FDA delay cited in closure of biotech studying autoimmune hepatitis

In February, a small biotech company called Kezar Life Sciences reached a breakthrough with the Food and Drug Administration, agreeing to a plan for a clinical trial it hoped could lead to the approval of its treatment for a rare, debilitating liver disease called autoimmune hepatitis. The problem: The agreement came four months too late.
The meeting to discuss trial design, a critical step in the drug development process, had been scheduled for last October. But the FDA abruptly canceled it without explanation. The company could no longer proceed as planned and, without clarity from regulators, its path forward was unclear. Kezar’s investors wanted out, and the biotech was forced to start the process of winding down.
It laid off most of its staff of about 60 people. Then, it auctioned off its lab equipment and sold much of its office furniture, except for the table and chairs in one conference room it kept in case the company got its meeting with FDA staff.
Last week — after the meeting and the breakthrough happened — the company said it would be sold. Kezar hopes the buyer, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, will take the drug forward, though how quickly that can happen, if at all, is not guaranteed.
It’s also not clear why Kezar’s initial meeting was canceled. But to CEO Chris Kirk, the chain of events fits a pattern over the past year in which volatility at the FDA — including staff departures and decision-making seen as inconsistent — has ricocheted across the industry, impacting drugmakers. Those impacts can fall disproportionately on small companies, which, unlike major drugmakers, often operate on one financing to the next.
“In my career, I’ve often not agreed with what the FDA has said, but I’ve at least relied on their consistency,” said Kirk, who’s worked in biotech for more than two decades. “That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening now. It feels more stochastic and maybe even capricious, what’s going on at the FDA. And this isn’t good for patients. It’s definitely not good for the biotech ecosystem as a whole.”
STAT+ Exclusive Story
Already have an account? Log in
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers
Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector — by subscribing to STAT+.
Already have an account? Log in
Individual plans
Group plans
View All Plans
To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.
Subscribe




