Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

ASGCT2024: FDA’s Marks on Accelerated Approval, Gene Therapy Costs and More

 “$4.25 million!!!”

That’s the email Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), said he received (give or take an exclamation point) from Commissioner Robert Califf when Orchard Therapeutics revealed the price tag of its newly approved Lenmeldy, a one-time gene therapy for metachromatic leukodystrophy.

While Marks clarified that the regulator does not consider cost when making individual approval decisions, he explained that part of his job is to consider the entire ecosystem of these therapies, and that such prices will ultimately prevent the field of gene therapy from being able to treat more common diseases on a global scale. He added that in this context, he and his colleagues must work to improve factors such as manufacturing to help make these novel therapies more widely accessible. “We do have to think about cost on this.”

That was but one topic of conversation between Marks and Kristin Van Goor, U.S. head of global regulatory policy and innovation at Takeda and chair of the ASGCT Regulatory Affairs Committee, in a fireside chat at the American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy’s 27th annual conference Wednesday morning. Marks and Van Goor also discussed at length the use of the accelerated approval pathway, ongoing staffing efforts at the FDA’s new Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) and much more.

Accelerated Approval Considerations for Gene Therapies

“Accelerated approval has obviously been pretty controversial,” Marks said. Especially for diseases with big patient populations, there are “people who think we’re using it too much or too little.”

Confining his comments to accelerated approval for rare diseases, he emphasized that the regulatory pathway can help bring potentially life-saving therapies to market sooner. “[Being able to] use a biomarker or intermediate endpoint is a powerful way to get over the finish line initially,” he said—something that is particularly useful for neurologic diseases where it might take a few years to gather sufficient data on a traditional endpoint like function or survival. He added that this is especially valuable for smaller companies that don’t have an established revenue stream.

One consideration in the risk-benefit calculation for accelerated approval, Marks said, is whether there are other treatment options. He raised the example of hemophilia B, for which Pfizer earned traditional approval of its gene therapy Beqvez last month. “The gene therapies were developed in the background of multiple conventional therapies,” including protein-based therapies and bispecific monoclonal antibodies. “You had a large therapeutic landscape, which makes the risk-benefit calculus different than when you have a disorder for which there is just nothing out there.”

He also noted that if the FDA is going to err, he’d rather err on the side of bringing a potentially useful therapy to the patients who need it. “I would much rather take the chance that we’re occasionally going to make an error and give something an accelerated approval than have people so desperate that they’re going out and either going overseas to get unproven therapies, which happens, or using other pathways [where] the FDA doesn’t have much regulatory oversight.”

Van Goor pushed him on what that error rate might be, noting that Ellis Unger, a cardiologist who led the FDA’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, has previously thrown out the number 70%Marks said 70% would be the lower bound of the interval. “Our goal is to get it right 90% of the time or more.” That said, he added, “we’re not keeping score.”

He added that the regulator would only choose to withdraw a gene therapy from market if “it’s pretty clear” that any benefits do not outweigh the risks. “Hopefully we won’t have to have that happen, but I think it’s important to know it’s an option.”

Moving Beyond AAVs: CRISPR Could Move the Needle on Gene Therapy

As has been a theme here at ASGCT, Marks brought up the issue of AAV manufacturing. He gushed over the idea of AAVs, which he said he just loves, but he was honest about the manufacturing challenges that threaten to limit the growth of gene therapies. “There are companies that have really mastered making AAV, but even they find it challenging to make this product really well.”

With CRISPR, on the other hand, manufacturing processes could theoretically be set up that apply across a range of treatments, Marks said. “Once you get it right [manufacturing], changing the guide isn’t going to change how it’s packaged.” He gave the example of CRISPR constructs targeting the liver for a range of conditions, which would be “99.9% identical.” That means, he said, you could create a platform that allows you to manufacture CRISPR-based therapies “in a much more facile way.”

This could also incentivize CDMOs to play a bigger role, he said, noting that it’s been hard to get these companies to make AAV-based gene therapies—harder, for example, than it was to get CDMOs to make monoclonal antibodies. “With CRISPR I think it’s going to be a different story.”

The other advantage of CRISPR-based therapies, Marks said, is that companies could make many different products that all target different mutations in the same gene, and the FDA could theoretically come up with regulatory processes to simplify the approvals for such groups of therapies. “There are a lot of nucleotides that can go wrong in the genome. I don’t think we can have 3 billion visits to the FDA a year,” he joked.

While noting that the details have yet to be worked out and that nothing is set “in stone yet,” Marks suggested that a company could present data on three different types of mutations—a missense, a nonsense and a deletion, for example—and then use those data to support the approval of additional gene therapies targeting other mutations in the same gene.

“It’s breathtaking how fast the developments in CRISPR technology are going,” Marks said.

Regulatory Changes Underway to Support the Growing Cell and Gene Therapy Space

When Van Goor asked Marks about his three- to five-year plan for OTP, he praised Nicole Verdun, who runs the new super office. He said that if she had been in his seat this morning, she would have said all the same things he was, only she would say it better. In other words, the two of them—along with the leadership team Verdun has brought on at OTP—are like-minded.

That said, he did admit that the agency is behind regarding OTP staffing. “No matter how much we play catchup, we’re always a little behind,” he said, estimating that there were probably 10 to 20 roles still open that they’d hoped to fill by now. Staffing up is critical, he added, so the existing staff doesn’t get overtaxed and leave.

In addition to the creation of the super office itself, the FDA is taking other steps to support companies in this space. Marks discussed a communications pilot project that he said was borne out of the COVID-19 pandemic when rapid vaccine development was of utmost importance. During that time, the FDA had constant communication with vaccine manufacturers, which Marks said contributed to a more than 25% reduction in time in bringing COVID vaccines to market.

The agency recently put out a notice in the Federal Register about the pilot, which will focus first on rare diseases that are imminently life threatening and neurologic diseases that have serious outcomes. Rather than facing a one- to two-month window for scheduling a meeting with the FDA, reviewers would be tasked with regularly checking email and then arranging phone calls or in-person meetings on short order—within days or a week.

Not only will this potentially benefit patients, Marks said, but “it might make the difference between a company having the cash on hand to go another quarter or two because they’re not burning that waiting for FDA.” He said the project will be formally announced soon and that the agency will be measuring the impact on development time and will consider broadening the program in the future.

More than anything, Marks emphasized that one of the mottos CBER follows is to be “transparent about what we’re doing. And that’s what we try to do.” It certainly showed in his candid comments this morning.

https://www.biospace.com/article/asgct2024-fda-s-marks-on-accelerated-approval-gene-therapy-costs-and-more/

Regeneron’s Gene Therapy Shows ‘Dramatic’ Hearing Improvement in Deaf Kids

 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals’ investigational gene therapy DB-OTO improved hearing in two young children with “profound genetic deafness” since birth, according to the company’s Wednesday oral presentation at the 2024 American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy annual meeting in Baltimore.

One patient returned to normal hearing levels within 24 of treatment, as measured by auditory brainstem response (ABR) and the gold-standard pure tone audiometry (PTA)—both of which are validated methods of evaluating hearing function. The patient was dosed with DB-OTO at 11 months of age and is “one of the youngest in the world to receive a gene therapy for genetic deafness,” Regeneron said in its news release on Wednesday.

At the 24-week assessment mark, the patient showed an average 84-dB improvement from baseline across key speech frequencies. PTA found that one frequency even reached 10 dB in hearing level.

The second patient, who was given the gene therapy at four years of age, showed “initial hearing improvements” at the six-week follow-up. The patient demonstrated behavioral responses to loud sounds. The average improvement from baseline across key speech frequencies was 19 dB.

Lawrence Lustig, study investigator and chairperson of Columbia University’s Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, in a statement called these initial results “impressive,” adding that they “showcase the revolutionary promise of DB-OTO as a potential treatment for otoferlin-related deafness.”

Wednesday’s initial readout comes from the ongoing Phase I/II CHORD trial, a first-in-human open-label study, which is still currently enrolling patients from sites in the U.S., U.K. and Spain. In addition to efficacy, CHORD also looked at the safety of DB-OTO and found it to be well-tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events.

Designed to be delivered via a single sear injection, DB-OTO is a cell-selective, AAV-delivered gene therapy that works by delivering a functioning copy of the otoferlin gene, which is mutated and dysfunctional in patients with genetic hearing loss. Affecting nearly 1.7 out of every 1,000 children born in the U.S., congenital hearing loss presents a “significant unmet need,” according to Regeneron. The otoferlin gene is implicated in about half of these cases.

With the early results from CHORD, Regeneron follows in the footsteps of Eli Lilly, which in January 2024 revealed that its investigational otoferlin gene therapy AK-OTOF restored the hearing of an 11-year-old boy within 30 days of treatment. A day later, a Chinese research group published results in The Lancet, showing that they were able to restore hearing in five of six children treated with their own otoferlin gene therapy.

As in the case of CHORD, the patients in these two studies had profound genetic deafness since birth.

https://www.biospace.com/article/asgct24-regeneron-s-gene-therapy-shows-dramatic-hearing-improvement-in-deaf-kids/

US Might Expand Pause On Transferring 'Other Potential Weapons Systems' To Israel

 US defense secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed while testifying before a congressional subcommittee on Wednesday that the Biden administration has paused an arms shipment to Israel, which reportedly includes large bombs and other ammunition being put on hold for transfer.

"We’ve been very clear … from the very beginning that Israel shouldn’t launch a major attack into Rafah without accounting for and protecting the civilians that are in that battlespace," Austin told US lawmakers. "We’ve not made a final determination on how to proceed with that shipment [of weapons],” the Pentagon chief said.

He added the caveat that the paused transfer in question remains separate from the supplemental aid package for Israel that was passed last month.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan has called the move "very disappointing". President Biden "can’t say he is our partner in the goal to destroy Hamas, while on the other hand delay the means meant to destroy Hamas," Erdan said the same day as Austin's testimony.

Austin did still emphasize, "My final comment is that we are absolutely committed to continuing to support Israel in its right to defend itself."

Separately on Wednesday the State Department hinted that following the initial paused shipment, the US could extend the temporary ban to include more arms and ammo shipments.

Spokesman Matthew Miller says cited concerns over how Israel conducts itself in the Rafah operation. The White House has said it does not back an Israel ground offensive into the refugee-packed southern city.

"When you see the results of the campaign to date, you see too many Palestinians die. We have been clear for some time the results are unacceptable," Miller told a press briefing. "We’ve paused one shipment.… We are reviewing other potential weapons systems. I’m not going to get into the underlying details here."

Meanwhile, the outspoken Iran hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham had this bizarre and highly theoretical exchange with Defense Secretary Austin as well as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Charles Q. Brown Jr.:

GRAHAM: Would you have supported dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? General Brown, to end World War II?

BROWN JR: Well Senator, I think it is based on the situation —

GRAHAM: Well, we know I mean, it happened, we know. I’m not asking, they did it. Do you think that was disproportionate?

BROWN JR: It was —

GRAHAM: Do you, in hindsight, do you think that was the right decision for America to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities in question?

BROWN JR: Well, I’ll tell you, it stopped the world war.

GRAHAM: Okay. Well, so. Do you agree, General Austin? If you’d been around, would you say drop them?

AUSTIN: I agree with the chairman here.

GRAHAM: I mean, if you were if we go back in time says, hey, we got two atomic bombs, should we drop them? What would you say?

AUSTIN: Well, you know, I think the leadership was interested in curtailing —

GRAHAM: What’s Israel interested in? Do you believe Iran really wants to kill all the Jews if they could? The Iranian regime. Do you believe Hamas is serious when they say we’ll keep doing it over and over again? Do you agree that they will if they can?

AUSTIN: I do.

GRAHAM: Okay. Alright. Do you believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization also bent on the destruction of the Jewish state?

AUSTIN: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

GRAHAM: Okay, so Israel’s been hit in the last few weeks by Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas dedicated to their destruction. And you’re telling me you’re going to tell them how to fight the war? And what they can and can’t use when everybody around them wants to kill all the Jews. And you’re telling me that if we withhold weapons in this fight — the existential fight for the life of the Jewish state — it won’t send the wrong signal? Do you still think it was a good idea, General Austin, to get out of Afghanistan?

AUSTIN: I support the president’s decision.

GRAHAM: Yeah, I think you do. I think it was a disastrous decision. If we stop weapons necessary to destroy the enemies of the State of Israel at a time of great peril, we will pay a price. This is obscene. It is absurd. Give Israel what they need to fight the war. They can’t afford to lose. This is Hiroshima and Nagasaki on steroids.

Is the Senator from South Carolina actually suggesting Israel might need to nuke the Gaza Strip? 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-says-it-might-expand-pause-transferring-other-potential-weapons-systems-israel

China may support Tesla's domestic testing, demonstration of robotaxis, says media report

Tesla has proposed to launch robotaxis in China, newspaper China Daily reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

According to the report, China may support Tesla's domestic testing and demonstration of robotaxis but has not approved the full implementation of Full Self-Driving (FSD) software in China.

FSD is the most autonomous version of Autopilot software and was rolled out in 2020. Its features include self-parking, auto lane changes and traffic navigations.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TESLA-INC-6344549/news/China-may-support-Tesla-s-domestic-testing-demonstration-of-robotaxis-says-media-report-46656699/

EPA, FDA, USDA Develop Regulatory Plan for Biotechnology

 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it worked jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to develop a regulatory plan for products on biotechnology.

The plan, which came in response to an executive order from President Joe Biden, updates, streamlines and clarifies regulations and oversight mechanisms, the FDA said.

The agencies focused on five areas: modified plants; modified animals; modified microorganisms; human drugs, biologics and medical devices; and cross-cutting issues, and worked with developers and stakeholders, to collaboratively develop the plan, according to the FDA.

The plan includes processes and timelines to implement regulatory reform and identify potential needs for new guidance or regulations, the FDA said, adding that it supports a whole-of-government approach to the regulation of biotechnology products.

The agencies intend to clarify and streamline regulatory oversight for genetically engineered plants, animals and microorganisms, as well as to undertake a pilot project focused on modified microbes to explore developing a web-based tool to informs developers about which agency may regulate a given product category, among other projects.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/index/DOW-JONES-INDUSTRIAL-4945/news/EPA-FDA-USDA-Develop-Regulatory-Plan-for-Biotechnology-46669378/

Meta Launches New AI Tools for Advertisers

 Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is expanding a suite of generative artificial-intelligence tools for use by its advertisers, the company's latest move to integrate AI into its consumer products.

Meta said Tuesday that the new features will eventually allow its 10 million advertisers to upload images of their products to generate new versions of the images and accompanying text for marketing purposes.

The tools, which build on past features that allowed advertisers to make simple image alterations, will include text generation that will soon be powered by the company's latest version of its large-language model, Llama 3.

The features are available to businesses that use Meta's ad platform to create and manage their advertising and are being rolled out gradually. Meta aims to have the tools available globally by the end of the year.

Advertising made up more than 97% of Meta's revenue in the first quarter.

Meta has been investing heavily in its generative AI technology. It released Llama 3 last month, saying it would begin featuring the technology more prominently in apps including Instagram and WhatsApp. Llama 3 can instantly generate images and provide users with article summaries.

Meta last month said it had boosted its capital-expenditure plans this year to $35 billion to $40 billion from the $30 billion to $37 billion previously projected due to investments in AI. It expects spending to rise next year as well.

Alphabet's Google announced a similar expansion of AI ad features in February to allow advertisers to generate images for their marketing.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/META-PLATFORMS-INC-10547141/news/Meta-Launches-New-AI-Tools-for-Advertisers-46663461/

US eyes curbs on China's access to AI software behind apps like ChatGPT

 The Biden administration is poised to open up a new front in its effort to safeguard U.S. AI from China with preliminary plans to place guardrails around the most advanced AI Models, the core software of artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT, sources said.

The Commerce Department is considering a new regulatory push to restrict the export of proprietary or closed source AI models, whose software and the data it is trained on are kept under wraps, three people familiar with the matter said.

Any action would complement a series of measures put in place over the last two years to block the export of sophisticated AI chips to China in an effort to slow Beijing's development of the cutting edge technology for military purposes. Even so, it will be hard for regulators to keep pace with the industry's fast-moving developments.

The Commerce Department declined to comment. The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Currently, nothing is stopping U.S. AI giants like Microsoft -backed OpenAI, Alphabet's Google DeepMind and rival Anthropic, which have developed some of the most powerful closed source AI models, from selling them to almost anyone in the world without government oversight.

Government and private sector researchers worry U.S. adversaries could use the models, which mine vast amounts of text and images to summarize information and generate content, to wage aggressive cyber attacks or even create potent biological weapons.

To develop an export control on AI models, the sources said the U.S. may turn to a threshold contained in an AI executive order issued last October that is based on the amount of computing power it takes to train a model. When that level is reached, a developer must report its AI model development plans and provide test results to the Commerce Department.

That computing power threshold could become the basis for determining what AI models would be subject to export restrictions, according to two U.S. officials and another source briefed on the discussions. They declined to be named because details have not been made public.

If used, it would likely only restrict the export of models that have yet to be released, since none are thought to have reached the threshold yet, though Google's Gemini Ultra is seen as being close, according to EpochAI, a research institute tracking AI trends.

The agency is far from finalizing a rule proposal, the sources stressed. But the fact that such a move is under consideration shows the U.S. government is seeking to close gaps in its effort to thwart Beijing's AI ambitions, despite serious challenges to imposing a muscular regulatory regime on the fast-evolving technology.

As the Biden administration looks at competition with China and the dangers of sophisticated AI, AI models "are obviously one of the tools, one of the potential choke points that you need to think about here," said Peter Harrell, a former National Security Council official. "Whether you can, in fact, practically speaking, turn it into an export-controllable chokepoint remains to be seen," he added.

BIOWEAPONS AND CYBER ATTACKS?

The American intelligence community, think tanks and academics are increasingly concerned about risks posed by foreign bad actors gaining access to advanced AI capabilities. Researchers at Gryphon Scientific and Rand Corporation noted that advanced AI models can provide information that could help create biological weapons.

The Department of Homeland Security said cyber actors would likely use AI to "develop new tools" to "enable larger-scale, faster, efficient, and more evasive cyber attacks" in its 2024 homeland threat assessment.

Any new export rules could also target other countries, one of the sources said.

"The potential explosion for [AI's] use and exploitation is radical and we're having actually a very hard time kind of following that," Brian Holmes, an official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said an export control gathering in March, flagging China's advancement as a particular concern.

AI CRACKDOWN

To address these concerns, the U.S. has taken measures to stem the flow of American AI chips and the tools to make them to China.

It also proposed a rule to require U.S. cloud companies to tell the government when foreign customers use their services to train powerful AI models that could be used for cyber attacks.

But so far it hasn't addressed the AI models themselves. Alan Estevez, who oversees U.S. export policy at the Department of Commerce, said in December that the agency was looking at options for regulating open source large language model (LLM) exports before seeking industry feedback.

Tim Fist, an AI policy expert at Washington DC based think tank CNAS, says the threshold "is a good temporary measure until we develop better methods of measuring the capabilities and risks of new models."

The threshold is not set in stone. One of the sources said Commerce might end up with a lower floor, coupled with other factors, like the type of data or potential uses for the AI model, such as the ability to design proteins that could be used to make a biological weapon.

Regardless of the threshold, AI model exports will be hard to control. Many models are open source, meaning they would remain beyond the purview of export controls under consideration.

Even imposing controls on the more advanced proprietary models will prove challenging, as regulators will likely struggle to define the right criteria to determine which models should be controlled at all, Fist said, noting that China is likely only around two years behind the United States in developing its own AI software

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ALPHABET-INC-24203373/news/US-eyes-curbs-on-China-s-access-to-AI-software-behind-apps-like-ChatGPT-46661922/