Episode Summary
Anish sits down with Adu, a med student and biotech investor, to work through the FDA's contested handling of Unicure's AMT-130 — a gene therapy for Huntington's disease delivered via stereotactic brain injection. They debate whether the underlying data justifies approval, why the agency's mid-course reversal has rattled the investor community, and what the Sarepta precedent should have taught everyone involved. The conversation broadens into a bigger question: given that desperate patient populations will always demand access to anything showing a signal, who is actually best positioned to make the call on whether a drug works — the FDA, the clinician, or the market?
Chapter Markers
00:00 FDA approval of AMT-130 and investor reaction
01:16 Unmet need and the case for regulatory flexibility
02:37 Sarepta, Duchenne's, and the cost of approving under pressure
05:09 Accelerated approval done right: the Amylyx example
09:14 Debating the AMT-130 data and the historical control problem
13:53 Why stock price matters for trial funding
17:20 How Prasad could have changed FDA culture differently
19:37 The FDA's role from Kefauver-Harris to today
22:26 Competing Huntington's therapies in the pipeline
25:39 Prasad's tenure: what worked, what didn't
28:27 Media coverage of the FDA and science journalism
Co-Host Handles
@anish_koka and @drdigiorgio
Show Handle
@drsloungepod
