Biotech Strategy Blog

Commentary on Science, Innovation & New Products with a focus on Oncology, Hematology & Cancer Immunotherapy

Posts from the ‘FDA’ category

The decision expected this Thursday by the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) may impact the development and approval of biosimilars.

US Capitol Photo Credit Pieter DroppertPart of the PPACA signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 was the Biologics Price Competition & Innovation Act (BPCI).

This amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS) to create a pathway under section 351(k) for the licensing of biological products that are “interchangeable” or “biosimilar” to an FDA-licensed product.

In addition, to a licensing pathway, the regulatory framework introduced “exclusivity” periods that prevented approval of a 351(k) application until 12 years after the first license of the reference product. I doubt very much that Congress will want to have to negotiate exclusivity provisions again.

I am not a regulatory expert, but my understanding is that if the Court declares the PPACA unconstitutional in its entirety, the BPCI would be lost too.

At the risk of venturing an opinion, I don’t think the Court will want to cause collateral damage to uncontroversial parts of the PPACA such as the BPCI, but it is something to watch out for this Thursday.

Many commentators think it likely the Court will uphold certain parts of the PPACA and invalidate other provisions. This was the approach the Court followed in a decision earlier this week on Arizona Immigration Law (Arizona v. United States).

However, until a decision is published by the Court, nobody knows.  Thursday is set to be a landmark day whatever the Court decides.

Update June 28, 2012

In a 5:4 opinion, the Supreme Court has upheld several provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Court did not rule the PPACA unconstitutional in its entirety which was the only way the biosimilars provisions would have been lost. Therefore, from a biosimilar regulatory perspective, nothing has changed as a result of today’s decision – the exclusivity and approval pathway are maintained. This is good news for the biotechnology industry.

1 Comment

A standing room only audience at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) heard from several distinguished speakers on what the future of cancer drug therapy is likely to look like: combinations of novel cancer agents.

This AACR session was one of the highlights of the meeting and would have merited from being part of the plenary program.

Jeffrey Engelman from MGH persuasively presented on why we need combination therapies to overcome resistance. He noted that:

  • Most cancers are not sensitive to currently available single-agent therapies
  • Even when sensitive to single-agent therapies, cancers develop resistance, often necessitating combinations

One of the challenges of this approach will be “identifying effective combinations,” he said.

Roy Herbst from Yale, presented on some of the practical challenges involved with the early phase testing of two drugs, and challenged the audience with a critical question:

“Do we possess the necessary translational tools that will help us identify the right drug combinations, ratios and schedules with the right patient?”

Stuart Lutzker from Genentech described their experiences of clinical trials with rational drug combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab for HER2+ breast cancer.  He concluded that:

“Rational drug combinations have begun to yield exciting Phase III results and should be preferred over empiric drug combinations.”

The Pharma Strategy Blog video interview with Gordon Mills from ECCO/ESMO 2011 in Stockholm offers some interesting insights into how MD Anderson are helping to facilitate academia-industry combination trials with novel compounds from different companies in order to achieve more rational drug design and improve outcomes for people with cancer.

If two or more novel cancer drugs are required to interrupt key pathways or to avoid adaptive resistance, what does this mean for the regulatory strategy?

Janet Woodcock addressed some of these challenges in her AACR presentation, and discussed how the:

“FDA would not want to approve a combination regimen with two new agents unless each contributed to the effect.”

Draft guidance on “Codevelopment of Two or More Unmarketed Investigational Drugs for Use in Combination” was published by the Agency in December 2010. Click here for a PDF copy.

The document gives examples of a number of different phase II trial designs that can be used to demonstrate the contribution each drug makes to the combination, and the additive effect seen.

As an example, if each drug in a combination has activity and can be administered individually then the guidance document suggests a multi-arm phase II trial may be needed that compares the impact of either drug alone versus the combination and standard of care.  An adaptive trial may also be used if appropriate.

Dr Woodcock noted that future cancer drug development is likely to include increasing use of combinations, adaptive trials to evaluate various drug and diagnostic combinations and increasing attention to the use of novel biomarkers.

The message I took home from the AACR annual meeting is that the future of cancer therapy is in combinations, and we can expect more clinical trials with two unapproved agents (novel-novel combinations) in the future.

4 Comments

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, so it was good news this morning when Medivation & Astellas issued a press release that showed positive data from the phase 3 AFFIRM trial for MDV3100.

MDV3100 produced a 4.8-month advantage in median overall survival compared to placebo.

The estimated median survival for men treated with MDV3100 was 18.4 months compared with 13.6 months for men treated with placebo.

MDV3100 provided a 37 percent reduction in risk of death compared to placebo (Hazard Ratio=0.631).

To put the 4.8 month survival advantage in context, this compares favorably with 3.9 months for abiraterone (Hazard Ratio =0.646), in the COU-AA-301 trial.

Positive data was expected given the sound scientific rationale behind MDV3100 and the preliminary data (abstract 4501) presented at the ASCO annual meeting this year. J Clin Oncol 29: 2011 (suppl; abstr 4501).

The drug has a high affinity for the androgen receptor (AR) that is highly expressed on prostate cancer cells.  You can read an excellent interview on Pharma Strategy Blog with Charles Sawyers, who was one of the co-inventors.

MDV3011 blocks the androgen receptor (AR) from moving into the nucleus and activating growth genes and is a more complete inhibitor of AR than bicalutamide.

One hot topic of conversation at ASCO was the potential to combine MDV3100 (androgen receptor blocker) with abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) (androgen synthesis inhibitor), thereby shutting down upstream and downstream activity of the driving receptor in advanced prostate cancer.  The scientific rationale for this appears sound, so it is likely that a combination clinical trial may well be done to test this hypothesis at some point in the future.

MDV3100 has a significant advantage over abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) in that concomitant steroids are not required. Daily steroids have their side effects.  Urologists in particular will be attracted to MDV3100 and its ease of use.

Clinical trials in prostate cancer are ongoing with a multitude of new emerging therapies including TAK-700, Cabozantinib (XL184), radium-223 chloride (Alpharadin), BPX-101, Prostvac-VF, ipilumumab, Custirsen (OGX-011), dasatinib (Sprycel), lenalidomide (Revlimid) and ARN-509 to name but a few.

It is a therapeutic area with a lot going on after very little activity for a decade. The positive interim data for MDV3100 announced today is good news for prostate cancer patients, and we await presentation of the data next year.

Medivation and Astellas plan to hold a pre-NDA meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early 2012, so US approval could be possible later next year.

One piece of hot news at the 2011 European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress (twitter #EMCC2011) taking place in Stockholm this weekend is the data on radium-223 chloride (Alpharadin) in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. The phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial results were presented in yesterday’s presidential symposia by Dr Chris Parker, Consultant Clinical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital.

Dr-Chris-Parker-Alpharadin-Presentation-Stockholm-Cancer-Congress-2011

The Scandinavian location for the presentation could not have been better, given that Alpharadin was developed by the Norwegian company Algeta. Bayer Schering Pharma AG have the worldwide commercial rights, but Algeta maintains a co-promotion option in the United States.

I first picked up on Alpharadin in a presentation given at the American Urological Association (AUA) annual meeting by Oliver Sartor (Tulane) earlier this year when he reviewed new prostate cancer products in development.

Algeta-Radium-223-Chloride-ASCO 2011-Abstract-4620At the ASCO 2011 meeting in Chicago there was a poster on the Alpharadin Phase 2 trial data (see the figure on the right) that caught my attention given that it showed an overall survival (OS) advantage.  This news was, however, largely drowned by the interest in cabozantinib (XL184).

The result is that Alpharadin has to many come out of left field. It is a promising compound for the treatment of prostate cancer that will provide new treatment options for patients with metastatic disease. In particular, use in combination with other therapies such as abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) may prolong survival to a greater extent than either does individually.

Currently, radium-223 chloride (Alpharadin) is only in investigational use and is not approved in Europe or the United States. It is, however, on the fast track towards FDA approval in 2012.

ALSYMPCA phase 3 prostate cancer data presentation ESMO ECCO 2011What makes Alpharadin exciting as a new treatment option for castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is that the ALSYMPCA trial data shows that it not only provides a significant median overall survival (OS) benefit of 2.8 months compared to placebo (14 months versus 11.2 months, p=0.00185, HR 0.695), but significantly delays the time to first skeletal event by 5.2 months (13.6 months versus 8.4 months, p=0.00046, HR 0.610).

The overal survival (OS) benefit seen in the ALYSMPCA phase 3 trial is comparable to other approved agents in the post-docetaxel setting for CRPC. However, where it is unique is in the additional effect it has on skeletal related events (SRE), a common occurrence in metastatic prostate cancer.  Bone metastases are painful and have a significant impact on quality of life.

Other compounds that target the bone microenviroment such as denosumab (Xgeva), provide a delay in the time to first skeletal event in prostate cancer patients but to-date have not been shown to confer an overall survival advantage. This means that Alphardin is the first bone targeted agent to confer both an overall survival and a delay in time to first skeletal event.

After Dr Parker’s presentation of the ALSYMPCA phase 3 trial data yesterday here in Stockholm,  Professor Wim Oyen of the Department of Nuclear Medicine in Nijmegen discussed the data.

What he noted was the high tolerability of Ra-223 chloride (Alpharadin) as compared to other radiopharmaceuticals for treatment of patients with bone metastases.  He discussed how the emission of alpha particles allows for a short range effect (a few cell diameters) that is very localized, but with a large biological effect.

Oyen highlighted the “opportunity for improving patient outcome by adding Ra-223 in regimens of combination therapy,” something that Dr Parker speculated about in his media briefing.

Professor Oyen also saw “an opportunity for improving patient outcome by using Ra-223 in an adjuvant setting.”  His conclusion based on the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial data presented was that radium-223 chloride (Alpharadin) is an “effective, very well tolerated and convenient treatment modality.

 

Dr Parker mentioned to me, while waiting for a train back to Stockholm, that the ALSYMPCA trial data he presented had not yet been submitted for publication. He said he would be disappointed if it did not appear in the New England Journal of Medicine. Given that it is groundbreaking and “practice changing,” I would be surprised if it is not published in the NEJM in due course.

I am sure that we will be hearing more about radium-223 chloride (Alpharadin) in the forthcoming months, especially now it is on fast track to FDA approval in 2012.

Although not a cure for prostate cancer, the ALSYMPCA trial data presented here in Stockholm is further good news for patients, and will provide a potential new treatment option for urologists and oncologists.

1 Comment

The FDA earlier this week issued a safety alert to doctors that repackaged bevacizumab (Avastin®) had caused serious eye infections in 12 patients in Florida. The New York Times today reports that five patients at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Los Angeles have gone blind as a result of an eye infection following injection of compounded Avastin.

I have written previously about the Lucentis v Avastin debate and the results in the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration treatment trial (CATT) published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It is not good news that contamination has occurred while compounding bevacizumab (Avastin) from sterile100mg/4mL single use preservative-free vials into individual 1mL syringes.

Genentech/Roche may see this news as reinforcing their position that ranibizumab (Lucentis®) should only be used, since it comes in the correct dose for injection in the eye. However, this ignores the reality caused by the fact that Lucentis is approximately 40x the cost of compounded Avastin ($1950 versus $50).

This week’s news does not support the proposition that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab is not safe and effective for the treatment of AMD, nor any suggestion that pharmacies properly accredited and experienced in aseptic techniques are not qualified to do this. Pharmacists compound drugs everyday.

As the FDA notes in their alert:

“Health care professionals should be aware that repackaging sterile drugs without proper aseptic technique can compromise product sterility, potentially putting the patient at risk for microbial infections.  Health care professionals should ensure that drug products are obtained from appropriate, reliable sources and properly administered.”

However, there is no evidence to suggest that the pharmacies who undertook the Avastin compounding that led to the infection were not “appropriate, reliable sources and properly administered.”

The New York Times notes that the the contaminated Avastin came from the pharmacy at the main campus of the V.A. Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.  There is no mention of whether the VA pharmacists did the compounding themselves or sourced the drug elsewhere.

According to a news report in the Florida SunSentinel, the pharmacy identified as the source of the infection in Florida is InfuPharma. This is not a retail pharmacist in the high street, but a specialist compounding pharmacy that advertises sterile preparations for numerous products. Licensed pharmacists run this specialist company and looking at their website they do appear to be experienced in this area.

Endophthalmitis is a serious eye infection that may lead to loss of vision. The contamination should not have occurred.  These incidents should not, however, be blown out of proportion in the Lucentis v. Avastin debate.

Sadly, infections and contamination happen in hospitals and the healthcare industry all the time. Even the FDA approved manufacturing facilities of pharmaceutical companies have experienced problems in recent years.  Last summer, BMS experienced issues with sterile manufacturing standards at their Puerto Rico plant following FDA inspections.  Earlier this week, Baxter announced they had filed a lawsuit against Teva for indemnification over a hepatitis C outbreak following reuse of oversize propofol vials.

The news of serious eye infections with repackaged Avastin must, therefore, be put in context. There are countless patients around the world who have benefited from intravitreal injections of Avastin for treatment of their age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The issue raised by the infections in Florida and Los Angeles is whether there is adequate inspection and certification of compounding pharmacies, and whether there is a need for more State regulation and inspections in this area.

Disclosure:  I have written freelance articles for Pharmacy Today, the magazine of the American Pharmacists Association.

1 Comment

Earlier this week Bayer & Algeta announced that Alpharadin™ (radium-223 chloride) had received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

Bayer signed an agreement with Norwegian based Algeta in 2009 for the global commercial rights to Alpharadin™, with Algeta retaining a 50/50 co-promotion and profit-sharing in the United States.

According to the Algeta August 23, 2011 press release, in light of the FDA fast track designation they plan on filing for United States approval in mid-2012, ahead of previous expectations.

At the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago this year, phase II clinical trial data for Alpharadin™ was presented during the poster session (Abstract #4620).  You can obtain a copy of the poster here.

ASCO Alpharadin™ Phase 2 Data showed increase in Overall Survival

What impressed me when I saw the poster and talked to Gillies O’Brien-Tear, the Chief Medical Officer for Algeta, was the increase in overall survival (OS) seen. In the phase 2 study presented, Alpharadin™ improved OS by 4.5 months versus placebo when added to the standard of care in patients with CRPC and bone metastases.

To me this stands out from other drugs that are targeting bone metastases in CRPC, such as cabozantinib (XL184) and denosumab (Xgeva®), where to my knowledge no overall survival benefits have yet been seen.

Despite the lack of OS benefit, Amgen announced earlier this week on Aug 22nd, they had made a supplemental BLA application for denosumab to expand the indication to include the prevention of bone metastases in CRPC. The PDUFA date is April 12, 2012.

Will Xgeva® and Alpharadin™ be viewed as potential competitors or used synergistically? It will be interesting to see any data that shows the impact of Alpharadin™ on bone pain and quality of life, and how physicians view the new treatment options that may be available to them.

How does Radium-223 chloride act? 

It is a calcium mimetic that is taken up by bone, where the radium then emits alpha-particles that act on the prostate cancer bone metastases.  The radiation is only short range (2-10 cell diameters) which limits its toxicity to healthy tissue and results in localized and focused radiation that kills metastatic cancer cells in the bone.

The day after the phase 2 results were presented at ASCO, Algeta and Bayer announced on June 6, positive data from the interim analysis of the phase 3 ALSYMPCA (ALpharadin in SYMptomatic Prostate CAncer patients) trial.

This study began in June 2008, with enrollment of 922 patients completed in January 2011. According to the June 6 press release, the interim analysis of the ALSYMPCA trial showed a statistically significant increase in overall survival in CRPC patients receiving Alpharadin™ compared to placebo.

Median overall survival was 14.0 months for Alpharadin™ and 11.2 months for placebo (two-sided p-value = 0.0022, HR = 0.699)

As a result of the interim analysis, the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the trial be stopped and patients on the placebo arm offered treatment with Alpharadin™. Dr Chris Parker, from the Royal Marsden Hospital, and Principal Investigator of ALSYMPCA, said:  

“Based on the observed survival benefit and its safety profile, Alpharadin may become an important treatment for patients with bone metastases from advanced prostate cancer.”

At the forthcoming European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress in Stockholm (co-sponsored by ECCO, ESMO and ESTRO), the phase III Alpharadin data for the ALSYMPCA trial will be presented as a late breaking abstract on September 24, 2011 in the Presidential Session.

The abstracts for the meeting are not yet available, but in the light of the FDA Fast Track designation earlier this week, and the fact the ALSYMPCA trial results will be presented in a plenary session at Stockholm, positive data is expected.

The prostate cancer market is certainly heating up with the approval earlier this year of Zytiga™ (abiraterone acetate) and several products in late stage development such as Alpharadin™, MDV3100, TAK-700 and custirsen (OGX-011). It’s good news for patients that new treatment options may be available before too long.  As to how these new therapies are used, sequenced and combined, that is set to be the topic of conversation at medical and scientific meetings over the coming year.

Yesterday, it was announced that Google had reached a settlement with the United States Department of Justice and would forfeit $500M in gross revenue received from Canadian online pharmacies advertising to US consumers through the Google AdWords program.

According to the Government, these advertisements then led US consumers to buy and illegally import prescription drugs from Canada.

The settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) was in many ways inevitable.  Once the Government decided to go after Google to the extent of submitting fake online ads on behalf of fake online pharmacies, that Google ran and provided customer support to, the question was not if Google would settle, but for how much?

$500 million sounds a lot, but in the context of 2010 revenue of $29.3 billion, it’s only 1.7% of last year’s sales (if my calculations are correct).  It comes across as a slap on the wrist as Google is only required to forfeit to the Government the “illegal” revenue they obtained over the course of several years.

When Google advised investors earlier this year that they had accrued $500M in anticipation of a possible settlement, the company noted (emphasis added):

“Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe it will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

There is no fine or punitive damages. Reaching a settlement to avoid a criminal prosecution makes sound business sense.

In the Google AdWords case, the reality is that many prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada. Many senior citizens living close to the border go to Canada to obtain their drugs. Although open to abuse, there is nothing inherently wrong in consumers wanting to buy the same product cheaper, if they can readily do so. The power of the internet to reach consumers wherever they may be has brought the power of economics and market forces to all of us.

What the Google/DOJ settlement doesn’t do is address the underlying reason why are many prescription drugs more expensive in the United States compared to Canada?  In other words, it shoots the messenger rather than deal with the underlying problem. If prescription drugs were the same price in both countries, this problem simply would not exist – there would be no market for online pharmacies in Canada.

The settlement announced yesterday and all the compliance features included within it will not stop the practice of US consumers looking to Canada for cheaper drugs. It just means that one advertising and marketing channel has been eliminated.

As Sally Church noted recently on Pharma Strategy Blog, the increasing price of new oncology drugs in the United States is unsustainable.

Why should US consumers pay more for drugs than their neighbors in Canada? After all the currencies are similar in value, and I’d argue the countries are comparable in terms of industrialization, wages and society i.e. we are comparing similar countries in terms of economic development. We are not comparing the price of drugs in a developed country to the price in the third world.

As the world’s largest market for pharmaceuticals, why does the US have the highest prices for prescription drugs? The difference is in the health care systems – the US is a free market where the price is what the market will sustain. Drug prices are not regulated, imports from cheaper countries are prohibited, and the payors (insurance companies) are able to pass on the cost of higher drugs direct to the consumer through higher insurance premiums.

In Canada, the Provincial governments are the payors and they regulate and control the price of drugs.  The United States is a great market for pharmaceutical companies (maximum profits) but poor for the consumer who picks up the price of branded prescription drugs whether through high co-pays or higher insurance costs.

As a result the healthcare system in the United States remains fundamentally broken, despite recent attempts at reform, and to me the Google/DOJ settlement is yet another reminder of this.

With the collapse of the Dendreon share price today following poor sales data (Adam Feuerstein on The Street has an excellent write up about this), attention has again focused on the prostate cancer market.

Zytiga (abiraterone acetate) was recently approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), following FDA approval earlier this year.

The EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use granted the marketing authorization for Zytiga at it’s July 2011 meeting.  The approval noted,

“The poor prognosis of the target patient population represents a high unmet medical need while the novel mechanism of action of abiraterone has the potential to offer an alternative therapeutic option for these patients.”

What does this mean for sales of sanofi-aventis’ cabazitaxel (Jevtana), which was approved in Europe earlier this year?

Given that both drugs have approval in the same indication for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) post-docetaxel chemotherapy, and the price is likely to be comparable, my guess would be that Jevtana sales will take a big hit.

After a sick prostate cancer patient has undertaken several cycles of chemotherapy with docetaxel, why would they not want to take an oral pill as opposed to another chemotherapy drug, which does have a less than stellar adverse-event profile.  The answer is they will probably take a chemo-holiday and use Zytiga.

Jevtana simply came to the market too late in Europe, and Zytiga gained accelerated approval.  It’s a reminder that we live in a dynamic pharmaceutical market place, as the news last night from Dendreon has also reminded us.

Bevacizumab (Avastin®) should be withdrawn for metastatic breast cancer. That is the unequivocal recommendation of the Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) yesterday.

Despite the passionate patient advocacy in favor of continued approval, withdrawal is the right decision and it is hard to see the FDA overruling ODAC, given the safety issues such as bowel perforations and relative lack of efficacy.  The patient advocacy at this week’s public hearing was fundamentally biased, those who died early and who received no treatment benefit are not alive to stand up and share their experiences.

The bottom line is that Genentech were unable to identify the sub-set of patients who might benefit from the drug.  They simply did not have the data, and the reality is that treating all potential HER2- patients in the hope of finding the few who might respond is not a rational drug development or marketing strategy, especially when those that don’t respond may do worse on the drug.

Personalized medicine requires a thorough understanding of the science and molecular biology of a disease.  Pfizer recently showed an excellent example of this with crizotinib that targets ALK mutations in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

It is disappointing that a scientifically orientated company such as Genentech would continue to try and push Avastin in Breast Cancer when the data is clearly unconvincing to ODAC.   But, if we look at how Genentech approached the Lucentis v Off-label Avastin issue in AMD, with a 40x higher cost for using Lucentis, then what we see is that commercial decisions, and maximization of profit has become more important than doing what’s right for patients.

BIO 2011 Presentation Personalized Medicine Payment Sessions

This is a flawed long-term strategy in my opinion. Society cannot afford to pay for treatments that don’t work in many patients or pay for treatments that are excessively priced. We are already seeing “pay for results” being introduced in Europe, notably England and Italy where payors are reimbursing companies only for those patients that respond.

Personalized medicine is the future. This requires targeted therapies that are aimed at patients who we can predict will have a good chance of responding based on our understanding of mutations, molecular biology and biomarkers.

Avastin in metastatic breast cancer is not an example of personalized medicine and should be withdrawn from the market for this indication.

At this past weekend’s Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) conference in Philadelphia, Ed Silverman from Pharmalot moderated a panel on “efforts to revive the drug delivery pipeline.” He drew the attention of the audience to FDA data, published earlier this year, on the number of applications/approvals for new molecular entities (NME).
Source: redrawn from FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) presentation.  The data in my opinion is a little ambiguous as to the true state of the Pharma industry.  While the number of applications declined last year to a five year low of 23, from a previous 5 year high in 2009 of 37, the number of NME approvals at 21 was only just below the 5 year average of 22.

What I took from this data (see chart), was the fact that in 2010 the number of approvals as a percentage of applications was the highest in 5 years (91%) as compared to 70% in 2009.  It is too early to tell from this data whether companies are presenting better applications to FDA, or if this data reflects the fact that new products are being terminated if the phase III trial results are not promising.

For the biotechnology industry, the challenge remains that bringing a new product to market is an expensive and risky proposition.  However, it is clear that there are some factors that are likely to be key factors for success, including:

  • Improved understanding of the biology of disease
  • Better clinical trial design
  • More rigorous patient selection criteria
  • Increased time in the phase II stage

As big Pharma scales back R&D funding in favor of shareholder value and baby biotechnology companies struggle with the challenges of whether to grow or sell out, it will be interesting to see how the FDA application/approval data evolves.

error: Content is protected !!