Lydia Pan, PhD Director, Worldwide Policy, Pfizer Inc.
Presentation to the Cancer Action Coalition of VirginiaSeptember 12, 2013
Innovating to Better Care: How personalized medicine is changing the
biopharmaceutical marketplace
Personalized Medicine: Towards a Definition
“Personalized medicine” refers to the tailoring of medical treatment to the individual characteristics of each patient. It does not literally mean the creation of
drugs or medical devices that are unique to a patient, but rather the ability to classify individuals into subpopulations that differ in their susceptibility to a
particular disease or their response to a specific treatment. Preventive or therapeutic interventions can then be concentrated on those who will benefit,
sparing expense and side effects for those who will not.
Report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, September 2008
The right drug …for the right person
…in the right dose …at the right time
2
Older Drugs were Developed Empirically
– Source of data: Brian B. Spear, Margo Heath-Chiozzi, Jeffery Huff, “Clinical Trends in Molecular Medicine,” Volume 7, Issue 5, 1 May 2001, Pages 201-204.
3
Today’s Medicines are Developed with More Precision
Medicines targeting patient segments that will
have an optimal response to therapy
Building disease understanding to identify the right
pathways and targets
Linking disease understanding
and clinical outcomes
Precision Medicine
Segmented (not personalized)
4
Recognition of Leukemia and Lymphoma Sub-types has Improved Outcomes
100 years ago Disease of the blood
80 years ago Leukemia or lymphoma
60 years ago
Chronic leukemia Acute leukemia Preleukemia
Indolent lymphomaAggressive lymphoma
Today
~38 leukemia types identified:• Acute myeloid leukemia (~12 types)• Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (2 types)• Acute promyelocytic leukemia (2 types)• Acute monocytic leukemia (2 types)• Acute erythroid leukemia (2 types)• Acute megakaryoblastic leukemia• Acute myelomoncytic leukemia (2 types)• Chronic myeloid leukemia• Chronic myeloproliferative disorders (5 types)• Myelodysplastic syndromes (6 types)• Mixed myeloproliferative/myelodysplastic
syndromes (3 types)
51 lymphomas identified:• Mature B-cell lymphomas (~14 types)• Mature T-cell lymphomas (15 types)• Plasma cell neoplasm (3 types)• Immature (precursor) lymphomas
(2 types)• Hodgkin’s lymphoma (5 types)• Immunodeficiency-associated
lymphomas ~ 5 types)• Other hematolymphoid neoplasm's
(~7 types)
5-Yr Survival
~0%
70%
Source: Malorye, Allison. “Is Personalized Medicine Finally Arriving?” Nature Biotechnology, May 2008
5
The Human Genome: A Great Opportunity for Drug Discovery?
Biopharmaceutical R&D Investment and New Medicines Approved
Sources: Paraxel's Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2005/2006; FDA; PhRMA 7
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
12
22
30
20 21 2023 23
3026 25
2228
53
39
3025 27
24
1721
36
20 2218
24 2621
30
39
3.2 3.6 4.1 4.8 5.7 6.5 7.3 8.4 9.611.612.713.4
15.216.9
19.021.1
22.726.0
29.831.0
34.537.0
39.9
43.4
47.947.446.4
50.748.648.5NME
R&D Spend
Year
Num
ber o
f Pr
oduc
ts
$ Bi
lliio
ns
Genomic-based Research Enables Precision Medicine
Right Target Right Patient Goal to improve survival
8
Drug targeted to specific oncogene or aberrant pathway driving the
specific tumor
Patient identified through molecular profiling of
their tumor
Ultimate objective is to improve survival
New treatmentComparator
0 6 12 18 24 30 360
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Ove
rall
Surv
ival
Pro
babi
lity
Months of survival
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Clinical Development
Challenges for Coordination of Rx/Dx Co-development
PMA (CDRH)
CDER/CBER
The FDA prefers to review both Rx & Dx applications concurrently. Sponsor must coordinate between different FDA Centers
FDA has multiple programs to expedite drug/biologic development and review: Fast Track, Accelerated Approval, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review
CDRH does not have similar mechanisms to accelerate diagnostic approval.
Diagnostic
Therapeutic
Drugs Labels with Genomic Biomarker Information
Testing required– Trastazumab / breast cancer FISH/IHC HER2– Panitumumab / colon cancer KRAS wildtype– Vemurafenib / melanoma BRAF V600E– Crizotinib / NSCLC ALK gene rearrangements
Ivacaftor / cystic fibrosis CFTR G551D
Testing recommended– Abacavir / HIV AIDS HLA-B 5701 variant– Irinotecan / colon cancer UGT1A1 variant– Azathioprine / autoimmune Thiopurine methyltransferase– Warfarin / thrombosis, CV prophylaxis CYP2C9, VKORC
Informational tests– Fluoxetine / depression CYP2D6– Codeine / analgesia CYP2D6– Clopidogrel / CV prophylaxis CYP2C19 – Chloroquine / malaria G6PD deficiency
Adapted from Nature Biotechnology, 25, 509-517, 2007; Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels http://www.fda.gov/drugs/scienceresearch/researchareas/pharmacogenetics/ucm083378.htm
10
FDA Framework for Personalized Medicine:A “Mosaic” of Guidance Documents
Document Type Title DateConcept Paper Drug-Diagnostic Co-Development April 2005
Guidance Pharmacogenetic Tests and Genetic Tests for Heritable Markers
Feb 2006 (draft)June 2007 (final)
Draft Guidance Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions Aug 2007
Draft Guidance In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assays Sept 2006 (draft)Feb 2007 (public meeting)July 2007 (revised)2010 (withdrawn)
Draft Guidance (FAQ)
Commercially Distributed In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or
Investigational Use Only
June 2011
Draft Guidance In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices July 2011
Guidance Clinical Pharmacogenomics: Premarketing Evaluation in Early Phase Clinical Studies
January 2013(draft Feb 2011)
Additional guidance documents forthcoming
I IIIII IIIII
CMS(CLIA) FDA
510k PMAAll Lab-Developed Tests
Distinct pathways for LDTs and Dx test kits
Certification of laboratory performance standards
Multiple Ways for Tests to Reach the Marketplace
Risk class
Clinical utility required
Regulator
FDA wants all CDx to go through PMA
Personalized Medicine: Key Components
• Science & Technology• Driving the understanding of disease and the discovery and
development of medicines• Regulatory science advances
• Medical Practice- What’s best for the patient? - Changes in medical practice
• Health Care EnvironmentoHow do we get personalized omedicines to patients?
13
Understanding of Oncologic Drivers is Rapidly Increasing
References: 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, data on file 2. Horn L, Pao W. J Clin Oncol 2009;26:4232–5 14
Adenocarcinoma 1999Histology-driven Selection
K-RAS
EGFR
B-RAF
HER-2
PIK3CAALK
MET
Unknown
Adenocarcinoma 2011Targeting Oncogenic Drivers1
Evolving Personalized Paradigm
Metastatic disease (stage IIIB/ IV)
Biomarkers can direct treatment towards targeted therapy or
clinical trials (where available)
EGFR K-RAS ERCC1 ALK TS B-RAFHER-2
Traditional Paradigm
Non-squamous cell carcinoma
Metastatic disease (stage IIIB/ IV)
Squamous cell carcinoma
Creating a New Paradigm for NSCLC Treatment
Oncologist sole treatment decision maker Treatment decisions depend on histology
More complex decisions involving more stakeholders beyond oncologist (surgeon, pathologist)
Education required to integrate molecular diagnostics into treatment decisions
Need for multiple molecular Dx creates competition for available tissue, budget, manpower
Not a “simple” issue of a single drug-diagnostic combination
Multiple test options
Biomarkers Support Expansion of Use
Therapeutic Biomarker Indication(s)
GLEEVEC® Imatinib
C-Kit Gastrointestinal stromal tumors, aggressive systemic mastocytosis
Philadelphia Chromosome
chronic myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia
PDGFR myelodysplastic/ myeloproliferative diseases
FIP1L1-PDGFRα hypereosinophilic syndrome and/or chronic eosinophilic leukemia
Adapted from GLEEVEC® prescribing information (www.novartis.com)
16
Payers Must Determine How to Pay for Personalized Medicine
Test Coding: • AMA created new Molecular Diagnostic CPT codes for 2013• Retirement of code-stacking• Unique tests still not identified (McKesson Z-codes)
Coverage and Reimbursement:• CMS rolling out new policies for molecular diagnostics
– MolDx test payments being set at local level by gap-filling; process has not been transparent
– Proposed payment determinations for products paid under the CLFS included the decision NOT to pay for algorithm portion of multi-analyte tests
• Increasingly, payers are demanding high levels of clinical evidence to justify the reimbursement of personalized medicine products
– Challenges to generating timely evidence without denying or delaying access to treatment
• Targeted therapeutics increasingly subject to utilization management tools
17
Challenges to Personalized Medicine in the Marketplace
• Precision medicine may drive efficiencies in drug development but application of technologies isn’t cheap
• Drug development may or may not be less costly
• If targeting smaller, more defined populations, medicines should have greater efficacy / safety risk ratios but also likely be more expensive
• Diagnostics landscape is rapidly evolving – needs investment to sustain innovation
• Integrating each new intervention into healthcare management takes time
• Growing pressure to show PM improves health outcomes
• Value loss if access is restricted
18
Rx to Deliver the Pipeline for Personalized Medicine
• Aggressive application of science to R&D
– Informatics tools to analyze large, multi-dimensional data sets
– Closer industry-academia collaboration to drive customized therapy solutions
– Novel clinical trial designs that incorporate new drug development tools
– Opportunities to add value to existing and potential medicines
• Secure systems that allow safe sharing of data between health care providers, industry and regulators to streamline development and approval processes
• Collaborative relationships with regulators that strengthen patient safety but also speed the approval of novel biomarker applications and Dx technologies
• Evidence standards to demonstrate the effectiveness of diagnostics in improving patient outcomes
19
Toward a Health Care System that Delivers the Value of Personalized Medicine
• Data systems that assure security and access to the growing body of patient data• Quality standards to insure data compatibility and comparability • Integrated health information: a complete systems-based readout
of the health status of an individual in a given environment
• Physicians need easy-to-interpret results • user-friendly technological interface • data from multiple sources• continuously refined algorithms and
database updates
• Enabling functions: standards, infrastructure, systems approach, sharing mechanisms
• Education along the entire health care ecosystem
Policy will determine success or failure of personalized medicine implementation
20
Thank You!
Questions???
21