme to rip off IP on HAE while re­cruit­ing se­nior R&D staffer

Pharming has landed in the middle of a legal donnybrook after recruiting a senior executive from a rival R&D team at CSL. The Australian pharma giant slapped Pharming with a lawsuit alleging that the Dutch biotech’s new employee, Joseph Chiao, looted a large cache of proprietary documents as he hit the exit. And they want it all back.
Federal Judge Juan Sanchez in the Eastern District Pennsylvania court issued an injunction on Tuesday prohibiting Chiao from doing any work on HAE or primary immune deficiency in his new job and demanding that he return any material from CSL that he may have in his possession. And he wants Pharming to tell its employees not to ask for any information on the forbidden topics.
For its part, Pharming fired off an indignant response this morning denying any involvement in extracting any kind of IP from CSL, adding that it’s cooperating in the internal probe that CSL has underway.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.