Top 10 pipeline blowups, set­backs and sna­fus in H1 2016

Some years you have to stretch a bit to find a line­up of 10 no­table set­backs in the pipeline. In the first half of this year, I could have done one in each quar­ter and had a few left over for the dis­hon­or­able men­tion col­umn.

What we have here is a col­lec­tion of grue­some self-in­flict­ed wounds, more ev­i­dence that the home run swing looks good on pa­per and ter­ri­ble in ex­e­cu­tion and a new cat­e­go­ry: the drug that post­ed pos­i­tive da­ta but looked bad com­pared to the com­pe­ti­tion.

You can mark that last one in red; it will be back in fu­ture lists. Get­ting pos­i­tive da­ta against a place­bo or an old­er stan­dard of care is less and less like­ly to cut it. More and more con­tenders will need to be com­pared in­stant­ly against ri­vals in the pipeline. And with ex­pec­ta­tions run­ning high in fields like can­cer, more an­a­lysts (though not all) are go­ing to be mak­ing some re­al de­mands.

No doubt you’ll be think­ing of oth­er set­backs that didn’t make the list. And there were some doozies. J&J walked away from its an­ti-NGF pain drug ful­ranum­ab with bare­ly a nod of the head. No­var­tis’ “break­through” mus­cle drug bima­grum­ab failed a key study. Aduro’s com­bo failed a key test. Es­pe­ri­on was evis­cer­at­ed af­ter it told in­vestors that the FDA was chang­ing course on its tri­al de­mands.

So it goes.

Drug de­vel­op­ment is a tough field. Just ask the fol­low­ing com­pa­nies.

 


1. Clo­vis On­col­o­gy  rocile­tinib

CEO Patrick Ma­haffy

Boul­der, CO
$CLVS

CEO: Patrick Ma­haffy

The prob­lem: Clo­vis On­col­o­gy billed its lead-up to the sub­mis­sion for rocile­tinib as an Olympic dive. For play­ing a di­rect role in turn­ing the dive in­to a world-class bel­ly flop, the biotech wins the top spot as H1’s biggest im­plo­sion.

Clo­vis watch­ers will re­mem­ber that the com­pa­ny once played ri­val to As­traZeneca’s Tagris­so (9291). But then the FDA called them out on some sus­pi­cious tu­mor re­spons­es and a slew of con­firmed hits had to be trad­ed for miss­es. Its stock col­lapsed, FDA in­sid­ers could bare­ly con­ceal their dis­taste and the com­pa­ny lost a con­sid­er­able amount of rep along with the bulk of its mar­ket cap.

Ro­ci was quick­ly buried and now no men­tion is made of it — even when the FDA’s PDU­FA date rolled around June 28 with­out so much as a 2-sen­tence SEC fil­ing to mark the for­mal re­jec­tion.

Cur­rent­ly un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion by the feds, Clo­vis is now ramp­ing up a new ef­fort to back ru­ca­parib, which finds it­self in yet an­oth­er late-stage horse race with se­ri­ous com­pe­ti­tion. Fail­ure here is not an op­tion, but it’s a very re­al pos­si­bil­i­ty.


2. As­traZeneca — ZS-9/treme­li­mum­ab

CEO Pas­cal So­ri­ot

Lon­don
$AZN

CEO: Pas­cal So­ri­ot

The prob­lems: You don’t pay $2.7 bil­lion for a hy­per­kalemia drug that’s await­ing reg­u­la­to­ry ac­tion at the FDA, tell every­one you’re go­ing to make more than a bil­lion dol­lars a year off of it and then get hand­ed a re­jec­tion with­out hav­ing a few red faces to show for it.

As­traZeneca says it won’t have to run a new tri­al for ZS-9, but it does have some ex­plain­ing to do about man­u­fac­tur­ing that was se­ri­ous enough to war­rant a CRL. As­traZeneca is a Big Phar­ma in a hur­ry, though, and caught up in a bid­ding war it bar­reled in­to a set­back.

ZS-9 is now like­ly on hold un­til around the end of the year or ear­ly 2017 as Re­lyp­sa’s ri­val Veltas­sa con­tin­ues to make progress on the mar­ket. Yet to be de­cid­ed: Which of these drugs will have the most fa­vor­able safe­ty pro­file, though ZS-9 still has sev­er­al ad­vo­cates on its side.

As­traZeneca, mean­while, al­so had to ex­plain a so­lo set­back for the CT­LA-4 drug treme­li­mum last Feb­ru­ary. A top prospect at As­traZeneca, the drug failed a Phase IIb tri­al for mesothe­lioma af­ter in­ves­ti­ga­tors re­cruit­ed 571 pa­tients for the test.


3. Bio­Marin  dris­apersen

San Rafael, CA
$BM­RN

CEO: Jean-Jacques Bi­en­aimé

The prob­lem: Bio­Marin paid $680 mil­lion to get dris­apersen in its buy­out of Pros­en­sa. But that big gam­ble end­ed up be­ing more than a com­plete write-off.

First, the FDA re­ject­ed the drug, which had al­ready failed a Phase III in the hands of Glax­o­SmithK­line, which quick­ly washed its hands of the drug and walked away. Then the EMA said no as well, and Bio­Marin not on­ly jet­ti­soned the lead drug, the com­pa­ny deep-sixed three fol­low-up ther­a­pies it was work­ing with in Phase II.

The com­pa­ny’s in­ves­ti­ga­tors couldn’t get any­where with their ar­gu­ment that there was a treat­ment strat­e­gy that could help boys af­fect­ed by the lethal dis­ease. The out­side and in­side ex­perts at the FDA gave that dis­cus­sion short shrift. Now the R&D group is go­ing back to the draw­ing board as Sarep­ta pre­pares to see if it can sur­vive an at­tempt at an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval.


4. Alk­er­mes — ALKS-5461

CEO Richard Pops

Dublin
$ALKS

CEO Richard Pops

The prob­lem: A few weeks be­fore the read­out on the first two stud­ies for ALKS-5461 hit in Jan­u­ary, CEO Richard Pops called it a pend­ing “seis­mic” event.

And how.

The first six months of this year was no time to dis­ap­point in­vestors grap­pling with a bear mar­ket for biotech stocks. Alk­er­mes learned that les­son the hard way when its de­pres­sion drug failed two stud­ies and the mar­ket quick­ly re­lieved it of $4 bil­lion in mar­ket cap.

The rea­son de­vel­op­ers have three or four Phase III stud­ies for a de­pres­sion drug is be­cause they are like­ly to fail. One af­ter an­oth­er has been done in by the place­bo ef­fect, but Alk­er­mes be­lieved that it had an edge with a nov­el new tri­al de­sign aimed at thwart­ing that out­come. So two down means the drug is dead, right?

Not quite. The com­pa­ny came up with some post hoc rea­sons to be­lieve they were still on to some­thing and some an­a­lysts be­lieve that a pos­i­tive read­out for the third study could yet sal­vage the sit­u­a­tion. But it’s a nar­row, dan­ger­ous path to be trav­el­ing at this stage.

Alk­er­mes’ stock has been mak­ing a come­back since the com­pa­ny was blast­ed, but it’s been a slow climb.


5. In­fin­i­ty Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals — du­velis­ib

CEO Ade­lene Perkins

Cam­bridge, MA
$IN­FI

CEO Ade­lene Perkins

The prob­lem: Some­times even a sta­tis­ti­cal win can be a big los­er. Case in point: Du­velis­ib.

A few weeks ago their lead drug hit the pri­ma­ry end­point in the Phase II study for in­do­lent non-Hodgkin lym­phoma, and its part­ner Ab­b­Vie quick­ly fold­ed its tent, dis­missed their $250 mil­lion up­front part­ner­ing pay­ment and hit the streets.

It was good, but just not good enough con­sid­er­ing the com­pe­ti­tion.

In­fin­i­ty suf­fered a thump­ing on Wall Street, but af­ter back-to-back re­struc­tur­ings that cost 146 jobs (for­mer “cit­i­zen-own­ers”) the com­pa­ny says it can work things out in its fa­vor. Perkins, top sci­en­tist Ju­lian Adams and every­one else still in for the ride can earn a re­ten­tion bonus for stay­ing on board. But af­ter three strikes for three top drugs, some may start to ques­tion why they still have the bat.


6. Celldex — Rin­te­ga rindopepimut

Hamp­ton, NJ
$CLDX

CEO: An­tho­ny Maruc­ci

Can­cer vac­cines have had a woe­ful record over the last cou­ple of years. Celldex added an­oth­er dose of dis­as­ter af­ter its try with Rin­te­ga proved so in­ef­fec­tive at treat­ing glioblas­toma the in­de­pen­dent mon­i­tors sug­gest­ed that in­ves­ti­ga­tors go ahead and pull the plug on the piv­otal study last March.

The over­all sur­vival rate ac­tu­al­ly fa­vored the con­trol arm over the drug.

This was a drug that had in­spired con­sid­er­able con­fi­dence from the Phase II, which some in­vestors thought should have been good enough to fu­el an at­tempt at an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval. Some an­a­lysts were al­so let down at the time.

Celldex has sev­er­al da­ta read­outs com­ing up. It’s in bad need of good news.


7. PTC Ther­a­peu­tics — Translar­na ataluren

CEO Stu­art Peltz

South Plain­field, NJ
$PTCT

CEO Stu­art Peltz

The prob­lem: The FDA doesn’t of­ten refuse to file an ap­pli­ca­tion, but it made an ex­cep­tion for PTC.

PTC gets some cred­it for ad­mit­ting that the agency said it didn’t have the da­ta need­ed for an ap­proval of Translar­na (ataluren), which pos­si­bly wasn’t too sur­pris­ing as their drug had failed a mid-stage and piv­otal study for Duchenne mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy.

Reg­u­la­tors have carved out a spe­cial sta­tus for ex­per­i­men­tal drugs that treat Duchenne, though. That helps ex­plain why the Eu­ro­peans gave it a con­di­tion­al ap­proval two years ago and still have done noth­ing af­ter the lat­est set­back. Even NICE is ne­go­ti­at­ing over what it will pay to cov­er the drug, while it has gath­ered sig­nif­i­cant ev­i­dence that the drug doesn’t work well at all.

PTC may have thought that same reg­u­lar­i­ty gen­eros­i­ty would ex­tend to Wash­ing­ton DC. But that was wrong.


8. Io­n­is Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals — IO­N­IS-TTRR

CEO Stan­ley Crooke

Carls­bad, CA
$IONS

CEO Stan­ley Crooke

The prob­lem: Io­n­is changed its name from Isis to put a lit­tle dis­tance be­tween it­self and the no­to­ri­ous ter­ror­ist group. But late­ly, it’s been ter­ror­iz­ing in­vestors with a safe­ty haz­ard on its lead an­ti­sense pro­gram.

Io­n­is CEO Stan­ley Crooke took the lead role in the dra­ma, ex­plain­ing dur­ing a call with an­a­lysts in May that their drug – at high dos­es — had been linked to per­plex­ing low platelet counts in pa­tients. That caused the FDA to trig­ger a clin­i­cal hold on a pro­gram, spurring Glax­o­SmithK­line to put a planned Phase III on a back burn­er.

Rather than re­as­sure in­vestors, Crooke seemed on­ly to make mat­ters steadi­ly worse on his call, de­clin­ing to an­swer some ques­tions, such as whether any pa­tients had died. He pled for more time, but in­vestors are im­pa­tient with un­cer­tain­ty and fear.

Fur­ther com­pli­cat­ing Io­n­is’ po­si­tion is its close com­pe­ti­tion with Al­ny­lam, which was boost­ed on the tra­vails of its ri­val.


9. Ab­b­Vie — Ro­va-T

CEO Richard Gon­za­lez

North Chica­go, IL
$AB­BV

CEO: Richard Gon­za­lez

The prob­lem: Ab­b­Vie is de­vel­op­ing a rep­u­ta­tion as an undis­ci­plined buy­er. And you can put much of that down to Ro­va-T now.

Ab­b­Vie paid $5.8 bil­lion in cash to buy Stem­cen­trx, large­ly based on the promise of the lit­tle-known can­cer drug, which plays along a path­way for stem cells. And it has promised $4 bil­lion more in mile­stones.

But at AS­CO the pre­lim­i­nary da­ta for small cell lung can­cer showed a one-month sur­vival ad­van­tage over his­tor­i­cal trends, caus­ing more than a few an­a­lysts to do a dou­ble take on the drug and the deal. Ab­b­Vie can still turn this around, but the pub­lic de­but of this drug turned in­to a prat­fall.


10. Reg­u­lus — RG-101

CEO Paul Grint

La Jol­la, CA
$RGLS

CEO: Paul Grint

The prob­lem: Reg­u­lus got start­ed nine years ago as a promis­ing joint ven­ture of Al­ny­lam and Io­n­is, which you passed in the num­ber eight spot on this list. Now in the lead up to its 10th an­niver­sary, the com­pa­ny is faced with a fresh clin­i­cal hold on its lead pro­gram.

The biotech’s whole rea­son for be­ing cen­ters on its mi­croR­NA tech. The plat­form led it to a drug, RG-101, that is billed as a po­ten­tial one-time treat­ment for he­pati­tis C. It’s al­so now been linked to two cas­es of jaun­dice, which trig­gered the hold.

The reg­u­la­to­ry ac­tion raised all sorts of thorny is­sues for the com­pa­ny, in­clud­ing why it would have a top pipeline drug in a field where sev­er­al new cures dom­i­nate the field. Even if RG-101 turns out to be a suc­cess, it would still face tough com­pe­ti­tion. (There is no tougher com­peti­tor than Gilead, which al­ways plays to win.)

He­pati­tis C is al­so a huge mar­ket with mil­lions of po­ten­tial pa­tients, of course, but that al­so means the reg­u­la­to­ry bar on safe­ty is high. And now it has to face these tra­vails with a bad­ly beat­en down stock price.

That’s not a pret­ty pic­ture.

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.

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:”.

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.

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.

De­nali un­veils new way of cross­ing blood brain bar­ri­er as the big neu­ro­science bet en­ters its clin­i­cal years

Five years ago, as much of pharma began leaving neuroscience, three big-name scientists from Genentech and some A-list investors, including ARCH and Flagship, made a $217 million bet that new genetic insights and a reliance on biomarkers could bring them success. They called it Denali Therapeutics.

Still, Denali faced the problem that neuroscience developers have faced for decades: How do you get a large molecule across the blood-brain barrier, a natural defense evolved precisely to keep them out? Enzyme replacement therapy, for instance, would be a great candidate to treat several neurological disorders, but enzymes can’t cross the barrier.