3 ms·
MSN published "an abridged version" with the same title: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/inside-e2-80-98project-onyx-e2-80-99-how-biogen-used-an-fda-back-chan
by _delirium 5y ago
MSN published "an abridged version" with the same title: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/inside-e2-80-98project-onyx-e2-80-99-how-biogen-used-an-fda-back-channel-to-win-approval-of-its-polarizing-alzheimer-e2-80-99s-drug/ar-AALzzpL https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/inside-e2-80-98project-ony...
Excerpts:
> Central to their mission was an inside ally: Billy Dunn, the agency’s top regulator of Alzheimer’s drugs. For the plan to succeed, Biogen needed Dunn to become a supportive partner, more than an independent and potentially adversarial regulator. It worked. The FDA played an extraordinarily proactive role, even drafting a road map on how the company could win approval. Several experts said that relationship was not typical and raised serious concerns.
> It was previously known that Biogen and the FDA worked together on Aduhelm. But STAT has learned that the relationship began earlier than previously disclosed, in the spring of 2019, when a top Biogen executive quietly met with Dunn — seemingly in violation of FDA protocols — to enlist his support for a long-shot effort to get Aduhelm approved despite the apparent failure of two clinical trials. And a month later, FDA officials proposed using a regulatory shortcut to get the drug approved — though the agency has claimed it raised that option only this past March. To some inside Biogen, the FDA’s tone made approval seem inevitable.
> By June 2019, only a month after the crucial meeting with Dunn, agency officials in his Office of Neuroscience were so willing to advance Aduhelm that they proposed as one option a regulatory shortcut called “accelerated approval,” according to meeting minutes read to STAT. The move stunned even Biogen’s top executives, who had considered that out of the question for a host of reasons, including the fact that the FDA had never used the pathway for an Alzheimer’s treatment.
- smsm42 5y agoLooks like one set of laws and rules for regular people, another for those who have direct access to top regulators. And of course anybody suggesting this may be done for any other reasons than the pure altruistic care for Alzheimer’s patients (even though no trial showed the drug works, but there's still a chance, right?!) would be totally irresponsible.
- fatnoah 5y agoFWIW, based on https://www.fda.gov/patients/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review/accelerated-approval https://www.fda.gov/patients/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy..., the "Accelerated Approval Program" appears to be designed for cases where the clinical benefit hasn't been proven, but the effect of the drug on appropriate markers has been. Here's a specific example from the link above: >"Using surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoints can save valuable time in the drug approval process. For example, instead of having to wait to learn if a drug actually extends survival for cancer patients, the FDA may approve a drug based on evidence that the drug shrinks tumors, because tumor shrinkage is considered reasonably likely to predict a real clinical benefit. In this example, an approval based upon tumor shrinkage can occur far sooner than waiting to learn whether patients actually lived longer. The drug company will still need to conduct studies to confirm that tumor shrinkage actually predicts that patients will live longer. These studies are known as phase 4 confirmatory trials." I think the shady bit is that this probably wasn't an appropriate use of that pathway, and that the FDA wasn't acting in good faith.