Unicure's setback with its Huntington's gene therapy demonstrates a new political risk at the FDA. A prior agreement on a trial's design can be overturned by new leadership, especially if the data is not overwhelmingly definitive. This makes past regulatory alignment a less reliable indicator of future approval.
Related Insights
Unicure's experience reveals a significant regulatory risk: the FDA can reverse its position on a pre-agreed Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). Despite prior alignment on using a natural history control, the agency later told the company this approach was merely 'exploratory,' invalidating their filing strategy and shocking investors.
Amidst growing turmoil at the FDA, a viable strategy is to "invest around" the risk. This involves prioritizing companies whose drugs show clear data on well-understood, validated endpoints, as these are most likely to navigate the current political environment successfully, regardless of leadership changes.
An ideologically driven and inconsistent FDA is eroding investor confidence, turning the U.S. into a difficult environment for investment in complex biologics like gene therapies and vaccines, potentially pushing innovation to other countries.
Internal power shifts at the FDA, such as Vinay Prasad's rising influence, create a chilling effect on review teams. Even without direct orders, reviewers feel less emboldened to be flexible when leadership's public stance favors greater rigor. This 'tone from leadership' can shift regulatory outcomes more than explicit policy changes.
The replacement of CEDAR Director Richard Pazder with Tracy Beth Hoeg, who is viewed as an ideologue lacking regulatory experience, signals a shift toward politically driven decisions at the FDA. This move creates significant uncertainty and raises concerns that ideology, not science, will influence drug approvals.
The podcast's policy expert makes a bold forecast of a significant leadership shake-up, predicting that the HHS Secretary, FDA Commissioner, and directors of key centers like CBER and CEDAR will not be in their roles a year from now.
The FDA is shifting policy to no longer allow reliance on immunogenicity data (immunobridging) for approving new or updated vaccines. This move toward requiring full clinical efficacy trials will make it harder to combat evolving pathogens and would have prevented past approvals of key vaccines like those for HPV and Ebola.
The HHS Secretary's unprecedented interview of a candidate for FDA's CEDAR Director marks a significant politicization of a traditionally scientific, civil service position. This shift suggests future directors may need political alignment with the administration, leading to greater risk aversion, erratic decision-making, and less predictability for the biopharma industry.
The FDA's current leadership appears to be raising the bar for approvals based on single-arm studies. Especially in slowly progressing diseases with variable endpoints, the agency now requires an effect so dramatic it's akin to a parachute's benefit—unmistakable and not subject to interpretation against historical data.
Industry sentiment on the FDA is not monolithic. A recent survey reveals that while biotechs largely maintain confidence in the agency's hardworking staff and their day-to-day interactions, there is deep concern and a lack of trust in the agency's top leadership. This nuanced view highlights that the perceived problems are rooted in politicization and leadership competence, not frontline operations.
