Treve­na forges plan to take once-re­ject­ed opi­oid across fin­ish line, af­ter 'pro­duc­tive' FDA meet­ing

Tiny Treve­na may have a new lease on life for its con­tro­ver­sial opi­oid painkiller — re­ject­ed by the FDA last No­vem­ber cit­ing the dearth of drug safe­ty da­ta — fol­low­ing a scathing in­ter­nal staff cri­tique and lop­sided ex­pert pan­el re­view.

The com­pa­ny’s shares $TRVN swelled near­ly 120% on Mon­day af­ter Treve­na said the agency had agreed that the drug’s ex­ist­ing safe­ty data­base would suf­fice for a par­tic­u­lar dose of the drug — help­ing forge a path for­ward for the biotech to re­sub­mit its mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion.

The IV in­jec­tion, oliceri­dine, was de­vel­oped to help adult pa­tients man­age mod­er­ate to se­vere acute pain. It is de­signed to in­duce a sim­i­lar anal­gesic ef­fect as mor­phine, but work faster and re­duce the messy side ef­fects of se­da­tion, res­pi­ra­to­ry de­pres­sion and slow­ing gas­troin­testi­nal motil­i­ty. But mixed tri­al re­sults and gaps in safe­ty da­ta in­clud­ing QT in­ter­val da­ta — the time the heart mus­cle takes to recharge be­tween beats — prompt­ed the reg­u­la­tor to even­tu­al­ly re­ject the opi­oid in ear­ly No­vem­ber. At the time, the agency asked for a big­ger safe­ty data­base for the drug, as well as “cer­tain ad­di­tion­al non­clin­i­cal da­ta and val­i­da­tion re­ports”.

Car­rie Bour­dow

On Mon­day, Treve­na said its cur­rent safe­ty da­ta would sup­port la­bel­ing at a max­i­mum dai­ly dose of 27 mg, and that the FDA had agreed that the com­pa­ny con­duct a study (in­clud­ing place­bo- and pos­i­tive-con­trol arms) in healthy vol­un­teers to amass the re­quest­ed QT in­ter­val da­ta.

The Chester­brook, Penn­syl­va­nia-based drug de­vel­op­er in­tends to sub­mit a pro­to­col and analy­sis plan to the FDA short­ly and, up­on re­ceipt of reg­u­la­to­ry feed­back, ex­pects to ini­ti­ate the study in the first half of 2019. The com­pa­ny added it does not need any more ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta to re­sub­mit its mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion for the drug, but did not pro­vide any de­tails on when that re­sub­mis­sion could be ex­pect­ed.

CEO Car­rie Bour­dow said she was “en­cour­aged by the pro­duc­tive dis­cus­sion” with the FDA in a state­ment.

Max­ine Gowen

Back in 2016, un­der the be­hest of CEO Max­ine Gowen, Treve­na had sug­gest­ed an end-of-Phase II meet­ing with the FDA had cul­mi­nat­ed in a gen­er­al agree­ment about the Phase III de­sign for oliceri­dine, and that Gowen was “very pleased” with the dis­cus­sion. But it was on­ly last year that it was re­vealed that the FDA had in fact in­di­cat­ed oth­er­wise — the agency had dis­agreed with pro­posed dos­ing and the pri­ma­ry end­point in the late-stage pro­gram. This rev­e­la­tion prompt­ed at­tor­neys at Bern­stein Lieb­hard to ac­cuse Treve­na ex­ecs, par­tic­u­lar­ly for­mer CEO Max­ine Gowen, of mis­lead­ing in­vestors for rough­ly two years.

FDA pol­i­cy dic­tates it must not re­lease any in­for­ma­tion re­lat­ed to dis­cus­sions with drug spon­sors un­til a drug is up for re­view. Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb had ini­tial­ly made promis­es to arm the agency to re­veal more in­for­ma­tion, for in­stance the reg­u­la­tor’s rea­son­ing be­hind is­sued CRLs, but that has not come to fruition.

Mean­while, the FDA’s ap­proval of an­oth­er opi­oid amidst a na­tion­al cri­sis of opi­oid abuse, mis­use and ad­dic­tion that kills about 130 Amer­i­cans each day will like­ly cause more fric­tion. Acel­Rx’s $ACRX ap­proval for its opi­oid Dsu­via last year sparked a flur­ry of in­tense crit­i­cism, even prompt­ing a mem­ber of the FDA’s own ex­pert pan­el to call out the agency’s at­ti­tude to­ward opi­oids as “will­ful blind­ness that bor­ders on the crim­i­nal.

Nick Leschly via Getty

UP­DAT­ED: Blue­bird shares sink as an­a­lysts puz­zle out $1.8M stick­er shock and an un­ex­pect­ed de­lay

Blue­bird bio $BLUE has un­veiled its price for the new­ly ap­proved gene ther­a­py Zyn­te­glo (Lenti­Glo­bin), which came as a big sur­prise. And it wasn’t the on­ly un­ex­pect­ed twist in to­day’s sto­ry.

With some an­a­lysts bet­ting on a $900,000 price for the β-tha­lassemia treat­ment in Eu­rope, where reg­u­la­tors pro­vid­ed a con­di­tion­al ear­ly OK, blue­bird CEO Nick Leschly said Fri­day morn­ing that the pa­tients who are suc­cess­ful­ly treat­ed with their drug over 5 years will be charged twice that — $1.8 mil­lion — on the con­ti­nent. That makes this drug the sec­ond most ex­pen­sive ther­a­py on the plan­et, just be­hind No­var­tis’ new­ly ap­proved Zol­gens­ma at $2.1 mil­lion, with an­a­lysts still wait­ing to see what kind of pre­mi­um can be had in the US.

Gene ther­a­pies seize the top of the list of the most ex­pen­sive drugs on the plan­et — and that trend has just be­gun

Anyone looking for a few simple reasons why the gene therapy field has caught fire with the pharma giants need only look at the new list of the 10 most expensive therapies from GoodRx.

Two recently approved gene therapies sit atop this list, with Novartis’ Zolgensma crowned the king of the priciest drugs at $2.1 million. Right below is Luxturna, the $850,000 pioneer from Spark, which Roche is pushing hard to acquire as it adds a gene therapy group to the global mix.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ted Love. HAVERFORD COLLEGE

Glob­al Blood Ther­a­peu­tics poised to sub­mit ap­pli­ca­tion for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval, with new piv­otal da­ta on its sick­le cell dis­ease drug

Global Blood Therapeutics is set to submit an application for accelerated approval in the second-half of this year, after unveiling fresh data from a late-stage trial that showed just over half the patients given the highest dose of its experimental sickle cell disease drug experienced a statistically significant improvement in oxygen-wielding hemoglobin, meeting the study's main goal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

J&J gains an en­thu­si­as­tic en­dorse­ment from Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump for their big new drug Spra­va­to

Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump has lit­tle love for Big Phar­ma, but there’s at least one new drug that just hit the mar­ket which he is en­am­ored with.

Trump, ev­i­dent­ly, has been read­ing up on J&J’s new an­ti-de­pres­sion drug, Spra­va­to. And the pres­i­dent — who of­ten likes to break out in­to a full-throat­ed at­tack on greedy drug­mak­ers — ap­par­ent­ly en­thused about the ther­a­py in a meet­ing with of­fi­cials of Vet­er­ans Af­fairs, which has long grap­pled with de­pres­sion among vet­er­ans.

In a boost to Rit­ux­an fran­chise, Roche nabs quick ap­proval for po­latuzum­ab ve­dotin

Roche’s lat­est an­ti­body-drug con­ju­gate has crossed the FDA fin­ish line, gain­ing an ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval a full two months ahead of sched­ule.

Po­livy, or po­latuzum­ab ve­dotin, is a first-in-class drug tar­get­ing CD79b — a pro­tein promi­nent in B-cell non-Hodgkin lym­phoma. It will now be mar­ket­ed for dif­fuse large B-cell lym­phoma as part of a reg­i­men that al­so in­cludes the chemother­a­py ben­damus­tine and a ver­sion of rit­ux­imab (Rit­ux­an).

An in­censed Cat­a­lyst Phar­ma sues the FDA, ac­cus­ing agency of bow­ing to po­lit­i­cal pres­sure and break­ing fed­er­al law

Af­ter hint­ing it was ex­plor­ing the le­gal­i­ty of the FDA’s ap­proval of a ri­val drug from fam­i­ly-run com­pa­ny Ja­cobus Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, Cat­a­lyst Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals on Wednes­day filed a law­suit against the health reg­u­la­tor — ef­fec­tive­ly ac­cus­ing the agency of bow­ing to po­lit­i­cal pres­sure sur­round­ing sky­rock­et­ing drug prices.

Be­fore Cat­a­lyst’s Fir­dapse (which car­ries an av­er­age an­nu­al list price of $375,000) was sanc­tioned for use in Lam­bert-Eaton myas­thenic syn­drome (LEMS) by the FDA, hun­dreds of pa­tients had been able to ac­cess a sim­i­lar drug from com­pound­ing phar­ma­cies for a frac­tion of the cost, or Ja­cobus’ for free, as part of an FDA-rat­i­fied com­pas­sion­ate use pro­gram. But the ap­proval of the Cat­a­lyst drug — ac­com­pa­nied by mar­ket ex­clu­siv­i­ty span­ning sev­en years — ef­fec­tive­ly pre­clud­ed Ja­cobus and com­pound­ing phar­ma­cies from sell­ing their ver­sions.

Plagued by de­lays, As­traZeneca HQ costs soar to £750M as it edges to­ward 2020 com­ple­tion

In the lat­est up­date on As­traZeneca’s de­lay-prone HQ project, the phar­ma gi­ant re­vealed that the cost of con­struc­tion has swelled to £750 mil­lion ($956 mil­lion) — more than dou­ble the orig­i­nal es­ti­mate in 2013.

The move-in date is still in 2020, a spokesper­son con­firmed, af­ter As­traZeneca pushed pro­ject­ed com­ple­tion from 2016 to 2017, and then to the spring of 2019. While the ini­tial plan called for a £330 mil­lion (then $500 mil­lion) in­vest­ment, the cost bal­looned to £500 mil­lion ($650 mil­lion), and more in the most re­cent up­date.

Fresh analy­sis spot­lights car­dio ben­e­fit of J&J's In­vokana in di­a­betes pa­tients with­out his­to­ry of CV dis­ease

In­vokana sales may be mut­ed, but the di­a­betes drug is set to get some love af­ter its mak­er J&J un­veiled da­ta at the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion meet­ing on Tues­day sug­gest­ing the med­i­cine can con­fer a car­dio­vas­cu­lar ben­e­fit in pa­tients who do not have pre­ex­ist­ing CV dis­ease.

Back in April, J&J had re­port­ed that in the late-stage CRE­DENCE study, the SGLT2 drug scored a 30% re­duc­tion in the risk of a com­pos­ite of ail­ments: a pro­gres­sion to the dou­bling of serum cre­a­ti­nine, end-stage kid­ney dis­ease and re­nal or car­dio­vas­cu­lar death. In terms of sec­ondary end­points, the drug was al­so found be heart-pro­tec­tive: low­er­ing the risk of CV death and hos­pi­tal­iza­tion for heart fail­ure by 31%, as well as ma­jor ad­verse CV events by 20%. In March, the com­pa­ny sub­mit­ted an ap­pli­ca­tion to ex­pand In­vokana’s la­bel to re­flect its im­pact on chron­ic kid­ney dis­ease.

Sil­i­con Val­ley's most an­tic­i­pat­ed slide deck just dropped. What does it mean for bio­phar­ma's dig­i­tal teams?

These aren’t the typ­i­cal slides you’d see at End­points — no mol­e­cules, clin­i­cal pro­grams, or p-val­ues. In­stead, we’ll talk dig­i­tal and in­ter­net trends, fac­tors that elite glob­al brands — re­gard­less of in­dus­try — must first mea­sure and un­der­stand be­fore de­ploy­ing prod­ucts in­to the world. That’s a con­cept that most of our Big Phar­ma au­di­ence is in tune with. Dig­i­tal aware­ness is key to suc­cess in the dis­cov­ery, de­vel­op­ment, and mar­ket­ing of new bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, and most of the ma­jors now have a chief dig­i­tal of­fi­cer: No­var­tis, Sanofi, and Pfiz­er, just to name a few.