Pharma Strategy Blog

Commentary on Pharma & Biotech Oncology / Hematology New Product Development

Posts by MaverickNY

While on the road here in San Francisco at the American Urology Association, I received an email from someone about latest news surrounding the breast cancer vaccine published in Nature Medicine.

Expecting to find some snippets on how this vaccine might work and the usual blah blah blah about clinical trials starting soon, I was rather aghast at the hype and furore surrounding this issue from many reporters touting it as the next big thing – despite not a single study having yet started in humans.

The BBC was thankfully the most measured, but most were not, and do a great disservice to both women suffering from breast cancer and their caregivers/loved ones.

Over the last 10-15 years there have many vaccines developed and tested as anti-cancer agents, yet only one (Dendreon's Provenge) has actually made it to market, and recently at that.  I'm not including the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines in this category as they are indicated for prevention of HPV, which may lead to genital warts and cervical cancer.

There is no doubt that some cancers may have either an infection or immune component – lung, melanoma, prostate and breast cancer are several that come to mind in this respect, whereas others such as renal cancer clearly have a more metabolic process underlying the biology.  Immune sensitive cancers are more likely to show some positive data down the line, but please, show us some solid DATA first before hyping a theory all over the internets, however well intentioned.

</rant>

ResearchBlogging.org

Jaini, R., Kesaraju, P., Johnson, J., Altuntas, C., Jane-wit, D., & Tuohy, V. (2010). An autoimmune-mediated strategy for prophylactic breast cancer vaccination Nature Medicine DOI: 10.1038/nm.2161

2 Comments

Past American Urological Association (AUA) meetings have seen a lot of same old, same old with very little that is new in the way of truly innovative and exciting new developments.  In many ways, prostate cancer is the male equivalent of ovarian cancer, with pharma companies considering it after the breast, lung and colorectal cancers, despite prostate cancer being fairly large in terms in epidemiology, from a pure numbers perspective.

Why is this?

Firstly, we need to consider the natural course of the disease, which unlike breast and lung cancers, is fairly indolent.  Men diagnosed early with prostate cancer can live for 10-15 years, often with long periods of watchful waiting, making adjuvant trials necessarily long ones.

Secondly, once hormonal therapy begins to enable castration and reduction in the levels of testosterone that drives the cancer's growth, patients are seen and managed by urologists, who prefer to treat with oral therapies.  Until recently, Pharma focused very much on intravenous infusions designed for oncologists and never the twain really met in the middle.

Thirdly, traditional drug development for chemotherapy begins in the latest stage of treatment after failure of existing therapies (typically 2nd or 3rd+ line) and moves earlier up the disease stage in a classic niche by niche development strategy.

These factors combine to essentially create 3 distinct, albeit crude, phases of treatment for prostate cancer:

  1. Watchful waiting
  2. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)
  3. Chemotherapy for stage IV metastatic disease

How are things changing?

Dendreon recently received approval for their autologous cell vaccine, sipuleucel-T (Provenge) in asymptomatic metastatic castration resistant disease, meaning that in men where hormonal therapies cease to work but have some early evidence of metastatic disease, now have a completely new and relatively non-toxic therapeutic option prior to chemotherapy with Taxotere, mitoxantrone or even prednisone.

Much has been written about the potential for vaccines earlier in the disease when the tumour burden is much lower, so hopefully we will see some future exploration in this area now that the proof of concept for the first commercial cancer vaccine exists and Dendreon will have more funds to reinvest in R&D as revenues are generated.  They have a real opportunity here.

Past studies with docetaxel (Taxotere) have shown an improved survival benefit of 2.4 months over prednisone alone in androgen independent (hormone refractory) population that was essentially symptomatic.  Two phase III Provenge studies reported a median survival benefit of 4.1 and 4.5 months respectively, meaning that 50% of the men did better and 50% did worse than 4-4.5 months. 

There are now at least 8 other compounds in phase III development for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.  One of these, sanofi-aventis' cabazitaxel (Jevtana) has already been filed and DDMAC review is expected in the summer, meaning the drug could possibly get approval in the 2nd-line setting after Taxotere by September in an area of high unmet need since there are few options available in this setting.  The data is expected to be presented at ASCO next week, so more on that then.

So now we have two potential therapeutic options before and after Taxotere in 2010 alone, which is progress indeed.

What other compounds are there?

There are a number of agents that I like. Cougar and J&J's abiraterone is probably the most advanced. It is an inhibitor of 17,20 lyase that essentially throttle testesterone production in the testes and adrenal glands.  Millennium-Takeda also have a similar compound in earlier development called TAK700.  The two appear to differ in that one is steroidal and the other is non-steroidal, but whether this will make any meaningful difference isn't yet clear.  Time will tell.  

The abiraterone trials are not scheduled to complete until mid 2011 at the earliest, so assuming the data is positive, approval likely won't happen until the 2nd half of 2012, giving Dendreon a two year commercial advantage over the competition, who are mostly testing their compounds in the post Taxotere setting, at least initially.

Perhaps the most exciting agent from a biology perspective is MDV3100 from Medivation/Astellas, which I have written extensively about in past blog posts.  Essentially, the current androgen blockers are fairly ineffective at controlling aggressive disease so a more complete inhibitor of the Androgen Receptor (AR) may offer a better chance of making an impact.  Medivation have quickly realised that their real opportunity may well be either after hormonal therapies, in combination with them, or perhaps even in place of them earlier in the disease and have announced several new phase II and III trials will commence later this year.  Astellas have significant advantage over J&J as a partner since they already have a strong urology franchise, which is vitally important going forward.

Several other therapies interest me too, but they will be the subject of another blog post later during this meeting as the mutations and critically expressed pathways as the disease progresses may well drive future therapeutic interventions.

3 Comments

After the news yesterday about Bayer's sorafenib being rejected by NICE in liver cancer comes another oncology decision, this time a positive one, and good news for AstraZeneca and gefitinib (Iressa).

The new guidance states:

"Gefitinib is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) if: 

• they test positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) mutation and 

• the manufacturer provides gefitinib at the fixed price agreed under the patient access scheme."

Iressa has had a somewhat chequered history over the last few years, first with the fast track approval in the US on promising phase II data and then the down side of phase III trials failing to show any clear improvement in outcome while OSI/Roche's erlotinib (Tarceva) demonstrating a small but significant survival benefit.

It looks like Iressa is coming back from the dead after all, at least in Europe.

According to FiercePharma, a deal was successfully struck with the agency:

"The lung cancer pill got a recommendation from the cost-effectiveness watchdog for use by the National Health Service, but only after the company offered an unusual fixed-price arrangement. Iressa will be supplied to the NHS at £12,200 ($17,560) per patient, regardless of how long treatment lasts. And the NHS won't pay at all for patients who use Iressa for less than three months."

So in the UK, sorafenib would cost around £27K, whereas gefitinib would cost £13K, both offering a couple of months increased survival in liver and lung cancer, respectively.  The difference in the two situations is that patients can be now screened for the EGFR mutation in lung cancer (which wasn't known at the time of the original approval), thereby preselecting which patients are most likely to respond. There is no biomarker associated with VEGF therapy yet, as far as I'm aware.

As to what will happen in the US, we'll have to wait and see.

Whew, that headline caught my attention just now on the Nationwide Children’s Hospital site while searching for information on medulloblastoma, a form of brain cancer that tends to affect children.

After all the recent brouhaha in the UK over Andrew Wakefield being struck off for professional misconduct relating to his role in the MMR vaccination scandal, tensions may be raised at the idea of using a modified form of the measles virus to treat a childhood brain cancer.

According to the hospital’s press release:

Vaccine strains of measles virus have been used to kill tumor cells in a number of tumor types including one type of adult brain tumor. One vaccine strain of measles, the Edmonston strain, targets the cell surface receptor CD46 to gain entry into susceptible cells. “This preference most likely explains the efficacy of Edmonston strains in killing tumor cells, given the high level of expression of CD46 in multiple tumor types,” said Dr. Raffel. “It is also the reason we chose to explore a modified Edmonston’s strain of measles virus for use in medulloblastoma.”

You learn something new every day.

This news comes hot on the heels of some other research conducted in pediatric brain tumors at St Jude Hospital in Memphis, which reported that:


“Twelve percent of tumors in this study had extra copies of the gene PDGFRA. Researchers reported similar gene-expression patterns associated with high levels of PDGFRA were also found in childhood tumors without extra copies of the gene. Extra copies of PDGFRA were even more common in tumors from children who had received brain irradiation for treatment of earlier cancers.”

As someone who experienced a malignant childhood cancer myself, it’s always gratifying to see research ongoing in this area and improvement in 5-year survival rates.

1 Comment

"The drug, also known as sorafenib, extended lives by an average of 2.8 months at a cost of 27,000 pounds ($38,853) for each patient, NICE said. The Leverkusen, Germany-based company had offered to pay for every fourth pack of Nexavar when used to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of cancer that starts in the liver. Few patients with the disease are able to undergo the surgery that could potentially cure them, NICE said." 

Source: Bloomberg

No surprises there really and consistent with the approach the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has taken over the last few years.  You can read what the agency had to say on the matter here. Basically, Bayer offered NICE a deal whereby every 4th pack of sorafenib (Nexavar) would be free, but that wasn't enough to sway the decision:

"Sorafenib does not provide enough benefit to patients to justify its high cost."

It's interesting that my US colleagues always point to this kind of decision as evidence of rationing but it's really an access issue based on who holds the budget strings.  

In the US, drugs might get approved at whatever cost the manufacturer chooses for now, but insurance companies and the CMS may put all sorts of strings attached such as certain conditions, formulary tiers, pre-authorisation etc and in the end the patient also has a choice whether they can and want to afford the co-pays that go with those decisions.  They may after all, still say no, that the price asked is too high a price to pay based on their means.  A drug in a tier 3 or 4 category will have a very different co-pay from a tier 2 drug, for example.

Still, in the end, who pays the Ferryman is still the moot point and sometimes Pharma forget that the days of charging exhorbitant prices that neither the healthcare systems nor the people can afford will one day come to end with excessive price charging.  

Ultimately, it's an unsustainable business model that gives Pharma a bad name synonymous with oil and tobacco companies. Perception is reality sometimes. Eventually the actions of a few will affect the sensibleness of most and in the US we will all get to deal with more systematic price controls and constraints based on the likes of health economics, comparative effectiveness and cost utilities etc whether we like it or not.

Outside of oncology, very few companies consistently engage in head to head comparative trials to prove their drug is more effective or cost effective than the standard of care.  This will ultimately change over time as the authorities get tougher.

In the long, the cost of doing business ie conducting clinical trials, will go up and the burden of proof will shift dramatically.

End of life care and treatment raises all sorts of poignant yet important questions.  Do we need a greater focus on wellness rather than palliation? What about research into better models and biomarkers so that earlier detection of cancer, where intervention can have most effect, can be initiated? Should the needs of the few (eg in the end of life situation) outweigh the needs of the many? Given the limited resources available, how best should they be allocated and invested?  

If you look at the Nexavar situation on reflection, how would that $38K be best spent for the greatest benefit given that there isn't a bottomless pit of money?

These are always tough decisions for anyone to make, especially when a relative or loved one may be involved.  Rather than the PR and media hysteria that inevitably follows these sort of rejections, hard and tough though they may be, it would be nice to see a broader public debate around some of the wider strategic healthcare issues facing us all.

On Friday, I'm heading off to the annual American Urology Association (AUA) meeting in San Francisco and looking forward to catching up on the hot topics in prostate and renal cancers.  

image from www.flickr.comIt promises to be a good meeting this year with lots of new data expected from a number of marketed products, newly approved products and of course, products in development.

I'll be tweeting snippets from the meeting under the hashtag #AUA2010 as some attendees are already actively using that one.  Unfortunately, #AUA already seems to be used for something else, which is a shame as those extra 4 characters make a huge difference on Twitter!

More to follow at the meeting, where I'll summarise some of the key findings over the weekend as they are published.

If you're attending the event and would like to meet up, please contact me either via email or via Twitter - it's always fun to meet people in real life!

Photo Credit: Alain Picard

Recently, I've been observing and watching a number of interactions that I've been part of, from friends, acquaintances, clients and physicians and healthcare practitioners.  It dawned on me that no matter what we do, our satisfaction with the result of those interactions is directly tied to the involvement we go through.  

A nasty ear infection was a salutory case in point. The reaction of my old PCP practice was close to distressing so I decided to change practice, no easy decision after 10 years with the same group.  They resolutely declined to see me despite the pain and discomfort unless I paid a disputed bill even though my insurance told me it was covered and the office hadn't billed it correctly.  The staff were rude and obnoxious in the extreme.  So much for the Hippocratic Oath! 

The first time I nervously met the new Nurse Practitioner, she surprised me by being polite, thoughtful and empathetic, a world away from confrontational New Jersey style I had become used to.  In the space of 10 minutes she explained to me gently that I had a discharge and likely an ear infection that need to be seen by a specialist that day, if possible, for cleaning and treatment.

She phoned around, made an appointment for me and dispatched me 30 blocks south to see the ENT specialist.  He turned out to be equally caring, efficient and happy to take the time to explain the problem and involve me in the solution.  As a result, I felt more involved and willing to commit to the time consuming process of fixing it, which turned out to be significant in my busy schedule. Interestingly, when I in turn explained to clients what was happening, they too understood and didn't feel resentful of the necessary absences, quite the reverse with a hearty "Go get it fixed!"

That's how it should work in an ideal situation.

However, when we don't collaborate, communicate, share or participate in the process, stonewall or or worse, just promote what we want to sell without interaction, the perception of the value offered is less than optimal and the experience is unlikely to be a positive or happy one. This applies as much to the physician-patient relationship as it does to the Pharma-physician one.

In the end, the first practice I would be less than enthusiastic about recommending, while the other two I would enthusiastically recommend to others.  In fact, when we have a bad experience we often go out of our way to warn others to save them the same pain, whereas we don't always remember to pay it forward with referrals and recommendations when we have a great experience.

My own personal medical experiences recently made me think more clearly about client – vendor interactions, to good effect.  Taking the time to involve the client in the experience and take on board their ideas to make it a better product more likely makes them: 

a) more part of the process

b) more likely to be supportive and involved

c) more likely to own it

c) more likely to see the value and appreciate it.

We're all fallibly human and make mistakes, but taking the time to involve others in the process rather than pushing what we think they need is well worth the effort in the long run.  Happy clients ultimately make for more satisfied people who value what you bring to the table too.

In what ways do you think about increasing value with others around you?

3 Comments

Tonight at 6pm, the ASCO abstracts of live online with the exception of the plenaries, late breakers and clinical review abstracts, which will published at the meeting.  7 policy exceptions were granted under SEC guidelines, meaning that limited information to be made publicly available in advance of the meeting:

Abstract 8010: Lenalidomide maintenance after transplantation for myeloma. 

Abstract LBA4007: The AVAGAST trial: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study of capecitabine and cisplatin plus bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. 

Abstract LBA4507: Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. 

Abstract LBA1: Phase III trial of bevacizumab (BEV) in the primary treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), primary peritoneal cancer (PPC), or fallopian tube cancer (FTC): A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. 

Abstract LBA4511: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled phase III trial comparing docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo with docetaxel, prednisone, and bevacizumab in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (metCRPC): Survival results of CALGB 90401. 

Abstract LBA7502: Results from ARQ 197-209: a global randomized placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of erlotinib plus ARQ 197 versus erlotinib plus placebo in previously treated EGPR-inhibitor naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Abstract LBA8512: A phase III random assignment trial comparing percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (PHP-mel) to standard of care for patients with hepatic metastases from metastatic ocular or cutaneous melanoma.

Of these 7, no doubt keen investors will be interested in the first ($CELG) and last ($DCTH), and analysts will be anxious to see the denosumab data ($AMGN), but the ones that I will be most interested in are ARQ197 ($ARQL) and bevacizumab (Avastin) ($RHHYG).  We already know that the Avastin data was negative in gastric and prostate cancers, but positive in ovarian cancer from Roche's previous press announcements.  Ovarian cancer badly needs new options that improve outcomes for women suffering with the disease.

Sometimes though, the best data is not always in the plenary session, witness the Herceptin trial in adjuvant HER2+ breast cancer a few years ago when everyone stood up in a packed session and clapped because the data was simply stunning and groundbreaking. 

Tonight's peek at the available abstracts should give us some clues about what might be interesting. I'll try and schedule some quick posts this evening as I'll be out at client meetings all day tomorrow, great timing, not.

One of the cool things about using social media sites such as Twitter is the myriad of interesting links on science and cancer related topics that fly by my stream every day.  Clearly, the sheer volume means that you can't track them all or even read half of them, but maybe you can capture and search them later.

Well, that was my simple thinking at least and the reason I connected the Packrati.us tool to Twitter and Delicious yesterday, thinking that would be a simple and neat solution (HT to William Gunn for the idea):

Picture 21
 

Except I forgot one important little bit of detail – I'm also using Delicious to capture my science and academic papers by bookmarking them and sharing the public feed as links to this blog for others who may be interested.  Now, when you bookmark manually, you can choose whether the bookmark is public or private, thus sending only science and cancer related links in my case to this blog automatically via Twitterfeed and any personal ones get hidden.

Yesterday, I set the Packrati.us Twitter to Delicious tool up and feeling rather pleased with myself, merrily went off to client meetings for the day.  It was only on the way back while stuck in the rain in a traffic jam that I suddenly remembered the Delicious to Blog Twitterfeed and went a little pale at what might have churned out in my absence, one of those *face palm* moments!

Apologies to all those who got any links or stray blog posts from the Twitter links I'm curating.  For now, I've turned off the Delicious Twitterfeed so no more links will post to this blog for now.  Packrati.us have stated that the little box for private bookmarks is 'coming soon' so hopefully I'll be able to have the best of both worlds by curating interesting Twitter links and sharing ones I like here too.

Cool tools are great fun, but sometimes the implications of the connections and output doesn't always go as you might expect!

4 Comments

Over the past few years it has been interesting to watch AACR organise and group it's sessions by pathways, so you end up with a higgledy piggledy collection of different inhibitors, therapeutics, chemotherapies etc as well as a mix of different tumour types.  This works well for the scientist, less so for the clinician who may specialise in only a few cancer types.  

Meanwhile, at ASCO, everything is organised by cancer track, so if you want to search for data on say, MEK, AKT or c-MET inhibitors for example, then the data is now all over the place and trying to get round and find it all is much more difficult.  The chances of missing something, or worse, having clashes in interesting sessions is much higher.  I'm already looking a potential schedule with too many clashes and periods of nothing.  That's not a very efficient way to organise the data, yet this was not something I experienced at AACR to the same extent.

image from farm4.static.flickr.comPersonally, I find myself much preferring the AACR approach because it's ultimately logical and allows you to see patterns and trends more strategically, providing you approach it sensibly. You do need to think in 3D though, much like that 3 level chess board beloved by Spock in the original Star Trek. This way allows you to see potential connections and future approaches more easily rather than being hemmed in by tumour siloes.

In the long run, I confidently predict that the future trend of personalised medicine is going to be more based on a pathways approach allied with mutational analysis based on constitutive activation, rather than simply thinking in terms of cancer type by line of therapy.  Once you start understanding which subsets exist and which inhibitors can be combined together, it is not hard to see a new world evolving out there that may lead to better outcomes and improved quality of life.

Who knows, we might even be able to get rid of toxic chemotherapies altogether and prescribe a cocktail of more targeted agents based on the patients characteristics.

Now that would be a fine thing indeed.  Thoughts?

Photo Credit: GiftsforyouBiz

error: Content is protected !!