The drug and device industries have a lot hinging on the results of the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential and congressional elections. Tax policies. The reach of the FTC. Legislation aimed at drug prices, competition, pharmacy benefit managers and lab-developed tests. Cabinet and agency appointments that could reshape Medicare drug negotiations, the 340B program, FDA Orange Book device patent listings, regulatory flexibility and Bayh-Dole march-ins. And that’s just the top of the list.
The second time around wasn’t lovelier for Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc. as it once again made its case before the U.S. FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee for Zynquista (sotagliflozin) as an adjunct to insulin to improve glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes and mild to moderate chronic kidney disease.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc. is counting on the Oct. 31 meeting of the U.S. FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee to help it break through the type 1 diabetes (T1D) door with Zynquista (sotagliflozin), proposed as an adjunct to insulin to improve glycemic control in people with T1D and mild to moderate chronic kidney disease.
Although more and more gene therapies are getting the FDA stamp of approval, concerns persist about their potential long-term risks. U.S. lawmakers have proposed several pieces of legislation over the past few years to address some of the uncertainties. Now the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is suggesting other requirements Congress may want to consider to improve the regulatory landscape for gene therapies, especially those intended to treat blood disorders.
If the maximum fair prices the U.S. CMS announced after the first round of drug price negotiations are any indication, advocates of the government price setting may be settling for short-term wins at the cost of long-term, more sustainable price reductions driven by competition.
Legislation that would give the U.S. government a cut of some big pharma profits has once again surfaced in Congress. First introduced in the 114th Congress and every Congress since, the Medical Innovation Act was reintroduced Oct. 18 as a way to tap into the profits of some large biopharma companies to augment research dollars at the FDA and NIH for future drugs and diagnostics, as well as for regulatory science and to support early career scientists.
Insider trading isn’t always about profits. Sometimes it’s avoiding losses. That’s the basis of the U.S. SEC’s complaint against Matthew Groom, an information technology consultant to Spero Therapeutics Inc. Groom agreed Sept. 15 to a $28,000 settlement to resolve the complaint stemming from a trade of Spero shares that enabled him to avoid $13,000 in losses when news of the company’s downsizing and issues with its lead product became public two years ago.
Coming on the heels of an advisory committee in which the U.S. FDA and its independent advisers grappled with trying to fit an ultra-rare disease development program into the confines of the agency’s “significant evidence” requirements, an Oct. 16 public meeting on a Rare Disease Innovation Hub the agency is setting up seemed like a welcome step in the right direction for rare disease patients, their caregivers and companies working in the space.
With confidence dropping in doing business with China-affiliated life sciences companies due to the Biosecure Act, one of the companies explicitly named in the U.S. legislation is fighting back. Raising the possibility of a constitutional challenge to the bill, Rade Drmanac, co-founder and chief scientific officer of Complete Genomics Inc., wrote to congressional leaders to urge them to remove the California-based subsidiary of MGI from the bill.
“This was worse than our national election,” Eric Peterson said as he explained his vote Oct. 10 concluding that Stealth Biotherapeutics Inc.’s elamipretide is effective in treating Barth syndrome, an ultra-rare mitochondrial disease that currently affects 129 males in the U.S. Peterson, a vice provost, senior associate dean and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, was one of 10 members of the U.S. FDA’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC) who came to that conclusion. Six others had a different opinion. Regardless of which way they voted, the panelists attested to how difficult the decision was.
