Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Atara and Pierre Fabre received a second Complete Response Letter (CRL) for clinical deficiencies after spending a year addressing the first CRL's manufacturing issues. This illustrates a critical communication breakdown where the FDA introduces new concerns late in the process, blindsiding companies that believed they were on a clear path to approval.

Related Insights

A Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA due to manufacturing issues can destroy a biotech. CEO Ron Cooper warns leaders to invest heavily in Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) early, even when the cost exceeds the clinical trial spend. This early investment in professionalizing CMC is critical to de-risk the company's future.

A significant disconnect exists between the FDA leadership's public statements promoting flexibility and the stringent, delay-prone reality faced by companies. For areas like gene therapy, firms report feeling the "rug was pulled out," suggesting investors should be skeptical of the agency's accommodating PR.

The FDA publicly promotes regulatory flexibility for rare diseases, yet industry insiders perceive it as less permissive than prior administrations. This disconnect between the agency's messaging and its actual decisions is fueling widespread criticism, investor uncertainty, and accusations of 'moving the goalposts'.

The FDA issued Complete Response Letters for both REGENXBIO's gene therapy and DISC Medicine's oral drug, signaling high scrutiny for accelerated approvals. The agency specifically cited concerns over the relevance of surrogate endpoints and required more robust clinical trial data, highlighting the risks of relying on non-traditional approval pathways.

The FDA is creating a transparency paradox. It is increasingly publishing complete response letters (CRLs), giving insight into why drugs are rejected. Simultaneously, it has drastically cut the number of public advisory committee (AdCom) meetings held before approval decisions, reducing public input and pre-decision transparency.

Disagreements between FDA review teams and senior leadership, like CBER head Vinay Prasad, create contradictory guidance for drug sponsors. Companies follow the review team's advice, only to be overruled by leadership, leading to wasted resources, delayed approvals, and significant frustration.

Bio is creating a formal system for biotech companies to report challenges with the FDA. Bio will synthesize this feedback monthly and present it directly to FDA leadership, creating a novel channel to elevate systemic issues and improve accountability.

Patient advocates for a Huntington's therapy are frustrated not just by the FDA's halt, but by its reversal on previously agreed-upon trial design. The agency initially accepted an external control arm but later deemed it inadequate, creating regulatory uncertainty that erodes trust and could chill future development in rare diseases.

Recent events, like Moderna's rescinded 'refusal to file' letter, reveal that alignment with FDA staff on trial design is no guarantee. Senior leaders, notably Vinay Prasad, are reportedly overturning prior agreements, creating extreme uncertainty and making it impossible for companies to trust the regulatory guidance they receive.

The speaker's experience at a previous biotech highlights the extreme personal risk in the industry. After receiving a Complete Response Letter from the FDA, the entire commercial team that had been built in anticipation of a launch had to be let go, including the Chief Commercial Officer.