Trans­paren­cy: FDA to re­lease more in­fo on pre­mar­ket re­views

The FDA on Wednes­day sought com­ments on a new ef­fort to pro­vide more clar­i­ty on the agency’s phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal ap­pli­ca­tion re­view and de­ci­sion-mak­ing process.

FDA high­light­ed two ef­forts for which it’s seek­ing fur­ther com­ment: A fledg­ling pi­lot pro­gram launched in Jan­u­ary 2018 that sought to pro­vide more trans­paren­cy on spon­sors’ clin­i­cal study re­ports (CSRs) but on­ly re­sult­ed in the re­lease of one CSR, and a new in­te­grat­ed re­view tem­plate, cur­rent­ly be­ing im­ple­ment­ed, that can bet­ter con­vey the FDA’s analy­sis and de­ci­sion-mak­ing in drug ap­provals.

Be­cause of the is­sues as­so­ci­at­ed with the CSR pi­lot (the FDA notes that Janssen was the on­ly spon­sor that agreed to par­tic­i­pate), the agency is con­sid­er­ing whether to fo­cus its ef­forts to bet­ter com­mu­ni­cate the ba­sis for drug ap­provals on the de­vel­op­ment of these new in­te­grat­ed re­view doc­u­ments, rather than on the re­lease of CSRs.

To il­lus­trate the new in­te­grat­ed re­view tem­plate, which has three main com­po­nents — an ex­ec­u­tive sum­ma­ry (in­clud­ing FDA’s ben­e­fit-risk de­ter­mi­na­tion), an in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary as­sess­ment, and ap­pen­dices (con­tain­ing as­sess­ments and analy­ses that are sup­port­ive to key facts/da­ta) — FDA rewrote the orig­i­nal re­view for Mer­ck’s Pifel­tro (do­ravirine) and Del­stri­go (do­ravirine, lamivu­dine, and teno­fovir diso­prox­il fu­marate) to pro­vide an ex­am­ple.

“This new re­view tem­plate would re­place the cur­rent doc­u­men­ta­tion where each dis­ci­pline pro­vides a sep­a­rate ap­pli­ca­tion re­view doc­u­ment. The up­dat­ed tem­plate would be a col­lab­o­ra­tive doc­u­ment with in­put from clin­i­cal, clin­i­cal phar­ma­col­o­gy, bio­sta­tis­tics, tox­i­col­o­gy re­view­ers, and oth­er dis­ci­plines based up­on the is­sues raised by the ap­pli­ca­tion. FDA be­lieves this pro­gram will al­so meet the goal of ef­fec­tive­ly com­mu­ni­cat­ing the ba­sis for new drug ap­provals,” the agency said.

The new re­view process and tem­plate were de­vel­oped un­der the New Drugs Reg­u­la­to­ry Pro­gram Mod­ern­iza­tion, which is part of an ef­fort to en­hance the new drugs reg­u­la­to­ry pro­gram through 2020. Oth­er ini­tia­tives re­lat­ed to this mod­ern­iza­tion deal with speed­ing IND re­views, new post-mar­ket safe­ty man­age­ment process­es, new staffing process­es and re­struc­tur­ing the clin­i­cal of­fices and di­vi­sions with­in FDA’s Of­fice of New Drugs.

“The pro­posed changes in­crease the num­ber of of­fices that over­see our re­view di­vi­sions from six to eight – and in­creas­es the num­ber of clin­i­cal re­view di­vi­sions from our cur­rent 18 di­vi­sions to 26 plus sev­en di­vi­sions of phar­ma­col­o­gy/tox­i­col­o­gy,” the FDA said.

And as far as trans­paren­cy at the agency goes, when for­mer FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb an­nounced the CSR pi­lot, he al­so men­tioned the pos­si­bil­i­ty of re­leas­ing cer­tain redact­ed com­plete re­sponse let­ters (CRLs) to help in­form the pub­lic about how a drug was re­ject­ed by the agency. But the FDA has not fur­ther dis­cussed the re­lease of CRLs.

In terms of what the FDA wants to hear from stake­hold­ers on the new in­te­grat­ed re­view and tem­plate, the agency asks:

  1. How does the new for­mat of the in­te­grat­ed re­view in­form your knowl­edge of FDA’s ba­sis for mak­ing de­ci­sions?
  2. How does the us­abil­i­ty and ac­ces­si­bil­i­ty of in­for­ma­tion in the new in­te­grat­ed re­view com­pare to the orig­i­nal re­view post­ed on FDA’s web­site?
  3. How could the in­for­ma­tion pro­vid­ed in the new in­te­grat­ed re­view for­mat be used, if at all?
  4. What do you be­lieve would be the po­ten­tial ad­van­tages and dis­ad­van­tages of post­ing re­view doc­u­ments in this for­mat?
  5. Based on the in­te­grat­ed re­view, were the is­sues that con­cerned the re­view team clear and un­der­stand­able? If so, what helped achieve this? If not, what can be im­proved?
  6. Is there im­por­tant in­for­ma­tion in the in­te­grat­ed re­view that is dif­fi­cult to lo­cate or should be added?

First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

So­cial im­age: Jacque­lyn Mar­tin. AP Im­ages

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Vlad Coric (Biohaven)

In an­oth­er dis­ap­point­ment for in­vestors, FDA slaps down Bio­haven’s re­vised ver­sion of an old ALS drug

Biohaven is at risk of making a habit of disappointing its investors. 

Late Friday the biotech $BHVN reported that the FDA had rejected its application for riluzole, an old drug that they had made over into a sublingual formulation that dissolves under the tongue. According to Biohaven, the FDA had a problem with the active ingredient used in a bioequivalence study back in 2017, which they got from the Canadian drugmaker Apotex.

Francesco De Rubertis

Medicxi is rolling out its biggest fund ever to back Eu­rope's top 'sci­en­tists with strange ideas'

Francesco De Rubertis built Medicxi to be the kind of biotech venture player he would have liked to have known back when he was a full time scientist.

“When I was a scientist 20 years ago I would have loved Medicxi,’ the co-founder tells me. It’s the kind of place run by and for investigators, what the Medicxi partner calls “scientists with strange ideas — a platform for the drug hunter and scientific entrepreneur. That’s what I wanted when I was a scientist.”

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter a decade, Vi­iV CSO John Pot­tage says it's time to step down — and he's hand­ing the job to long­time col­league Kim Smith

ViiV Healthcare has always been something unique in the global drug industry.

Owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer — with GSK in the lead as majority owner — it was created 10 years ago in a time of deep turmoil for the field as something independent of the pharma giants, but with access to lots of infrastructural support on demand. While R&D at the mother ship inside GSK was souring, a razor-focused ViiV provided a rare bright spot, challenging Gilead on a lucrative front in delivering new combinations that require fewer therapies with a more easily tolerated regimen.

They kept a massive number of people alive who would otherwise have been facing a death sentence. And they made money.

And throughout, John Pottage has been the chief scientific and chief medical officer.

Until now.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chas­ing Roche's ag­ing block­buster fran­chise, Am­gen/Al­ler­gan roll out Avastin, Her­ceptin knock­offs at dis­count

Let the long battle for biosimilars in the cancer space begin.

Amgen has launched its Avastin and Herceptin copycats — licensed from the predecessors of Allergan — almost two years after the FDA had stamped its approval on Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb) and three months after the Kanjinti OK (trastuzumab-anns). While the biotech had been fielding biosimilars in Europe, this marks their first foray in the US — and the first oncology biosimilars in the country.

Seer adds ex-FDA chief Mark Mc­Clel­lan to the board; Her­cules Cap­i­tal makes it of­fi­cial for new CEO Scott Bluestein

→ On the same day it announced a $17.5 million Series C, life sciences and health data company Seer unveiled that it had lured former FDA commissioner and ex-CMS administrator Mark McClellan on to its board. “Mark’s deep understanding of the health care ecosystem and visionary insights on policy reform will be crucial in informing our thinking as we work to bring our liquid biopsy and life sciences products to market,” said Seer chief and founder Omid Farokhzad in a statement.

Daniel O'Day

No­var­tis hands off 3 pre­clin­i­cal pro­grams to the an­tivi­ral R&D mas­ters at Gilead

Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day’s new task hunting up a CSO for the company isn’t stopping the industry’s dominant antiviral player from doing pipeline deals.

The big biotech today snapped up 3 preclinical antiviral programs from pharma giant Novartis, with drugs promising to treat human rhinovirus, influenza and herpes viruses. We don’t know what the upfront is, but the back end has $291 million in milestones baked in.

Vas Narasimhan, AP Images

On a hot streak, No­var­tis ex­ecs run the odds on their two most im­por­tant PhI­II read­outs. Which is 0.01% more like­ly to suc­ceed?

Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan is living in the sweet spot right now.

The numbers are running a bit better than expected, the pipeline — which he assembled as development chief — is performing and the stock popped more than 4% on Thursday as the executive team ran through their assessment of Q2 performance.

Year-to-date the stock is up 28%, so the investors will be beaming. Anyone looking for chinks in their armor — and there are plenty giving it a shot — right now focus on payer acceptance of their $2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, where it’s early days. And CAR-T continues to underperform, but Novartis doesn’t appear to be suffering from it.

So what could go wrong?

Actually, not much. But Tim Anderson at Wolfe pressed Narasimhan and his development chief John Tsai to pick which of two looming Phase III readouts with blockbuster implication had the better odds of success.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

H1 analy­sis: The high-stakes ta­ble in the biotech deals casi­no is pay­ing out some record-set­ting win­nings

For years the big trend among dealmakers at the major players has been centered on ratcheting down upfront payments in favor of bigger milestones. Better known as biobucks for some. But with the top 15 companies competing for the kind of “transformative” pacts that can whip up some excitement on Wall Street, with some big biotechs like Regeneron now weighing in as well, cash is king at the high stakes table.

We asked Chris Dokomajilar, the head of DealForma, to crunch the numbers for us, looking over the top 20 deals for the past decade and breaking it all down into the top alliances already created in 2019. Gilead has clearly tipped the scales in terms of the coin of the bio-realm, with its record-setting $5 billion upfront to tie up to Galapagos’ entire pipeline.

Dokomajilar notes:

We’re going to need a ‘three comma club’ for the deals with over $1 billion in total upfront cash and equity. The $100 million-plus club is getting crowded at 164 deals in the last decade with new deals being added towards the top of the chart. 2019 already has 14 deals with at least $100 million in upfront cash and equity for a total year-to-date of over $9 billion. That beats last year’s $8 billion and sets a record.

Add upfronts and equity payments and you get $11.5 billion for the year, just shy of last year’s record-setting $11.8 billion.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Part club, part guide, part land­lord: Arie Bellde­grun is blue­print­ing a string of be­spoke biotech com­plex­es in glob­al boom­towns — start­ing with Boston

The biotech industry is getting a landlord, unlike anything it’s ever known before.

Inspired by his recent experiences scrounging for space in Boston and the Bay Area, master biotech builder, investor, and global dealmaker Arie Belldegrun has organized a new venture to build a new, 250,000 square foot biopharma building in Boston’s Seaport district — home to Vertex and a number of up-and-coming biotech players.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.