DOCSLIB.ORG

Breakthroughs at Blueprint Medicines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Breakthroughs at Blueprint Medicines OCTOBER 18, 2019 RICHARD G. HAMERMESH KATHY E. GIUSTI SUSIE L. MA Breakthroughs at Blueprint Medicines In June 2019, the excitement was palpable at Blueprint Medicines in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as CEO Jeff Albers and COO Kate Haviland (MBA ‘05) prepared for an all-staff party to celebrate the submission of the company’s first New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NDA was for avapritinib, an investigational precision medicine that showed tumor reductions in 86% of clinical trial participants with a genetically-defined form of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), a rare cancer affecting the digestive tract.1 An NDA was the last step in the FDA’s review before a drug could be marketed to the public. FDA drug approval took an average of 12 years from discovery to final approval, and only 11% of drug applications made it through the entire process (see Exhibit 1 for the average timeline).2 Blueprint was founded in 2011 by biotech entrepreneur and venture capitalist Alexis Borisy and by 2013, the company had identified the compound that would ultimately become avapritinib. Albers and Haviland felt optimistic they would receive final approval from the FDA in the first quarter of 2020— paving the way for the company to bring to market a lifesaving drug in nearly half the average time. The company had more to celebrate than just avapritinib. Blueprint expected that its second drug candidate, pralsetinib, used to treat non-small cell lung and medullary thyroid cancers, would be ready for an NDA filing in the first half of 2020. (See Exhibit 2 for Blueprint timeline). Blueprint was moving at breakneck speed, juggling the upcoming debut of its first commercial product, avapritinib, with pralsetinib close behind. The company had approximately 240 employees, and planned to double its staff in connection with the planned commercial launches.3 Albers and Haviland wondered how to prioritize programs and manage growth as Blueprint expanded from a startup to a full-fledged company that encompassed all aspects of drug development, from research to clinical to commercialization. But for now, they would take a deep breath and enjoy the party. The Early Years In 2009, Borisy was building the company that would become Foundation Medicine (Foundation) when he started thinking about what it would mean to the biopharmaceutical industry if Foundation was successful. Foundation was a precision diagnostics company that provided patient DNA sequencing to help identify the mutations that were driving a patient’s cancer with the goal of informing treatment with medicines targeting those mutations. Once Foundation built up a database Professor Richard G. Hamermesh, Senior Fellow Kathy E. Giusti, and Case Researcher Susie L. Ma (Case Research & Writing Group) prepared this case. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. DRAFT Breakthroughs at Blueprint Medicines of information gleaned from sequencing, Borisy hoped that it could provide a layout of mutations across all cancers. He explained what this would mean in the long term: Within some period of time—a few years or a decade—we were going to have the roadmap of the genetic aberrations across all cancers. We could create THE precision medicine oncology company because if you know what is driving that cancer, you can create a super selective molecule for it. Borisy realized this implied a different kind of business model for drug discovery since, if he could make a drug that could precisely hit a specific target, the chances that the drug would be highly effective should substantially increase. If this were the case, he thought: The number of patients needed for clinical trials should go down, so you should get proof of concept more definitively earlier and more quickly, so the allocation of resources should decrease and the time to develop should decrease. If your resource allocation and time are decreasing, and trial effect size and probability of success are increasing, and if you can do this again and again, that is a compelling business proposition—for patients and for medicine. Borisy sketched some ideas on a lab notebook and stashed it away in his desk drawer. But not for long. Early in 2010, he started discussing the idea with oncologist Brian Druker and biochemist Nicholas Lydon, who led the team that created Gleevec, one of the first successful genomically-targeted drugs developed at Novartis to treat chronic myeloid leukemia.4 In the fall of 2010, Borisy brought on two experienced biotech executives from Third Rock Ventures, where Borisy had recently become a partner, to lead the fledgling company.5 Chris Varma became Blueprint’s first CEO, and David Armistead served as chief scientific officer. As they incubated Blueprint, the founders decided to focus on a promising but understudied drug target—kinases. Kinases were enzymes that helped control the growth activities of a cell—such as signaling and division—and were associated with cancer. There were 518 kinases in the human genome, but only around 30 FDA-approved kinase medicines that targeted less than 5% of kinases.6 Gleevec was a kinase inhibitor, and Borisy felt there was an opportunity for Blueprint to create drugs like Gleevec that could block cancer-causing mutations in kinases. Building a Different Kind of Library Pharmaceutical companies amassed libraries with millions of compounds, seeking to build as many chances for successful drugs as possible. In 2011, Blueprint began developing its library of compounds that might inhibit kinases. The team knew this would be challenging because outside of Gleevec, the biopharmaceutical industry had been largely unsuccessful in developing highly selective kinase inhibitors. As the leadership team investigated why this was, they realized that there were few compound libraries built specifically for kinases, and the ones that did target kinases focused largely on variants of just a few kinase inhibitors. This led to large libraries of similar compounds. Blueprint took an agnostic approach to its compound library by casting a wide net, looking to create a diversity of compounds not directed at any particular kinase target, but seeking to cover the entire kinomea tree (see Exhibit 3 for the kinome tree). Borisy remembered that this was a radical idea at the time, and he recalled advocating: “Let’s make different shaped libraries and test them without an idea a The kinome is the complete set of kinases encoded in the human genome. 2 Breakthroughs at Blueprint Medicines DRAFT of specific target. Let’s explore chemical shape without having a particular program. Let’s get chemical matter that lights up different parts of the kinome tree.” Albers compared the creation of Blueprint’s library to compound libraries at most biopharmaceutical companies: The classic model is that you make all these molecules, you pick one, you find out where it’s potent, and then you try to deconstruct what else is it doing. That’s really hard to do. What Blueprint did was sort of turn that on its head by saying, “We’re just going to start making molecules, even if we don’t know what they do.” It’s like a 1,000-piece puzzle, and if you put 20 pieces in the right spot you still have no idea what it is. But as you get 500 pieces in, you start to see a couple of the shapes and you can tell that there’s going to be a lake over here, or a little house over here, or it’s blue sky and all your blue pieces should go over there. This was a risky approach because it required a significant upfront investment. Borisy, however, felt strongly that the idea would work. Blueprint raised $40 million in its series A round in April 2011, led by Third Rock Ventures.7 (See Exhibit 4 for the press release). Borisy said, “We were going to spend $40 million and two years to build the library and would have no idea if it was any good until it was done.” Identifying a Winning Compound In mid-2011, Blueprint recruited a handful of scientists with experience in kinases, and the team scoured academic literature on kinases, looking for any information that could help direct their compound creation. The team slowly began to create molecules and by the end of 2011, they had a library of 1700 compounds; by 2012 it grew to 7000 compounds and ultimately, the library contained 20,000 compounds that reacted to different parts of the kinome tree. But as time wore on, anxiety mounted at the company. In the spring of 2013, management issues forced Borisy to let Varma go, and Borisy jumped into the CEO role. The programs were not working in conventional ways, the library was behind schedule, and the company was running out of money. Borisy recalled partners at Third Rock asking, “Are we going to hit the wall?” Although investors were concerned, Borisy told the team to proceed with business as usual. “I kept telling people don’t worry about the money, the idea is so good, we are so right, and we are going to get this done. I said, ‘I will bring the money, we will get this done,’ and we did.” In November 2013, researchers identified a compound that showed promise against diseases driven by mutations in the KIT and PDGFRA genes, in this case GIST (see Exhibit 5 for KIT and PDGFRA).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cstone's Partner Blueprint Medicines Presented Updated Part 1 Data from PIONEER Trial of Avapritinib
    Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited take no responsibility for the contents of this announcement, make no representation as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this announcement. The forward-looking statements made in this announcement relate only to the events or information as of the date on which the statements are made in this announcement. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. You should read this announcement completely and with the understanding that our actual future results or performance may be materially different from what we expect. In this announcement, statements of, or references to, our intentions or those of any of our directors and/or our Company are made as of the date of this announcement. Any of these intentions may alter in light of future development. CStone Pharmaceuticals 基 石 藥 業 (Incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability) (Stock Code: 2616) VOLUNTARY ANNOUNCEMENT CSTONE’S PARTNER BLUEPRINT MEDICINES PRESENTED UPDATED PART 1 DATA FROM PIONEER TRIAL OF AVAPRITINIB SHOWING ROBUST REDUCTIONS IN CUTANEOUS DISEASE SYMPTOMS IN PATIENTS WITH INDOLENT SYSTEMIC MASTOCYTOSIS The partner of CStone Pharmaceuticals (the “Company” or “CStone”), Blueprint Medicines Corporation (NASDAQ: BPMC) (“Blueprint Medicines”), announced on June 6 updated clinical data from part 1 of the PIONEER trial showing robust and consistent clinical activity for avapritinib across multiple qualitative and quantitative measures of cutaneous disease in patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis (“ISM”).
    [Show full text]
  • First-Line Treatment Options for Patients with Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Driver Alterations
    First-Line Treatment Options for Patients with Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Driver Alterations Patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer Nonsquamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma Activating EGFR mutation other Sensitizing (L858R/exon 19 MET exon 14 skipping than exon 20 insertion mutations, EGFR exon 20 mutation ALK rearrangement ROS1 rearrangement BRAF V600E mutation RET rearrangement NTRK rearrangement mutations KRAS alterations HER2 alterations NRG1 alterations deletion) EGFR mutation T790M, L858R or Ex19Del PS 0-2 Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options PS 0-2 Treatment Options Emerging target; no Emerging target; no Emerging target; no Platinum doublet † † † Osimertinib monotherapy S Afatinib monotherapy M M Alectinib S Entrectinib M Dabrafenib/trametinib M Capmatinib M Selpercatinib M Entrectinib M conclusions available conclusions available conclusions available chemotherapy ± bevacizumab Gefitinib with doublet Standard treatment based on Standard treatment based on Standard treatment based on M M M Brigatinib S Crizotinib M M Tepotinib M Pralsetinib* W Larotrectinib M chemotherapy non-driver mutation guideline non-driver mutation guideline non-driver mutation guideline If alectinib or brigatinib are not available If entrectinib or crizotinib are not available Standard treatment based on Standard treatment based on Standard treatment based on Dacomitinib monotherapy M Osimertinib W M M M Ceritinib S Ceritinib W non-driver mutation guideline non-driver mutation guideline non-driver mutation guideline Monotherapy with afatinib M Crizotinib S Lortlatinib W Standard treatment based on Erlotinib/ramucirumab M M non-driver mutation guideline Erlotinib/bevacizumab M Monotherapy with erlotinib M Strength of Recommendation Monotherapy with gefitinib M S Strong M Moderate W Weak Monotherapy with icotinib M Notes.
    [Show full text]
  • CDER Breakthrough Therapy Designation Approvals Data As of December 31, 2020 Total of 190 Approvals
    CDER Breakthrough Therapy Designation Approvals Data as of December 31, 2020 Total of 190 Approvals Submission Application Type and Proprietary Approval Use Number Number Name Established Name Applicant Date Treatment of patients with previously BLA 125486 ORIGINAL-1 GAZYVA OBINUTUZUMAB GENENTECH INC 01-Nov-2013 untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia in combination with chlorambucil Treatment of patients with mantle cell NDA 205552 ORIGINAL-1 IMBRUVICA IBRUTINIB PHARMACYCLICS LLC 13-Nov-2013 lymphoma (MCL) Treatment of chronic hepatitis C NDA 204671 ORIGINAL-1 SOVALDI SOFOSBUVIR GILEAD SCIENCES INC 06-Dec-2013 infection Treatment of cystic fibrosis patients age VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS NDA 203188 SUPPLEMENT-4 KALYDECO IVACAFTOR 21-Feb-2014 6 years and older who have mutations INC in the CFTR gene Treatment of previously untreated NOVARTIS patients with chronic lymphocytic BLA 125326 SUPPLEMENT-60 ARZERRA OFATUMUMAB PHARMACEUTICALS 17-Apr-2014 leukemia (CLL) for whom fludarabine- CORPORATION based therapy is considered inappropriate Treatment of patients with anaplastic NOVARTIS lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive NDA 205755 ORIGINAL-1 ZYKADIA CERITINIB 29-Apr-2014 PHARMACEUTICALS CORP metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on or are intolerant to crizotinib Treatment of relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), in combination with rituximab, in patients NDA 206545 ORIGINAL-1 ZYDELIG IDELALISIB GILEAD SCIENCES INC 23-Jul-2014 for whom rituximab alone would be considered appropriate therapy due to other co-morbidities
    [Show full text]
  • CHMP Agenda of the 19-22 April 2021 Meeting
    28 July 2021 EMA/CHMP/220334/2021 Corr.11 Human Medicines Division Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP) Agenda for the meeting on 19-22 April 2021 Chair: Harald Enzmann – Vice-Chair: Bruno Sepodes 19 April 2021, 09:00 – 19:30, virtual meeting/ room 1C 20 April 2021, 08:30 – 19:30, virtual meeting/ room 1C 21 April 2021, 08:30 – 19:30, virtual meeting/ room 1D 22 April 2021, 08:30 – 19:00, virtual meeting/ room 1C Disclaimers Some of the information contained in this agenda is considered commercially confidential or sensitive and therefore not disclosed. With regard to intended therapeutic indications or procedure scopes listed against products, it must be noted that these may not reflect the full wording proposed by applicants and may also vary during the course of the review. Additional details on some of these procedures will be published in the CHMP meeting highlights once the procedures are finalised and start of referrals will also be available. Of note, this agenda is a working document primarily designed for CHMP members and the work the Committee undertakes. Note on access to documents Some documents mentioned in the agenda cannot be released at present following a request for access to documents within the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as they are subject to on- going procedures for which a final decision has not yet been adopted. They will become public when adopted or considered public according to the principles stated in the Agency policy on access to documents (EMA/127362/2006). 1 Correction in section 8.1.1 Official address Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 ● 1083 HS Amsterdam ● The Netherlands Address for visits and deliveries Refer to www.ema.europa.eu/how-to-find-us Send us a question Go to www.ema.europa.eu/contact Telephone +31 (0)88 781 6000 An agency of the European Union © European Medicines Agency, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Rxoutlook® 1St Quarter 2019
    ® RxOutlook 1st Quarter 2020 optum.com/optumrx a RxOutlook 1st Quarter 2020 Orphan drugs continue to feature prominently in the drug development pipeline In 1983 the Orphan Drug Act was signed into law. Thirty seven years later, what was initially envisioned as a minor category of drugs has become a major part of the drug development pipeline. The Orphan Drug Act was passed by the United States Congress in 1983 in order to spur drug development for rare conditions with high unmet need. The legislation provided financial incentives to manufacturers if they could demonstrate that the target population for their drug consisted of fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States, or that there was no reasonable expectation that commercial sales would be sufficient to recoup the developmental costs associated with the drug. These “Orphan Drug” approvals have become increasingly common over the last two decades. In 2000, two of the 27 (7%) new drugs approved by the FDA had Orphan Designation, whereas in 2019, 20 of the 48 new drugs (42%) approved by the FDA had Orphan Designation. Since the passage of the Orphan Drug Act, 37 years ago, additional regulations and FDA designations have been implemented in an attempt to further expedite drug development for certain serious and life threatening conditions. Drugs with a Fast Track designation can use Phase 2 clinical trials to support FDA approval. Drugs with Breakthrough Therapy designation can use alternative clinical trial designs instead of the traditional randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Additionally, drugs may be approved via the Accelerated Approval pathway using surrogate endpoints in clinical trials rather than clinical outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentación De Powerpoint
    Molecular Tumor Board in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Jordi Remon Masip CIOCC Barcelona – HM Delfos @JordiRemon #SEOM20 Disclosure Information I do not have COI related to this specific presentation Why do we need a MTB in NSCLC? • Introduction • To understand the genomic profile from NGS reports • To prioritize the druggable genomic alteration: baseline / resistant • Increasing the detection of potential druggable genomic alterations • To include patients in basket trials • NGS is a reality but MTB and precision approach have challenges MTB is included in one equation MOLECULAR TUMOR BOARD Y MTB is included in one equation GENOMIC MOLECULAR TUMOR PROFILE BOARD X + Y MTB is included in one equation GENOMIC MOLECULAR TUMOR PERSONALISED PROFILE BOARD TREATMENT X + Y = Z Precision oncology in practice EGFR TKI Find actionable gens with ALK/ROS1 TKI approved therapy BRAF TKI Find actionable genes for RET / NTRK TKI clinical trials MET TKI Precision oncology in practice EGFR TKI Find actionable gens with ALK/ROS1 TKI approved therapy BRAF TKI Find actionable genes for RET / NTRK TKI clinical trials MET TKI Additional information about non-actionable gene mutations prognostic markers of sensitivity Two major steps in NSCLC outcome Immunotherapy Personalised treatment, ALK+: 5-y OS, KEYNOTE 024 Trial 5-y OS, ALEX trial Median OS, HR, (95%CI) 5-Year OS Rate, Median OS, HR, (95%CI) 5-Year OS Rate, mo % mo % 26.3 0.62 31.9 Not reached 0.67 63 13.4 (0.48-0.81) 16.7 57.4 (0.46-0.98) 46 Alectinib 26.4% Crizotinib Pembrolizumab Chemotherapy Brahmer – ESMO 2020 Mok – Annls of Oncology 2020 Number of oncogenes increases over time NTRK rearrangement Figure from Garrido – CTO 2019 (modified based on updated ESMO guidelines 2020 by Planchard et al.) Number of oncogenes increases over time NRG1 KRAS RET MET HER2 UN NTRK rearrangement Coming Future….
    [Show full text]
  • RET Inhibition in Novel Patient-Derived Models of RET Fusion
    © 2021. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Disease Models & Mechanisms (2021) 14, dmm047779. doi:10.1242/dmm.047779 RESEARCH ARTICLE RET inhibition in novel patient-derived models of RET fusion- positive lung adenocarcinoma reveals a role for MYC upregulation Takuo Hayashi1,2,*,§§, Igor Odintsov1,2,§§, Roger S. Smith1,2,‡,§§, Kota Ishizawa2,§, Allan J. W. Liu3,4, Lukas Delasos3, Christopher Kurzatkowski1, Huichun Tai1,2, Eric Gladstone1,2, Morana Vojnic1,2, Shinji Kohsaka1,2,¶, Ken Suzawa1,**, Zebing Liu1,2,‡‡, Siddharth Kunte3, Marissa S. Mattar5, Inna Khodos6, Monika A. Davare6, Alexander Drilon3, Emily Cheng2, Elisa de Stanchina5, Marc Ladanyi1,2,¶¶,*** and Romel Somwar1,2,¶¶,*** ABSTRACT suppressed by treatment of cell lines with cabozantinib. MYC protein Multi-kinase RET inhibitors, such as cabozantinib and RXDX-105, are levels were rapidly depleted following cabozantinib treatment. Taken active in lung cancer patients with RET fusions; however, the overall together, our results demonstrate that cabozantinib is an effective response rates to these two drugs are unsatisfactory compared to other agent in preclinical models harboring RET rearrangements with three ′ targeted therapy paradigms. Moreover, these inhibitors may have different 5 fusion partners (CCDC6, KIF5B and TRIM33). Notably, we different efficacies against RET rearrangements depending on the identify MYC as a protein that is upregulated by RET expression and upstream fusion partner. A comprehensive preclinical analysis of downregulated by treatment with cabozantinib, opening up potentially the efficacy of RET inhibitors is lacking due to a paucity of disease new therapeutic avenues for the combinatorial targetin of RET fusion- models harboring RET rearrangements. Here, we generated two new driven lung cancers.
    [Show full text]
  • Progresses Toward Precision Medicine in RET-Altered Solid Tumors Carmen Belli1, Santosh Anand2,3, Justin F
    Published OnlineFirst July 14, 2020; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1587 CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH | REVIEW Progresses Toward Precision Medicine in RET-altered Solid Tumors Carmen Belli1, Santosh Anand2,3, Justin F. Gainor4, Frederique Penault-Llorca5, Vivek Subbiah6, Alexander Drilon7,8, Fabrice Andre9, and Giuseppe Curigliano1,10 ABSTRACT ◥ RET (rearranged during transfection) gene encodes a receptor specificity and consequently increased side effects, responsible for tyrosine kinase essential for many physiologic functions, but RET dose reduction and drug discontinuation, are critical limitations of aberrations are involved in many pathologies. While RET loss-of- MKIs in the clinics. New selective RET inhibitors, selpercatinib and function mutations are associated with congenital disorders like pralsetinib, are showing promising activities, improved response Hirschsprung disease and CAKUT, RET gain-of-function muta- rates, and more favorable toxicity profiles in early clinical trials. This tions and rearrangements are critical drivers of tumor growth and review critically discusses the oncogenic activation of RET and its þ þ proliferation in many different cancers. RET-altered (RET ) tumors role in different kinds of tumors, clinical features of RET tumors, have been hitherto targeted with multikinase inhibitors (MKI) clinically actionable genetic RET alterations and their diagnosis, and having anti-RET activities, but they inhibit other kinase targets the available data and results of nonselective and selective targeting more potently and show limited clinical activities. The lack of target of RET. Introduction tives. However, increasing evidences in recent years show aberrant activation of RET as a critical driver of tumor growth and proliferation RET (rearranged during transfection; ref. 1) gene encodes a receptor across a broad spectrum of tumors.
    [Show full text]
  • Unitedhealthcare Cancer Therapy Pathways Program Regimens
    UnitedHealthcare Cancer Therapy Pathways Program Overview 2 Breast Cancer 3 Pancreatic Cancer 15 Melanoma 19 Colon/Rectal Cancer 23 Hepatobiliary Cancers 30 Lung Cancer, Small Cell 35 Lung Cancer, Non-Small Cell 40 Ovarian, Fallopian and Primary Peritoneal Cancer 56 Head and Neck Cancer 67 Multiple Myeloma 74 Lymphoma, Diffuse Large B-Cell 86 Lymphoma, Follicular 92 Lymphoma, Marginal Zone 97 Lymphoma, Mantle Cell 101 Change control 1 OVERVIEW Cancer Therapy Pathways Program With the rapid approval of new therapies, along with the rising cost of cancer care, pathways serve a critical role in the delivery of high-quality and high-value cancer treatments while reducing an unwarranted variation in care. The UnitedHealthcare Cancer Therapy Pathways Program aims to improve quality and value in cancer care by identifying anti-cancer regimens supported by evidence-based guidelines to help reduce total cost of care and improve outcomes. The program’s regimens are selected on the basis of clinical benefit (efficacy) and side-effect profile (toxicity). Among regimens with comparable efficacy and toxicity, additional consideration is given to the frequency of hospitalizations during therapy, duration of therapy, drug costs and total cost of care. Care decisions are between the physician and the patient The Cancer Therapy Pathways Program is not a substitute for the experience and judgment of a physician or other health care professional. Any clinician participating in the program must use independent medical judgment in the context of individual
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening the Accelerated Approval Pathway: an Analysis of Potential Policy Reforms and Their Impact on Uncertainty, Access, Innovation, and Costs
    STRENGTHENING THE ACCELERATED APPROVAL PATHWAY: AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL POLICY REFORMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON UNCERTAINTY, ACCESS, INNOVATION, AND COSTS April 26, 2021 Anna Kaltenboeck, MA, MBA Program Director and Senior Health Economist, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Amanda Mehlman Director of Strategic Partnerships Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc President Institute for Clinical and Economic Review White Paper: Strengthening the Accelerated Approval Pathway 1 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 The Challenge ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Structure of This Paper ...................................................................................................................... 6 Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 8 The Accelerated Approval Pathway ................................................................................................... 8 What is Accelerated Approval? .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Profiling and Targeted Therapies for Older Patients with Advanced NSCLC
    Molecular profiling and targeted therapies for older patients with advanced NSCLC Lore Decoster, MD, PhD UZ Brussel, Belgium Disclosures • Research grants from: BMS, Bhoeringer Ingelheim • Advisory boards: Astra Zeneca, Roche, MSD, BMS • Travel Grants: Roche, MSD NSCLC: more than one disease!! 2019 Targets EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, MET AND PDL1 Future: RET, KRAS G12C; EGFR exon 20 insertions, …. Reck et al Lancet 2013 NSCLC more than one disease Histological AND Molecular differentiation 4 NSCLC: more than one disease! Accurate identification of genetic alterations is crucial Both at baseline and at progression Need for tissue Tissue biopsies may be sometimes problematic Tumor localisation or medical condition Risk of complications Scarcity of tumor cells in biopsy Liquid biopsy If insufficient tissue or too high risk or too much burden Faster turn-around time False negatives Rolfo et al. JTO 2018 Targeted drugs for molecular alterations Approved targeted drugs Target FDA EMA Drugs Efficacy EGFR X X Gefitinib/Erlotinib, Afatinib, RR 70-80%; mPFS 10-12 mo Osimertinib RR 80%; mPFS 18 mo ALK X X Crizotinib, RR 75%; mPFS 11 mo Alectinib, Brigatinib RR 75%; mPFS 34.8 mo ROS-1 X X Crizotinib RR 70%; mPFS 19 mo Entrectinib (FDA) RR 77%; mPFS 19 mo BRAF X X Dabrafenib+Trametinib RR 64%; mPFS 11 mo MET ex14 X Capmatinib (1st line) RR 60-70%; mPFS 9-10 mo Tepotinib (2nd line) NTRK X X Larotrectinib, Entrectinib RR 70%; mPFS 15 mo Targeted drugs for molecular alterations Promising targeted drugs Target Drugs Efficacy RET Pralsetinib, Selpercatinib RR 70%; mPFS 18 mo KRAS G12C AMG510 RR 48% EGFR exon 20 Poziotinib, TAK-788 RR 43%; mPFS 7.3 mo insertions EGFR mutations 10% of NSCLC Higher frequency in adenocarcinoma, never smokers, females, Asian patients EGFR TKI 1st/2nd generation: Higher ORR, improved PFS and better QoL compared to chemotherapy Hsu WH et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovations and Patent Trends in the Development of USFDA Approved Protein Kinase Inhibitors in the Last Two Decades
    pharmaceuticals Review Innovations and Patent Trends in the Development of USFDA Approved Protein Kinase Inhibitors in the Last Two Decades Mohd. Imran 1,* , Syed Mohammed Basheeruddin Asdaq 2,* , Shah Alam Khan 3 , Dhanalekshmi Unnikrishnan Meenakshi 3, Abdulhakeem S. Alamri 4,5 , Walaa F. Alsanie 4,5, Majid Alhomrani 4,5, Yahya Mohzari 6, Ahmed Alrashed 7, Mohammed AlMotairi 8, Eman H. Alkhaldi 9, Abeer K. Alorabi 10, Ahmed Subeh Alshrari 11, Mohammad Tauseef 12, Abida 1 , Saleh I. Alaqel 1, Ozair Alam 13 and Md. Afroz Bakht 14 1 Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Northern Border University, Arar 91911, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (A.); [email protected] (S.I.A.) 2 Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, AlMaarefa University, Dariyah, Riyadh 13713, Saudi Arabia 3 College of Pharmacy, National University of Science and Technology, Muscat 130, Oman; [email protected] (S.A.K.); [email protected] (D.U.M.) 4 Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, The Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (A.S.A.); [email protected] (W.F.A.); [email protected] (M.A.) 5 Centre of Biomedical Sciences Research (CBSR), Deanship of Scientific Research, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia Citation: Imran, M.; Asdaq, S.M.B.; 6 Clinical Pharmacy Department, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 7 Khan, S.A.; Unnikrishnan Meenakshi, Pharmaceutical Services Administration, Inpatient Department, Main Hospital, King Fahad Medical City, D.; Alamri, A.S.; Alsanie, W.F.; Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 8 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia; Alhomrani, M.; Mohzari, Y.; Alrashed, [email protected] A.; AlMotairi, M.; et al.
    [Show full text]