Drug Development Risk #364: Poorly Run Clinical Trials

Merck's (NYSE: MRK  ) clinical development team needs to wake up.

The pharma giant announced today that the Food and Drug Administration rejected its anesthesia drug Bridion for the second time.

The first rejection was back in 2008 when Schering-Plough still owned the drug. The FDA went against a unanimous recommendation by its advisory committee and rebuffed the drug, requesting additional data on its potential effect on hypersensitivity.

Merck bought Schering-Plough in 2009, started marketing Bridion in more than 50 countries where it's approved for sale, and ran a study to help convince the FDA that the drug was safe.

Rather than providing its blessing, however, the FDA now has "concerns about operational aspects" of the clinical trial. It appears the agency is concerned about a specific clinical trial site that conducted the hypersensitivity study.

Improperly run clinical trials are an inevitable risk of drug development.

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals  (NASDAQ: PPHM  ) , for instance, saw its shares plummet 80% after announcing that a company the biotech hired to send out vials used in its non-small-cell lung cancer trial incorrectly coded the bavituximab drug and the placebo. Without knowing which test subject received which drug, data interpretation becomes impossible -- not that Peregrine didn't try.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: VRTX  ) didn't have any problems running its clinical trial testing VX-809 and Kalydeco, but the first report of its trial data was incorrect due to an error made by a contractor hired to perform statistical analysis. The data were still solid, just not as solid as investors were initially led to believe.

You'd hope the risk of screwing up a clinical trial would be less for a large pharma like Merck than it would be for smaller biotechs, but even pharmas aren't immune to botched trials. The FDA rejected Johnson & Johnson's (NYSE: JNJ  ) antibiotic ceftobiprole because it didn't feel the company maintained sufficient oversight over its clinical trial sites. This resulted in an arbitration tribunal ordering Johnson & Johnson to hand the drug back to its partner Basilea and pay about $130 million for the screw up.

Merck was light on the details of exactly what the FDA is concerned about, but it doesn't look like it'll get resolved quickly. The FDA delayed a decision on the drug back in March, presumably to get to the bottom of the issue.

Worst case scenario, Merck has to run another clinical trial to prove the drug is safe. Let's just hope it doesn't take another five years to get back in front of the FDA.

That's why you should consider diversifying into other dividend-paying stocks
Dividend stocks can make you rich. It's as simple as that. While they don't garner the notoriety of high-flying growth stocks, they're also less likely to crash and burn. And over the long term, the compounding effect of the quarterly payouts, as well as their growth, adds up faster than most investors imagine. With this in mind, our analysts sat down to identify the absolute best of the best when it comes to rock-solid dividend stocks, drawing up a list in this free report of nine that fit the bill. To discover the identities of these companies before the rest of the market catches on, you can download this valuable free report by simply clicking here now.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (3)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 23, 2013, at 7:30 PM, BBTERPS wrote:

    Just for the record PPHM did salvage enough data from the trial botched by the third party that handled the double blind trial. The third party was an FDA approved vendor.

    That was a phase 2 trial for NSCLC, after establishing one arm of the trial (a 3 MG dose of Bavituximab) was untainted they were approved for a phase 3 trial with 600 patients and a early review possible.

    Without the screw up they would have realized a 109% improvement over SOC. Even after they had tp combine there 1mg Bavi arm of the trial and SOC, PPHM still had a 60% improvement. This out performs any historical data for this difficult unmet need.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2650134, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/27/2014 7:27:51 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement