Those who have taken an interest in Clinuvel will have learned with joy that, on Monday February 6th, the company announced its first official filing for SCENESSE® (afamelanotide) with the European Medicines Agency. It has taken our teams around six years to arrive at this point. Benchmarked against peer companies, it is a relatively swift development path for a first-in-class drug; we first publicly announced our erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP) program in September 2006. It is an opportune moment to reflect briefly on how we reached this milestone and then discuss the steps that must be taken from here. (more…)
Who wins from pharma cost-cutting?
Friday, September 23rd, 2011
Earlier this month Sanofi, the world’s fourth largest pharmaceutical company by revenues, announced that it would go on a cost-cutting spree, trimming its expenditure by $US2.9billion annually and cutting many thousands of jobs in the process. Amidst the upheaval, Sanofi stated its key goal for 2012 onwards was ‘generating sustainable growth’ for shareholders (the complete presentation can be viewed here). One of the key targets for its cuts was R&D costs, both in terms of overall spend and employee headcount. (more…)
The importance of clinical relevance
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011
Development of novel drugs is truly like no other business: one attempts to address questions that may have never been previously posed – let alone answered – in the pursuit of improving the lives and quality of life of patients. As I eluded to in my recent letter to shareholders, the team is now well into the analysis of results from our erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP) program; two studies from the US and Europe. This is a complex and time consuming task that requires one to collate and make sense of thousands of data points to answer a seemingly straight forward question: does this trial show that the drug is safe and effective?
Obtaining an answer needs to be understood from the concept of clinical relevance. Put simply, results don’t just need to show that a treatment or intervention has an effect on a disease. Rather, they need to indicate that that effect is relevant to the current clinical understanding, treatment and care for the disease or indication. They need to show that the drug’s effect is having a positive, meaningful impact upon a patient’s prognosis and care. This is a crucial point to consider in the development of protocols and in the careful analysis of results, as it is how regulators will review the results. (more…)
The challenges of ‘orphan’: can drug development cope with rare diseases?
Thursday, June 9th, 2011
Scarcely a day goes by that the Clinuvel team is not contacted regarding the latest conference: everything from monitoring to manufacturing to marketing is analysed, discussed and disputed across the globe in conference form. It’s impossible – and unwise – for small companies to try to attend all these forums, but it is equally impossible to work in the space without looking outside the office door: there is much to be learned from what others have done or not done to succeed in an industry fraught with failure.
And indeed there was much to take on at the recent World Orphan Drug Summit, held in Frankfurt last week. (more…)
At what cost, expertise?
Thursday, May 26th, 2011
Drug development is time consuming, expensive and fraught with risk. Setting aside commercial considerations, the scientific rational for the use of a drug and its introduction into the clinic requires a deep level of scientific and medical understanding in an environment which is continuously changing. The less common the drug class or clinical indication, the less likely one is to find individual experts who have the capacity to properly evaluate whether a drug is safe and effective for use in a clinical setting. Here one needs to learn while progressing, learning on the job due to lack of precedent.
If one identifies scientific experts in the field of interest, they are likely to be highly specialised physicians and basic scientists; often these experts will want to be involved on a potential breakthrough by accessing the prospective and novel therapy in their field of expertise. (more…)
Small populations, big therapeutic potential
Monday, May 23rd, 2011
When Andrew Pollack of the New York Times declared that the “world’s largest drug company is thinking small”, he wasn’t referring to reductions in sales force.
Rather, Pollack was reporting on a licensing deal between Pfizer and Israeli biotech company Protalix which built upon a growing global trend: big pharmaceutical companies were making a move into treatments for rare diseases, otherwise known as ‘orphan’ therapies.
In the months that followed Pollack’s December 2009 article, both Pfizer and GSK (two of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies) launched specific business units focused on R&D for orphan drugs. In their announcements, both companies highlighted the significant unmet medical needs that exist in rare diseases and the potential of therapies that were in development. (more…)


We 


