The FDA halted two REGENXBIO gene therapies with similar constructs after a safety event in one trial. However, it spared a third therapy from the same company that used a different design, indicating regulators assess risk at the technology platform level, not just the company or disease level.
Related Insights
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.
To overcome regulatory hurdles for "N-of-1" medicines, researchers are using an "umbrella clinical trial" strategy. This approach keeps core components like the delivery system constant while only varying the patient-specific guide RNA, potentially allowing the FDA to approve the platform itself, not just a single drug.
The drama surrounding Sarepta's gene therapy, where a top regulator was ousted after political pushback and later reinstated, shows the FDA is now more amenable to outside influence. This case study indicates that presidential and activist pressure can directly impact regulatory enforcement and personnel decisions, moving beyond purely scientific considerations.
CellSci's drug trial ran into a stricter FDA under one administration after a period of more lenient approvals under the previous one. This political "pendulum swing" can derail promising drugs, showing that regulatory risk is not static but subject to unpredictable political change.
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.
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.
The commercial advantage of one-time CRISPR/Cas9 therapies is shrinking. Advancements in RNA modalities like siRNA now offer durable, long-lasting effects with a potentially safer profile. This creates a challenging risk-reward calculation for permanent gene edits in diseases where both technologies are applicable, especially as investor sentiment sours on CRISPR's long-term safety.
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.
The Unicure case exposes a critical hurdle for gene therapies requiring brain surgery. Patient advocates argue a "sham" placebo surgery is unethical due to risks like neurodegeneration. Yet, the FDA's potential rejection of an external control arm creates a development paradox, catching companies between patient safety ethics and regulatory demands for placebo data.
Gene therapy companies, which are inherently technology-heavy, risk becoming too focused on their platform. The ultimate stakeholder is the patient, who is indifferent to whether a cure comes from gene editing, a small molecule, or an antibody. The key is solving the disease, not forcing a specific technological solution onto every problem.
