• where experts go to learn about FDA
  • DOJ Announces Significant Policy Shift on Electronic Recordings of Statements; Will Other Agencies Follow?

    By JP Ellison & Anne K. Walsh – 
     
    On May 22, 2014, the Justice Department announced that it had made a significant policy change regarding its policy concerning whether to electronically record statements made by individuals.   A copy of the relevant DOJ memo is available here
     
    Beginning on July 11, 2014, there will be a presumption that agents from the FBI, DEA, ATF and the U.S. Marshals Service (all sub-agencies within DOJ and therefore DOJ employees) will electronically record interviews occurring while a person is in federal custody after arrest.  Agents also are encouraged to tape conversations when suspects are not in custodial interview.  DOJ's stated purpose is to have "clear and indisputable records of important statements and confessions made by individuals who have been detained." 
     
    With this policy change, whether an interview is recorded may well depend on whether a DOJ employee is one of the criminal investigators assigned to a case.  If recording statements is good policy for DOJ (the principal litigator for the U.S. government, and a significant investigative agency), then other agencies—including FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations—may follow suit.

    Categories: Enforcement

    As Senate and House Lawmakers Slog Through FDA Appropriations Bills, FDA’s To-Do List Grows

    By Kurt R. Karst –      

    On May 29th, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations voted 31-18 during a mark-up session to send to the House floor its version of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, along with an accompanying report.  The House Appropriations Committee vote follows a May 22nd mark-up session by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations of its version of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (S. 2389).  The Senate Committee approved that measure by a 16-14 vote, along with an accompanying report, and they will go on to the full Senate for consideration.  As is typical of FDA appropriations bills and reports, lawmakers heap on various recommendations and directives.  We’ve gone ahead an extracted those items from each of the documents and added some links to background information.  We’re not going to get into all of the appropriations funding numbers.  Instead, we’ll leave that to the folks over at the Alliance for a Stronger FDA (see here).
     
    House Fiscal Year 2015 FDA Appropriations Bill & Report

    In what seems to be an effort to strongarm FDA into action on finalizing a guidance document on abuse deterrence opioid development (see our previous post here), Section 734 of the House bill provides:

    Of the funds made available to the Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses, Office of the Commissioner, $20,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until the Food and Drug Administration finalizes the draft guidance of January 2013 entitled “Guidance for Industry: Abuse-Deterrent Opioids – Evaluation and Labeling”: Provided, That if the Food and Drug Administration fails to finalize such guidance by June 30, 2015, such funds shall be made available for obligation to the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigation for the purpose of assisting Federal, state, and local agencies to combat the diversion and illegal sales of controlled substances.

    The provision in the Senate report (below) uses much softer recommendation language. 

    FSMA Food Safety Preventative Controls for Human Food Rule.—FDA is directed not to implement an interim final or final rule regarding food safety plans under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) until regulatory requirements for supplier verification and testing programs are proposed for public review and comment as well as an economic analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the regulatory requirements pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Given the diversity in the food industry, FSMA was designed to be risk-based, flexible, and science-based. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Yet, the Committee is very concerned with the overly prescriptive regulatory approach that the agency is taking with many of the regulations including the monitoring of preventive controls and verification testing activities. Accordingly, FDA shall ensure all FSMA regulations are risk-based, flexible, and science-based, and embrace the well-established and recognized standards for food safety already employed through much of the industry.

    Need to Manage Priorities.—The Committee is concerned that FDA is not taking necessary and required steps to provide agency stakeholders adequate input or economic consideration on an expanding list of highly technical regulatory proposals. In addition, the agency has provided questionable cost estimates on proposed rules, guidance documents, and notices of tentative determination. The food supply chain has been forced to provide comment on OMB Redline text on important FSMA proposed rules, not formally published in the Federal Register. Moreover, the agency’s dramatic shift in how it determines ingredient safety has tremendous potential to expose the Nation’s largest manufacturing sector and the agency to costly litigation that may unnecessarily lead to higher costs and taxpayer dollars with unknown benefits. At a time when the agency is requesting additional appropriations and revenue from user fees, the Committee recommends that the agency not overextend itself at the cost to consumer confidence and the Nation’s economic health.

    FDA Partnerships Under FSMA.—The purpose of FSMA is to reform the nation’s food safety laws to ensure a safe public food supply. As FDA continues implementation of FSMA, the Committee encourages FDA to work in partnership with existing government food safety programs through Memorandum of Understandings to verify compliance with FSMA to rules once they are finalized as a way to eliminate duplication of activities under the law. 

    Pharmacy Compounding.—The Committee provides an increase of $12,000,000 for pharmacy compounding activities specified in the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA). The Committee urges FDA to complete inspections of compounding facilities that clearly fall within the agency’s jurisdiction and take all necessary enforcement actions needed to promote the safety of the drug supply chain. For those pharmacies unaffected by DQSA, state boards of pharmacy are the proper regulator of state licensed pharmacies and should remain so. The Committee will continue to monitor FDA spending and oversight over compounding pharmacies to ensure the intent of both funding and legislation approved by Congress is observed. (Additional information here.)

    Menu Labeling.—The Committee remains concerned with FDA’s proposed rule to regulate Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items at Chain Restaurants. The Committee is further concerned that FDA has not properly considered alternatives or appropriately measured their impact on affected entities. The Committee continues to urge FDA to adopt the proposed alternative Option 2 definition of similar retail food establishments, which only applies the rule to restaurants or retail establishments where the primary and majority of business is the selling of food for immediate consumption or the selling of food that is processed or prepared on the premises. The Committee directs FDA to complete and submit to the Committee a detailed cost-benefit analysis, to be used in the final rule’s review by the Office of Management and Budget, including an analysis of the agency’s proposed options for the defining of ‘‘similar retail food establishments’’ that fully incorporates the information provided by affected non-restaurant entities and determines which option is most compliant with Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review).

    The Committee believes that the agency should take into account the increased costs and logistical challenges chain restaurants will face in meeting the requirements of the proposed rule. To meet the requirements of the law, FDA should consider a clear, conspicuous statement of required nutritional information on a prominently displayed poster adjacent to the menu board and nutritional information to be provided in pamphlet form prominently displayed next to drive-through menu boards as meeting such requirements.

    Consistent with the intent of Congress to enhance the provision of accurate and accessible nutritional information to consumers, the Committee urges FDA to modify the respective provisions in the proposed rule to permit restaurants and similar retail food establishments to: (1) label the number of calories in a multi-serving menu item that is typically divided before presentation to the consumer, by labeling the number of calories in the common unit division of that multi-serving menu item, or by labeling the number of servings and number of calories per serving; (2) determine and disclose nutrient content for variable standard menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or combinations using methods that will enhance accuracy and accessibility to consumers, including ranges, averages, individual labeling of flavors or components, or labeling of one preset standard build; and (3) disclose nutrient content using a remote-access menu, such as one available on the Internet instead of an instore menu, in cases where the majority of orders are placed by customers who are off-premises. Furthermore, regarding the ‘‘reasonable basis’’ standard applied to restaurants and similar retail food establishments under Section 403(q)(5)(H)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Committee urges FDA to accept allowances for variation in nutrient content, such as brought about by variations in serving size, inadvertent human error in formulation of menu items, and variations in ingredients. FDA should not hold restaurants and similar retail food establishments liable for such variation in nutrient disclosure. If FDA’s proposed rule has been finalized prior to the issuance of this report, the Committee directs FDA to issue guidance within six months of the date of this report to inform regulated industry of the interpretations of the nutrition labeling requirements
    set forth above.

    Bioethics Committee.—The Committee directs the agency to utilize a bioethics committee within the Department of Health and Human Services to review novel cellular and gene therapy matters before the Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies. The bioethics committee should be tasked with reviewing scientific and bioethical considerations prior to the approval of clinical trials, especially those involving oocyte modifications. FDA is directed to report to the Committee at a minimum of 30 days prior to a final agency decision on such matters.

    Imported Pet Food Product Transparency.—As of December 2013, FDA has received more than 4,600 complaints of illness related to consumption of chicken, duck, or sweet potato jerky treats, nearly all of which are imported from China. The reports involve more than 5,400 dogs, 23 cats, and include more than 900 canine deaths. These incidents date back to 2007. The Committee requests that FDA provide it with a summary of all activities, including discussion of noteworthy timeframes, associated with the investigation into the pet illnesses related to these products within 60 days of the enactment of this Act. In addition, the Committee requests that the agency provide it with an annual summary report on the status of the investigation into these illnesses beginning in April 2014 until the issue has been resolved.

    Over-the-Counter (OTC) Cold Medicines for Children.—The Committee is concerned that FDA has not issued a proposed rule revising the monograph regulating the labeling of OTC cough and cold products for children. The Committee directs the agency to publish a proposed rule by June 30, 2014, based on scientific evidence for safety and efficacy in pediatric populations and consistent with the October 19, 2007, joint recommendations of its Pediatric Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee. While the Committee appreciates the agency’s effort to explore possible improvements to the OTC drug monograph process, these efforts should not impede the prompt publication of this proposed rule.

    Drug Shortages.—The Committee is aware that shortages of critical drugs persist following the 2012 enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). Surveys conducted by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, the American Hospital Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists report persistent shortages of drugs used in anesthesia care, oncology, and other services, owing primarily to problems in manufacturing, which impair patient access to care and patient experiences in the healthcare system, delay surgical procedures, and possibly increase overall healthcare costs. Therefore, within the funding provided, the Committee directs the Commissioner to continue to prioritize the public reporting of manufacturing shortages, and to work with industry to prevent conditions that might lead to drug shortages.

    Seafood Advisory.—The Committee is concerned that after many years, FDA has not published updated advice on seafood consumption for pregnant women, mothers, and children. Seafood is an important part of a healthy diet which contains critical vitamins and nutrients, such as Omega 3s, which are essential during pregnancy to ensure optimal fetal and child development. The Committee directs FDA to publish final advice to pregnant women on seafood consumption in conjunction with all applicable parties as directed in House Report 112–101 and Senate Report 112–73 by June 30, 2014. FDA shall issue its final seafood risk benefits assessment at the same time as the seafood advice. The seafood advice shall be consistent with the latest science and contain a clear and actionable advice that will enable the public, medical, and scientific communities to make informed dietary decisions and recommendations. Finally, FDA shall provide a progress report to the Committee 30 days after the enactment of this Act and every 30 days thereafter until the advisory and seafood risk benefits assessment are published.

    ANDA Review Prioritization.—In its Generic Drug User Fee Act commitment letter, FDA affirmed that in order to provide more certainty to the generic drug industry, it would expedite the review of Paragraph IV applications that become eligible for approval during the review period and other applications that have the potential to be the first generics to market. Within 45 days of enactment of this Act, the Committee directs FDA to report to the Committee how it has prioritized its abbreviated new drug application review process to ensure first generics are approved on the earliest possible date.

    Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee.—The Committee urges FDA to quickly follow up the November 2011 meeting of the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee by promptly reviewing the evidence supporting including information related to an individual’s breast density in the mammogram lay report and physician report.

    Accelerated Approval.—The Committee is concerned that FDA has underutilized the accelerated approval authority codified in FDASIA. Congress created this authority to facilitate review and approval of drugs to treat patients with rare, life-ending diseases that cannot reasonably be pursued through the standard FDA approval process. The committee directs FDA to report on the way it has used this authority since 2012, its plans to use it in the future, and a justification for using this authority for diseases that are not life-ending.  (Additional information here and here.)

    Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—The Committee commends the collaboration between FDA and the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy community to advance useful regulatory tools for benefit-risk considerations in this disease population and drug development guidance. The Committee supports the agency’s engagement with the patient population for these purposes and to enable the appropriate use of regulatory flexibility as provided in FDASIA.

    Special Protocol Assessment Agreements.—The Committee is concerned about questions that have arisen in connection with the rescission of a Special Protocol Assessment Agreement (SPA), including fundamental questions concerning FDA’s adherence to the statutory and regulatory guidelines that apply to the SPA process as well as to questions concerning fairness to the sponsors. The Committee would like to reiterate that FDA is expected to adhere to the established standard as informed by the Congressional Record and the 1997 PDUFA Goals Letter.

    The Committee is aware of FDA’s ability to rescind a SPA agreement reached under section 505(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act only if it demonstrates that ‘‘a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the product has been identified after the testing has begun.’’

    This standard is informed by the Congressional Record and the 1997 PDUFA Goals Letter. The Congressional report explains that Congress intended ‘‘that such agreements should be binding on both parties’’ except when ‘‘a substantial scientific issue has come to light after an agreement has been reached and testing has begun, which has a direct bearing on the safety or effectiveness of the product.’’

    The Committee also expects that, as a matter of public policy and fundamental fairness to the sponsor, FDA should be accountable for continued diligence in identifying issues that bear on the continued enforceability of a SPA agreement and in notifying the sponsor of such issues within a reasonable period of time after FDA becomes aware.

    To ensure agreement over the standard to rescind a SPA, the Committee directs FDA to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate within 60 days of enactment of this Act regarding the standard by which FDA would rescind a SPA. Lastly, to ensure agreement over the standard to rescind a SPA, the Committee directs FDA to revise and re-issue, after public comment, its existing guidance regarding SPA agreements to clarify the agency’s interpretation of the statutory standard regarding SPA agreements and the rescission of such agreements. (Additional background here.)

    Blood Plasma Products.—The Committee notes that the FDA Circular of Information for the Use of Human Blood and Blood Components states that plasma from different sources has identical clinical indications. Plasma from manual donation may be transfused and if not needed for that indication, may be sent for further manufacture into biologics such as immunoglobulin, clotting factor concentrates, and albumin. However, plasma from automated donation may be transfused but cannot be shipped for further manufacture until approximately one year after the donation. At that point the plasma is too old to be manufactured into other biologics and is destroyed and wasted. This seems illogical since there is a shortage of these biologic products in the United States. The Committee directs FDA to report back within 60 days of enactment of this Act on the scientific or medical justification for the different post-donation manufacturing policies and under what circumstances those policies might be adjusted to allow for the more timely use of plasma from automated donations into other biologics.

    Sunscreen Ingredient Review.—The Committee is extremely concerned that another year has passed without FDA completing its review of the pending Time and Extent Applications (TEAs) and the OTC Monograph rulemakings on sunscreens. Immediate action on sunscreens should be a priority since the need for sunscreens is evidenced by the nearly one million people that are currently living with skin cancer and the fact that melanoma is the fifth leading cause of cancer in the U.S. this year. FDA has listed actions related to sunscreen as a high priority in the Unified Agenda since 2008.

    While the Committee is encouraged that FDA has issued two sunscreen final rules and feedback letters to some sunscreen TEA applicants, significantly more work remains to protect Americans from developing skin cancer. The Committee directs FDA to complete its review by December 2014 of the remaining safety and effectiveness submissions already submitted for sunscreen active ingredients that have been found eligible for potential inclusion in the sunscreen monograph via TEAs and to work expeditiously on completing the OTC monograph rulemakings. The Committee is also encouraged that FDA is seeking input from stakeholders on how to modernize the OTC Drug Review, including the TEA process, and directs FDA to continue to work with stakeholders through the process and explore ways to improve the OTC Drug Review more broadly. (See our previous post here.)

    Import Clearance Process.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, should consider reprioritizing existing funding to ensure sufficient FDA personnel are available to clear shipments expeditiously at the time of their arrival at the port of entry including outside normal working hours and on holidays. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall develop a Trusted Trader Program designed to allow shipments from highly compliant importers to be released with minimal documentation or additional information being provided. This program should be designed in a way as to not jeopardize the safety of food and medical products under the agency’s jurisdiction. Recognizing that FDA has a responsibility to ensure legitimate trade is cleared rapidly and that compliant shipments are not unduly detained, the agency will provide a report to relevant Committees of Congress on two statistics that measure the effectiveness of its targeting rules twice each year, beginning six months after the passage of this measure, and again after one year. This report will contain: (1) the number of shipments being identified for FDA examination as a percentage of all shipments subject to FDA regulatory review, and (2) the number of violative products detained as a percentage of those being held.

    Deeming Regulations.—The Committee is encouraged that FDA has provided options for a way forward on distinguishing between premium cigars and other tobacco products in its recently proposed rule ‘‘Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products’’ (Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0189). In particular, the Committee notes that FDA is considering excluding premium cigars from the scope of this proposed rule through Option 2. The Committee believes this could be a viable solution, given that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act makes little mention of cigars throughout the legislation, and there is even less evidence that Congress intended to focus on the unique subset of premium cigars. The Committee notes that premium cigars are shown to be distinct from other tobacco products in their effects on youth initiation, the frequency of their use by youth and young adults, and other such behavioral and economic factors. (See our previous post here.)

    Artificial Pancreas.—The Committee commends FDA for taking critical steps in advancing artificial pancreas systems, including its recent approval of the threshold suspend system. The Committee encourages FDA to continue collaboration with key stakeholders to ensure that artificial pancreas systems are further developed, tested, and approved, ensuring timely access to safe and effective systems for patients with type 1 diabetes.

    Natural Claims.—The Committee requests that the Commissioner submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a detailed document describing the agency’s current policy with respect to natural claims on food products within 90 days of enactment of this Act. (See our previous post here.)

    Regulation of Tree Nuts.—The Committee urges FDA to consider the exemption of tree nut producers from regulation under section 419 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if such tree nuts meet the criteria for ‘‘rarely consumed raw’’ and the recipient of the produce performs commercial processing that adequately reduces pathogens as described in the proposed regulation ‘‘Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Proposed Rule’’.

    Generic drug labeling.—The Committee is deeply concerned with FDA’s proposed rule regarding ‘‘Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs and Biological Products’’ that would change longstanding policy and allow generics to alter their label without FDA’s prior approval. Ironically, FDA published this proposed rule after the agency’s recent success in launching the Sentinel Initiative. This initiative helps to electronically track the safety of drugs once they reach the market, especially in terms of identifying drug safety communications.

    The Committee is unaware of evidence of a need to change existing regulations. The proposed rule has the potential to threaten public health by creating unprecedented patient and provider confusion by having multiple labels for the same product, therefore undermining the longstanding policy of sameness. The Committee urges FDA to maintain a system where prescription drug labels on the market are FDA-approved, grounded in scientific evidence, and present no opportunity for mismatched dispensing or use information between the name brand drug and the generic version drug.

    Additionally, sufficient evidence is lacking on how FDA derived such a low cost estimate for this proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, generic and brand manufacturers could assume additional obligations and possible liability, which may drive smaller companies from the market, increase the cost of generic medications, and lead to additional drug shortages. FDA’s cost impact analysis has not accounted for or addressed these or other unintended consequences, and further the Committee is concerned about the resources necessary to carry out such a significant policy change.

    FDA must clear up any potential confusion that will likely be created in going forward with the currently proposed regulation. The agency must also justify the cost of such a regulation that fails to provide a net health benefit to consumers and providers. The Committee directs the agency to complete a new economic analysis of the rule, paying particular attention to the cost of pharmaceutical products, before FDA finalizes the rule and report back to the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days of enactment of this Act.  (See our previous posts here and here.)

    National Antimicrobial Response Monitoring System (NARMS).—The Committee expects FDA to provide funding for the National Antimicrobial Response Monitoring System at $7,800,000 and urges FDA to consider providing additional funding for this program if warranted. The Committee encourages FDA to utilize NARMS as part of the strategy to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics. The agency should continue to use the NARMS data for evaluating new food animal antibiotics, guiding policy and regulations on the use of antibiotics, conducting risk assessments, and tracking changes in resistance to identify potential human and animal health problems.

    FDA User Fee Collections/Obligations.—The Committee continues to be concerned about the financial management of FDA’s user fee programs. The Committee directs that not later than November 1, 2014, and each month thereafter through the months covered by this Act, the Commissioner to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate a report on user fees collected for each user fee program included in the Act. The report shall also include monthly obligations incurred against such fee collections. The first report shall include a distinct categorization of the user fee balances that are being carried forward into fiscal year 2015 for each user fee account as well as a detailed explanation of what accounts for the balance and what the balance will be used for.

    Finalization of the Veterinary Feed Directive.—The Committee directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require FDA to finalize the Veterinary Feed Directive regulation by December 2014.  (See our previous post here.)

    Food Safety Monitoring.—The Committee notes that the National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy Plan is being finalized as required by Section 108 of Public Law 111–353. As research needs are identified to carry out this section, the Committee encourages FDA to consider funding research that would provide portable and technologically advanced testing platforms needed to effectively monitor and protect against intentional adulteration of the food supply.

    Cosmetics and Colors.—The Committee directs the Office of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC) to respond by March 15, 2015, to a citizen petition setting safety levels for trace amounts of lead in cosmetics. The Committee notes that every year since FY 2012, it has repeatedly requested that OCAC respond to this petition. The Committee urges OCAC to make this a priority.

    Food and Veterinary Medicine.—The Committee is aware of the important support provided to FDA’s food and veterinary medicine programs and through its research and program relations with their centers of excellence. The Committee encourages FDA to maintain an appropriate funding level for both FSMA-related activities and the base work performed by these centers.

    Concerns with Opioid Application Approvals.—The Committee is alarmed by a growing trend of prescription drug and opioid abuse. The Committee notes that FDA has taken a number of positive steps in recent years to address this complex challenge. However, the Committee is discouraged by FDA’s 2013 approval of a New Drug Application for Zohydro, a high-dose undiluted painkiller containing hydrocodone. While the United States makes up only 4.6 percent of the world’s population, its residents consume 99 percent of the world’s supply of hydrocodone. These drugs are now the most widely prescribed painkillers in the U.S., and emergency room visits involving hydrocodone rose from 38,000 in 2004 to more than 115,000 in 2010.

    Approving this powerful narcotic without any abuse deterrent formulation, despite the strong opposition of the relevant FDA expert Advisory Panel, seems counter to the assertion that ‘‘the prevention of prescription opioid abuse is of the highest priority for the FDA.’’ The DEA Administrator indicated to the Committee that the agency is spending considerable resources to educating agents, diversion investigators, and tactical diversion squads about the approval of this medication that ‘‘frightens us all.’’ In addition to strong concerns that the drug is ripe for misuse and addiction, the Committee is concerned that approving new applications without abuse deterrent properties will stifle innovation in this newly emerging field of scientific research.

    The Committee therefore requests that FDA provide a report within 60 days of enactment, including a detailed accounting of FDA’s methodology for post-market tracking of Zohydro and findings to date. In addition, the Committee encourages FDA to continue its outreach to the medical community and provide data about the utilization of REMS-compliant training programs by prescribers. Lastly, the Committee includes bill language that prevents FDA from obligating $20,000,000 of its discretionary funding for the Office of the Commissioner unless the agency finalizes the draft guidance entitled ‘‘Industry Guidance: Abuse-Deterrent Opioids—Evaluation and Labeling’’. If by June 30, 2015, FDA does not complete this guidance, the $20,000,000 will be used by the Office of Criminal Investigation to assist in the prevention of opioid drug abuse.  (See our previoous posts here and here.)

    Tobacco Product Smuggling.—The Committee understands that nearly one in four packs of cigarettes consumed in Texas is smuggled in from Mexico and more than half of the cigarettes consumed in New York are the result of interstate smuggling operations. In addition, an average of one out of every five packs of cigarettes consumed in California, Arizona, and New Mexico are the result of smuggling operations. FDA’s regulation over tobacco products provides the agency with unique expertise and intelligence in the area of tobacco sales and market dynamics. The Committee recommends FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations assist Federal, state, and local agencies in targeting the highest-level criminal tobacco trafficking organizations by gathering intelligence and disseminating leads with their partner organizations to help address this illicit activity.

    Senate Fiscal Year 2015 FDA Appropriations Bill & Report

    The Senate bill includes a provision stating that of the finds appropriated to FDA, “not less than $150,000 shall be used to implement a requirement that the labeling of genetically engineered salmon offered for sale to consumers indicate that such salmon is genetically engineered. . . . ” 

    Abuse Deterrent Drug Development– The Committee urges FDA to make faster progress on setting and applying appropriate regulatory incentives and expectations regarding abuse-deterrent opioids. This includes finalizing the January 2013 draft guidance on evaluation and labeling of abuse-deterrent opioids and publishing draft guidance on the assessment of generic versions of such products. The draft guidance on generics should include a discussion of whether and in what circumstances human abuse liability studies will be needed, and if so, how applicants can ensure that such studies are acceptable for review by FDA. The Committee further urges FDA to include, where appropriate, descriptions of studies of a product's abuse-deterrent properties when a sponsor has not yet established a claim of abuse deterrence.

    Antibiotics– The Commissioner is urged to devise a strategy to help ensure the use of medically important antibiotics in food animals for disease prevention, as defined in guidance for Industry No. 213, that is judicious and appropriate. Additionally, the Commissioner is directed to finalize a Veterinary Feed Directive rule prior to April 1, 2015, and is encouraged to include provisions that provide adequate assurance that licensed veterinarians will be familiar with the animals and premises where they are kept when prescribing medically important antibiotics for use in food animals.

    Artificial Pancreas– The Committee commends the FDA for taking critical steps in advancing artificial pancreas systems, including its recent approval of the threshold suspend system. The Committee encourages the FDA to continue collaboration with key stakeholders to ensure that artificial pancreas systems are further developed, tested and approved, ensuring timely access to safe and effective systems for patients with type I diabetes.

    Compounding Guidance Documents– The Committee notes that the Food and Drug Administration has begun implementing the Compounding Quality Act by releasing guidances and working to appoint members to the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee. The Committee is concerned that the Food and Drug Administration is not meeting with any stakeholders before publicly releasing further guidance for public comment. The Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to meet with stakeholders to help inform the implementation of the Compounding Quality Act to ensure continued access to safe compounded drugs for which there is a clinical need.

    Comprehensive Device Review Assessment– FDA is directed to participate in a comprehensive assessment of the process for the review of device applications conducted by an independent entity capable of performing technical analysis, management assessment, and program evaluation for the device review program. In consultation with FDA and industry, the assessment should include, but is not limited to, an identification of process improvements and best practices for conducting predictable, efficient, and consistent premarket reviews that meet regulatory review standards; analysis of elements of the review process to facilitate a more efficient process; assessment of FDA methods and controls for collecting and reporting information on premarket review process resource use and performance; assessment of the effectiveness of FDA's Reviewer Training Program implementation; and recommendations for ongoing periodic assessments and any additional, more detailed or focused program assessments. Following this assessment, FDA is directed to report to the Committee, within 120 days of the enactment of this act, on the findings of the assessment and the agency's plan to incorporate those findings and recommendations, as appropriate, into its management of the premarket review program.

    Counterfeit Products– The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $4,820,000 to provide FDA with additional resources to investigate counterfeit drugs both within the United States and internationally. These funds will be used to complete undercover purchases of suspected counterfeit products for testing; to remove counterfeit products from the market; and to prosecute criminal actors. The Committee believes that the growing marketplace for counterfeit drugs available on the Internet is particularly concerning, and these funds will allow FDA to enhance its cybercrime program, which will ultimately allow FDA to seek appropriate criminal fines and forfeitures, and to protect the public health.

    Fixed Dose Combination Drugs– The Committee applauds the agency's issuance of draft guidance to promote the development of fixed combination drug products for critical diseases like cancer, HIV, global diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, and against health threats like drug-resistant infections. The Committee encourages the FDA to finalize the guidance by the end of this calendar year to facilitate development of new treatments against serious and life-threatening diseases. (See our previous post here.)

    Food Safety Modernization Act– The Committee notes that FDA has stated its intent to re-propose certain sections of the Food Safety Modernization Act proposed rules for produce safety and preventive controls for human food and animal food because significant changes are warranted. The Committee is concerned that the agency only intends to address discrete portions of these proposed rules. FDA is reminded that the activities covered by the proposed rules are complex and interrelated and that the concerns raised by the rules are broader than the handful of items FDA has announced that it will address. The agency shall ensure that all Food Safety Modernization Act regulations are science-based, risk-based, and flexible, taking into account the different risks posed by different commodities. For example, the secondary market for spent grains and byproduct from human food manufacturing and agricultural practices is an important part of the supply chain for agricultural producers that reduces waste and produces safe, cost effective animal feed. FDA should reconsider how its proposed preventive controls for animal food rule will affect this relationship and the environment. Additionally, FDA should take into account the diversity of many integrated livestock and poultry feeding arrangements, and aquaculture feeding arrangements, when promulgating the final rule.

    Further, FDA is directed to ensure that the public has an opportunity to review and comment on all preventive controls for human food requirements, accompanied by an economic analysis, including such elements as supplier verification, environmental monitoring, and verification testing of products in the form of a proposed rule, not an interim final or final rule. FDA should allow flexibility in the location and frequency of verification testing. The Committee strongly encourages the agency to re-propose the produce safety and preventive controls for human and animal food rules in their entirety so stakeholders may comment on the agency's proposals as a whole.  (See our previous posts here and here.)

    Food Safety Outreach and Technical Assistance– As FDA implements the requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act [FSMA], it is critical that the agency work with USDA to perform outreach and technical assistance to farmers and small businesses to help them understand FSMA requirements and resources available to help with FSMA compliance as rules are developed and implemented. The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to conduct extension activities related to FSMA, as requested in the budget.

    Global Drug Supply Chain– FDA is directed to ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to the Office Global Regulatory Operations and Policy and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to advance the agency's strategic priority of strengthening the safety and integrity of the global drug supply chain. In order to advance this initiative, resources should be dedicated to FDA's international leadership to combat threats to global health and the global drug supply chain from counterfeit medicines; promote regulatory convergence and the harmonization of international standards that will strengthen global drug supply chain security; and build upon and achieve key goals as articulated in FDA's reports on Global Engagement and the Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. As part of this effort, funding and personnel should be dedicated to advance the success of key efforts, including the FDA-championed Global Road Map on Medical Product Quality and Supply Chain Integrity under the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Regulatory Harmonization Steering Committee which will require FDA's continued leadership to ensure its success and tangible outcomes. In addition, adequate resources should be dedicated to FDA's work to improve policy, international cooperation, and enforcement collaboration related to the Internet and the unprecedented growth in illegal drug sales via the Internet, including the online trade of counterfeit, adulterated, misbranded, and unapproved drugs.

    Import Shipments– The Commissioner is encouraged to ensure that sufficient FDA personnel are available to clear shipments expeditiously at the time of their arrival at the port of entry, including outside normal working hours and on holidays. The Commissioner is further encouraged to work to develop a process by which shipments from highly compliant importers may be released with minimal administrative disruption. Recognizing that FDA has a responsibility to ensure legitimate trade is cleared rapidly and that compliant shipments are not unduly detained, FDA is directed to provide two reports to the Committees on Appropriations, the first 6 months after the enactment of this act, and the second in 6 additional months. These reports shall provide information on the number of shipments being identified for FDA examination as a percentage of all shipments subject to FDA regulatory review and the number of violative products detained as a percentage of those being held.

    Inclusion in Clinical Trials– Research has shown that gender differences, as well as differences based on age, race, or other factors, may contribute to differences in the safety and efficacy of drugs, biologics, and devices. The Committee directs FDA to encourages diverse participation, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly, to help assure that clinical trials are representative of those individuals who ultimately will use these medical products, and that the products will be safe and effective for people in these demographic subgroups. The Committee urges the FDA to issue the Action Plan required by section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act and provide a timeline for implementation of the actions FDA will take, in cooperation with industry stakeholders, to ensure that women, minorities, and others are appropriately represented in clinical research, that meaningful subgroup analyses of clinical trials are conducted, and that subgroup specific clinical trial results are made publically available in an accessible and timely manner. (Additional information here and here.)

    Mammography Quality Standards Act– The Committee recommendation includes full funding as requested for implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. This program sets national quality standards for mammography facilities, equipment, personnel and operating procedures, and has improved the quality of mammography and made mammograms a more reliable tool to detect breast cancers.

    Nanotechnology– The Committee recognizes the increased capabilities that FDA has developed to study environment, health, and safety of nanomaterials within FDA's Jefferson Laboratory Campus, including the National Center for Toxicological Research, and its consolidated headquarters at White Oak, Maryland. The Committee expects FDA to continue to support collaborative research with universities and industry on the toxicology of nanotechnology products and processes in accordance with the National Nanotechnology Initiative Environment, Health, and Safety Research Strategy as updated in October 2011.

    Office of Cosmetics and Colors– The Committee recommendation includes not less than $11,700,000 for cosmetics activities, including not less than $7,200,000 for the Office of Colors and Cosmetics [OCAC]. Funding provided for OCAC is for direct support of the operation, staffing, compliance, research and international activities performed by this office. The Committee notes that every year since fiscal year 2012, it has requested that OCAC respond to a citizen petition setting safety levels for trace amount of lead in cosmetics. The Committee is disappointed that OCAC has not responded to these requests and urges OCAC to make this a priority. Therefore, the Committee directs the Office of Colors and Cosmetics to respond to the petition by March 15, 2015. Additionally, in light of China's importance to U.S.-based manufacturers and consumers, the Committee directs FDA establish a bilateral technical dialogue with Chinese regulators. The Committee directs FDA to promote international regulatory harmonization and trade in cosmetic products by supporting international trade negotiations on cosmetics in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.

    Oversight Activities– The Committee notes that over the past 5 years FDA's responsibilities have grown significantly and resources available to the agency have increased more than 60 percent. The Committee is concerned that oversight of FDA has not kept pace with the growth in the agency's regulatory authority or funding. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the HHS Office of Inspector General specifically for oversight of FDA activities. The funding provided under this appropriation is in addition to FDA oversight activities supported within the Inspector General's regular appropriation. The Committee instructs the Inspector General to submit a plan, within 60 days of the enactment of this act, on the additional oversight activities planned with this funding.

    Pediatric Device Consortia Grants– The Committee is pleased that the nine FDA-funded Pediatric Device Consortia have assisted in advancing the development of 324 proposed pediatric medical devices since its inception in 2009, as well as promoting job-growth in the healthcare sector, and as such, continues to support this critical effort. The program funds consortia to assist innovators in developing medical and surgical devices designed for the unique needs of children, needs that often go unmet by devices currently available on the market. However, the Committee remains concerned that children's medical devices continue to lag behind those manufactured for adults and directs the FDA to fund the program at the levels authorized by the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-144).

    Prescription Drug Inserts– The Committee is aware that FDA is considering regulatory changes that could eliminate printed professional inserts for prescription drugs. A July 2013 GAO report on the topic concluded that while there were potential public health benefits associated with electronic drug labeling, relying exclusively on electronic labeling could disadvantage physicians, pharmacists, other healthcare providers, and ultimately patients, potentially adversely impacting public health. Therefore, the Committee directs FDA to ensure that any proposed regulation regarding electronic inserts of drug labeling does not come in lieu of paper inserts.

    Seafood Advisory– The Committee is concerned that after many years, the FDA has not published an updated advice on seafood consumption for pregnant women, mothers and children. The Committee directs the FDA to publish final advice to pregnant women on seafood consumption in conjunction with all applicable parties as directed in House Report 112-101 and Senate Report 112-73 by June 30, 2014.

    Seafood Economic Integrity– The Committee recognizes the importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that the FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species, weights, and treatment. The Committee encourages the FDA to work with States and the Department of Commerce to more aggressively combat fraud in parts of the seafood industry.

    Shellfish Embargo– As a result of a dispute over sanitation protocols, the European Union imposed a retaliatory ban on U.S. shellfish in July 2010, depriving U.S. shellfish growers of a lucrative market. The Committee is concerned that, in nearly 4 years, a resolution has not been achieved. The Committee recommends that the FDA continue its ongoing consultation with the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] to address the issue as expeditiously as possible. The FDA is also directed to provide a report to the Committee on this issue within 100 days.

    Special Protocol Assessment– The Committee is aware that questions have arisen in connection with the rescission of a Special Protocol Assessment [SPA] Agreement. While FDA can rescind a SPA agreement reached under section 505(b)(5)(C) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act if certain requirements are met, the Committee expects that FDA should be accountable for continued diligence in in identifying issues that bear on a SPA agreement and in notifying the sponsor of such issues within a reasonable period of time after FDA becomes aware. To ensure clarity over the standard to rescind a SPA agreement, the Committee encourages FDA to revise and re-issue, after public comment, its existing guidance regarding SPA agreements, including the statutory standards associated with the rescission of such agreements.

    Sunscreen Labeling Regulations– The Committee is pleased that FDA finalized regulations establishing significant new labeling and testing requirements for products marketed under FDA's monograph for over-the-counter sunscreen drug products. The Committee directs the FDA to finalize its proposed rule limiting the maximum Sun Protection Factor [SPF] to `50' or `50+' and issue a proposed rule to establish testing and labeling standards for sunscreen sprays.

    User Fees– The Committee notes that the restoration in fiscal year 2014 of user fees sequestered in fiscal year 2013 was to be used by FDA to mitigate the impact of the sequester on the user fee programs. This includes the hiring of new staff, and FDA initiatives supported by PDUFA user fees, including the regulatory science activities as outlined in sections IX, X, and XI of the PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2013 Through 2017. The Committee requests that FDA provide a detailed financial summary for the restored fiscal year 2013 PDUFA user fees; identify funding spent to date; and a detailed plan for the allocation of the remaining funds. Specifically, the Committee requests that FDA identify and report to the Committee an itemized accounting of any and all funds expended for each of the regulatory science activities as outlined in sections IX, X, and XI of the PDUFA V Performance Goals and provide a plan for how the PDUFA user fees will be allocated for each such activity through fiscal year 2017.

    U.S. District Court Agrees With PhRMA, Vacates HRSA 340B Orphan Drug Rule

    By Jay W. Cormier & Alan M. Kirschenbaum

    Last summer, the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) promulgated a final regulation to implement a statutory provision, added by the Affordable Care Act, that excludes orphan drugs from the ceiling price limitations of the 340B Program when the drugs are purchased by certain covered entities.   As described in our previous post on the final rule, it provided that the orphan drug exclusion applies only to orphan drugs when used for the rare condition or disease for which that orphan drug was designated.  In other words, under the rule, covered entities are entitled to 340B prices when a drug designated as an orphan drug for one indication is used for a different, non-orphan indication.

    As we have previously noted, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) filed suit in October 2013 alleging that HRSA violated the Administrative Procedure Act because (1) HRSA did not have the authority to promulgate the final rule, and (2), even if HRSA did have such authority, the final rule conflicts with the plain language of the statute, which, according to PhRMA, exempts all uses of designated orphan drugs from the ceiling price, not just those used for the orphan indication.

    Last Friday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of PhRMA on the first ground, without reaching the second.  Judge Rudolph Contreras found that Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act authorized rulemaking in only three specific areas:  (1) the establishment of an administrative dispute resolution process; (2) the methodology for calculating the 340B ceiling price; and (3) the imposition of civil monetary sanctions.  He noted that HHS does not have general authority to issue such regulations as may be necessary for the implementation of the 340B program, as it does, for example, under Medicare and Medicaid.  The court held that HRSA’s orphan drug regulation does not fall within any of the three areas for which Congress authorized rulemaking, and, therefore, must be vacated.  The government has 60 days to appeal the decision.

    This case has implications for the 340B Program that go beyond the orphan drug exclusion.  Earlier this year, HRSA announced that it would be issuing a proposed regulation addressing the following areas of the 340B Program:

    • The definition of an eligible patient
    • Compliance requirements for contract pharmacy arrangements
    • Hospital eligibility criteria
    • Eligibility of off-site facilities

    That rule – which has come to be known as the “mega-rule,” is currently under review by the Office of Management and the Budget and was anticipated by HRSA to be published in June.  However, Judge Contreras’ ruling raises questions about whether the mega-rule exceeds HRSA’s rulemaking authority.  The Administration may decide to withdraw the rule, or to postpone its publication until the case is resolved on appeal (assuming that an appeal is filed).  We will be following this case, as well as the fate of the mega-rule, in this blog.

    FDA Seeks to Mow Down Lawsuit Over GRAS

    By Ricardo Carvajal

    FDA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the Center for Food Safety challenging the legality of FDA’s GRAS notification program (for background information on the lawsuit, see our prior posting here).  In its supporting memorandum, FDA argues that plaintiff lacks standing and that the agency’s proposed rule on GRAS notification is not final agency action subject to judicial review.  FDA further argues that plaintiff’s action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

    FDA’s supporting memorandum points to the several advantages of the GRAS notification program as compared with the GRAS affirmation program it replaced, including increased efficiency and greater participation by industry.   FDA notes that a return to GRAS affirmation would merely trade one voluntary mechanism for another, and would not achieve the gatekeeping function sought by plaintiff.   FDA indicates that it intends to clear the final rule on GRAS notification by July 2016.   We’ll continue to monitor and report on significant developments in this case.

    After Years of Waiting, FDA Finally Lets Rip With Prescription PEG 3350 ANDA Withdrawal Proposal

    By Kurt R. Karst –      

    We’re not sure if it was merely the passage of time or something else that relieved the constipation, but FDA has finally acted on an October 24, 2008 Notice for an Opportunity for Hearing (Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0549) proposing to withdraw approval of ANDAs for the prescription laxative Polyethylene Glycol 3350 (“PEG 3350”) on the basis that the Durham-Humphrey Amendments prohibit the simultaneous marketing of the same drug as prescription and Over-the-Counter (“OTC”).  In letters dated May 22, 2014, and sent to Paddock Laboratories, Inc. (ANDA No. 077893), Nexgen Pharma Inc. (ANDA No. 077706), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (ANDA No. 077736), and Kremers Urban Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ANDA No. 076652), FDA proposes to deny pending hearing requests and to order ANDA withdrawal.  According to FDA:

    After reviewing the request and the supporting data, information, and analysis submitted, we have concluded that there is no genuine and substantial issue of fact that precludes the withdrawal of [your ANDA] or justifies a hearing.  Accordingly, pursuant to Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 314, please find enclosed a proposed Order denying your request for a hearing and withdrawing approval of [your ANDA].  Under 21 CFR 314.200(g)(3), you have 60 days after the receipt of this proposed order to respond with sufficient data, information, and analyses to demonstrate that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact which justifies a hearing.

    FDA issued the November 2008 notice after approving, on October 6, 2006, NDA No. 022015 for the OTC use of MiraLAX (polyethylene glycol 3350) powder for solution with a period of 3-year new clinical investigation exclusivity.  MiraLAX was previously approved for presciption use only under NDA No. 020698, and the above-referenced ANDAs were approved as generic versions of prescription MiraLAX.  Following the Rx-to-OTC switch of MiraLAX under a new NDA (and that ANDA sponsors were prohibited from citing in a supplement to their applications), FDA removed all Orange Book references to NDA No. 020698 and objected to the continued marketing of approved generic prescription versions of prescription MiraLAX.  Specifically, in April 2007, FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs sent letters to ANDA sponsors of prescription PEG 3350 stating that the FDC Act “does not permit both Rx and OTC versions of the same drug product to be marketed at the same time.”  The letters rely on FDC Act § 503(b)(4) to contend that prescription PEG 3350 products are “misbranded and may not be legally marketed.”  The letters also cite FDC Act § 503(b), generally, for the assertion that the statute does not permit the simultaneous Rx and OTC marketing of the same drug.

    The response from some ANDA sponsors to FDA’s November 2008 notice was, shall we say, “explosive.”  Volumes of comments were initially submitted to FDA – see, e.g., here and here – laying out the reasons as to why the Agency should hold a hearing.  Some comments argued that there is a “meaningful difference” between the Rx and OTC versions of PEG 3350, or that even in the absence of a “meaningful difference” FDA’s interpretation of the law prohibiting simultaneous Rx and OTC marketing of the same drug is off the mark.  The docket went dark for a few years, and then in January 2013, Merck & Co, Inc. submitted a comment urging FDA to deny the pending hearing requests and conclude withdrawal proceedings, because, among other things, “[t]he simultaneous marketing of PEG 3350 as an Rx only and OTC laxative continues to create substantial confusion in the marketplace.” 

    FDA’s 54-page Proposed Order deals (in one way or another) with each issue raised in comments, and concludes:

    [T]the Commissioner finds that the PEG 3350 ANDA holders have failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact requiring a hearing in their responses to the NOOH.  A hearing, therefore, is not required under 21 CFR 12.24(b).  The PEG 3350 ANDA holders submitted anecdotal evidence to support their factual assertions and did not submit any specifically identified reliable evidence demonstrating that a hearing is necessary.  Even if the Commissioner were to accept these factual assertions as having some weight, such evidence does not present a sufficient area of disagreement to require an evidentiary hearing.  Rather, the evidence is “so one-sided that [FDA] must prevail as a matter of law.”  (See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).

    In addition to finding that the ANDA holders have failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing, the Commissioner does not find the arguments advanced by the PEG 3350 ANDA holders persuasive and is entering summary judgment against them. Therefore, under section 505(e) of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner under 21 CFR § 5.10, the PEG 3350 ANDA holders’ requests for a hearing are denied, and approval of the ANDAs for prescription PEG 3350 listed in this notice, and all amendments and supplements to them, is hereby withdrawn, effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates sections 301(a) and (d) of the FD&C Act. 

    We won’t know for a few months whether ANDA sponsors will, after FDA issues a final Order withdrawing approval, challenge FDA in court or just (uh-hem) “let it go.”

    ACI’s 5th Annual Summit on Biosimilars – June 4-6, 2014

    The American Conference Institute (“ACI”) will hold its 5th annual Summit on Biosimilars from June 5-6, 2014 at the InterContinental New York Barclay, New York, New York, and a pre-conference primer on June 4th with sessions titled “Biosimilars 101: Comprehensive Deep Dive Into the Relevant Legal, Regulatory, and Scientific Factors Companies Must Now” and “Biosimilars Around the World: A Regulatory and Patent Cheat Sheet to Maximize Global Biosimilars Market Share and Minimize Risk.”  During the main conference, attendees will hear from experts on myriad topics, including the latest on FDA’s implemention of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), and recent litigation testing the BPCIA’s “patent dance” provisions (see our previous posts here and here). 

    The Federal Trade Commission is slated to give a keynote address, titled “Revisiting Competition Issues in the Follow-On Biologics Arena: Substitution and Naming Conventions.”  And while we’re on those topics, we note that Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C.’s Kurt R. Karst will moderate an industry round table on biosimilar naming and state substitutiuon legislation.  

    A copy of the conference brochure is available here.  FDA Law Blog is able offer readers a special $200 discount off the current price tier for the conference.  The discount code is: FLB200.  We look forward to seeing you at the conference.

    Categories: Biosimilars

    Phase 2 Sunshine Reporting Information Released By CMS

    By Alan M. Kirschenbaum

    CMS has posted relevant dates, instructions and other information regarding “Phase 2” of the 2014 reporting process under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act.  (Background on this law and the 2014 reporting process can be found here.)  CMS announced that Phase 2 of the Open Payments data submission, during which applicable manufacturers will report, and attest to the accuracy of, detailed data concerning each payment to physicians and teaching hospitals during the last five months of 2013, will begin on June 1 and end at close of business on June 30.  (Phase 1, which ended on March 31, involved the submission of aggregate data only.)

    Among the newly-posted information on CMS’ Open Payments web site are detailed instructions for the Phase 2 submission, a Phase 2 tutorial, updated submission data mapping documents (i.e., templates), and the text of the lengthy attestations that applicable manufacturers will have to make in order to submit the required payment data.  These materials and other information can be found on CMS’ Open Payments website here.

    Categories: Health Care

    OIG Promises Scrutiny of Narrowly Focused Patient Assistance Programs Run By Independent Charities – Some Practices Previously Endorsed Are Now Suspect

    By James C. Shehan

    According to St Francis of Assisi, “where there is charity and wisdom, there is neither fear nor ignorance.”  As we contemplate the policy changes announced in the just-issued OIG Supplemental Special Advisory Bulletin on Independent Charity Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), we wonder whether the charities and pharmaceutical companies affected by them will find comfort in the OIG’s enunciated wisdom, or rather ignorance and fear stemming from the suggestions therein that activities previously condoned by the OIG are now potentially subject to government enforcement actions under the anti-kickback statute.  To be more precise, the new Special Advisory Bulletin notifies us that PAPs with a narrow focus on specific diseases and specific products will be subject to “more scrutiny,” explicitly states that existing advisory opinions that endorsed the practices of some independent charities “will need to be modified,” but also provides little specific guidance and instead leaves many current practices in a gray area.    

    The Special Advisory Bulletin (SAB) begins by acknowledging that PAPS can achieve the important goal of helping patients obtain needed medicines and that an SAB on PAPs issued in 2005 found that “lawful avenues” exist for pharmaceutical manufacturers to ensure that patients can afford medically necessary drugs.  The new SAB also reiterates that donor contributions to PAPS and PAPs’ grants to patients implicate the anti-kickback statute if either influences the recommending, arranging or purchasing of federally reimbursable products.  Noting that the previous SAB preceded the existence of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, OIG explains that it has since become aware of “specific risks” with these programs relating to three areas: disease funds, eligible recipients and the conduct of donors.

    In addressing its concern with “disease funds,” OIG cautions that funds may be so narrowly defined that a donor is effectively subsidizing its own products. Put another way, the independent charity PAP must not be a “conduit for payments … from the pharmaceutical manufacturer to patients” and therefore as an “impermissibl[e] influence” of beneficiaries’ drug choices.  It is in the specifics following these statements that the SAB becomes vaguer.  A number of suspect eligibility-limiting criteria are mentioned – e.g., specific symptoms, severity of symptoms, specific methods of administration, stages of a disease.  None of these limitations are specifically prohibited, however; rather, the guidance cites them as areas of OIG “concern” and subject to “scrutiny.”  The OIG also is “concerned” about disease funds limited to a subset of available products — particularly expensive and specialty drugs — rather than all products approved by FDA for the disease covered by the fund, or all products covered by a Federal health care program for the disease (including generics). 

    The SAB specifically addresses situations where there is only one reimbursed drug for a disease or one manufacturer who makes all of the drugs for a disease.  The new SAB does not retract the statement of the 2005 SAB that these circumstances alone do not create anti-kickback violations. It does rather inscrutably state, however, that such situations are “subject to scrutiny” and that, among other factors, OIG will consider whether the disease fund “appears to be narrowly defined in a manner that favors any of the fund’s donors.”   How a manufacturer who makes the only approved drug for a particular disease could avoid favoring itself in donations to a PAP that covers that disease is not addressed.

    The summary of the disease fund section muddles the guidance even further by proclaiming that “disease funds should be defined in accordance with widely recognized clinical standards and in a manner that covers a broad spectrum of products.”  These “widely recognized clinical standards” are not further defined nor are they mentioned anywhere else in the guidance.   Similarly, the summary proclaims that “disease funds should not be defined for the purpose of limiting the drugs for which the Independent Charity PAP provides assistance.” This very broad statement seems to contradict other sections of the SAB.  For example, it might be interpreted to prohibit a PAP that distributed all available antiviral drugs to needy patients with HIV.

    As for eligible recipients, the SAB does stand by an earlier advisory opinion that allows PAPs to provide assistance only to Medicare patients.  PAPS are instructed to base eligibility on reasonable, verifiable and uniform measures of financial need that are consistently applied.  OIG does caution, however, that the cost of a particular drug is not an appropriate stand-alone factor in determining financial need and that overly-generous financial need criteria may be suspect. 

    The SAB section on donors is more cryptic than the eligible recipients section.  Referencing the certifications that PAPs make when applying for OIG advisory opinions, it states a material fact relied upon by OIG in issuing favorable opinions is that a PAP does not give donors information that allows the donor to correlate the amount or frequency of its donations with the number of patients  or the volume of product dispersed.  Noting that these advisory opinions do not address donor actions, the SAB nevertheless states that “actions by donors to correlate their funding of PAPs with support for their own products… may be indicative of a donor’s intent to channel its financial support to copayments of its own products, which would implicate the anti-kickback statute.”

    It is in the concluding section that OIG changes course on some existing advisory opinions.  Repeating that independent charity PAPS are a valuable resource for a needy patients but raise serious issues of fraud, waste and abuse, OIG states that some independent charity PAPS “have received favorable advisory opinions that may include features that are discouraged in this [SAB.]”  OIG volunteers that it is writing to these PAPS to explain how it will work with them and notes that some advisory opinions will need to be modified.  In the interim, the suspect features will be “protected.”   Finally, OIG voices its intent that there should be “no disruption of patient care during this process.” 

    While the new SAB might have done a somewhat better job of reducing fear and ignorance, we believe that St. Francis would join us in heartily endorsing this last sentiment regarding the well-being of patients.

    Categories: Health Care

    William Mitchell Law Review Celebrates 30 Years of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments

    It’s been nearly 30 years since President Ronald Reagan, on September 24, 1984, held a ceremony in the Rose Garden to sign into law the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984) – better known to most as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.  To celebrate the upcoming anniversary, the William Mitchell Law Review of the William Mitchell College of Law has put out an issue – Volume 40, Issue 4: The 30th Anniversary of the Hatch-Waxman Act – with several articles dedicated to the anniversary.

    A Foreword to the new volume by Senator Orrin Hatch provides some interesting insights into the triumphs and tribulations of the legislative process that led to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments (and that aren’t in the legislative history).

    Robert A. Armitage, in a piece titled “The Hatch-Waxman Act: A Path Forward for Making It More Modern,” offers some commentary on the economic and regulatory environment that led to the development of the Modernizing Our Drug & Diagnostics Evaluation and Regulatory Network Cures Act of 2013 (“MODDERN Cures Act of 2013”) (H.R. 3116).  According to Mr. Armitage:

    What may be the best next-generation thinking on defining a common regime for copied versions of all new medicines to be able to come to market can be found in a bill that is now pending before Congress.  This latest congressional effort is the MODDERN Cures Act.  The MODDERN Cures Act, according to its proponents, has the potential to be a quantum improvement over both the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biosimilars Act in terms of meeting the needs and expectations of patients for access to lowcost, high quality medicines—while spurring greater industry focus on the development of new medicines of the greatest potential benefits for patients (i.e., those addressing unmet medical needs).  Compared to the IP interface provisions of either the Hatch-Waxman Act or the Biosimilars Act, the MODDERN Cures Act is a virtual paragon of simplicity and directness.

    This blogger (Kurt R. Karst), in an article titled “Letting the Devil Ride: Thirty Years of ANDA Suitability Petitions Under the Hatch-Waxman Act,” provides the first ever analysis of the FDA’s nearly 30-year track record of responding to ANDA suitability petitions submitted pursuant to FDC Act § 505(j)(2)(C).  The article traces the history of generic drug development and the petitioned ANDA from a regulation promulgated shortly before the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the current statute; analyzes almost 1,300 suitability petitions submitted to FDA since September 24, 1984 (and provides various data tables on suitability petitions submitted to and acted on by FDA each year from 1984 to 2013); suggests some reasons for the decline in the popularity of the petitioned ANDA as a vehicle for obtaining approval of a generic drug; and recommends that FDA implement procedures to meet the statutory 90-day deadline for approving or disapproving an ANDA suitability petition, or that Congress amend the FDC Act to provide FDA with a more practical deadline to rule on a suitability petition.

    Shashank Upadhye’s article, titled “There’s a Hole in My Bucket Dear Liza, Dear Liza: The 30-Year Anniversary of the Hatch-Waxman Act: Resolved and Unresolved Gaps and Court-Driven Policy Gap Filling,” examines how implementation of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments (and amendments to that law) has caused significant problems in the marketplace and how court-driven policy has also been a culprit in the Act’s interpretations and executions.  Mr. Upadhye has been a busy writer of late.  In another article published in the Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, and titled “The FDA and Patent, Antitrust, and Property Takings Laws: Strange Bedfellows Useful To Unblock Access To Blocked Drugs,” he discusses the impact of REMS (Risk Evaluation & Mitigation Strategies) on generic drug development.

    Lars P. Taavola, in a piece titled “Jumping into the Actavis Briar Patch—Insight into How Courts May Structure Reverse Payment Antitrust Proceedings and the Questions That Actavis Left Unanswered,” looks at how courts will have to decide some seminal questions in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013) (see here), concerning drug patent settlement agreements.

    Brian P. Wallenfelt argues in his article, titled “Hatch-Waxman and Medical Devices,” that the similarities between medical devices and drugs outweigh the differences, and, accordingly, that there should be an abbreviated review process for medical devices.

    In an essay titled “When Patents Aren’t Enough: Why Biologics Necessitate Data Exclusivity Protection” Kristina M. Lybecker, Associate Professor of Economics at Colorado College, says that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement currently being negotiated (see our previous post here) “should include the proposed twelve years of data exclusivity and provide innovative firms with the incentives needed to continue to invest in the breakthrough therapies that will extend and enhance life for years to come.”

    21st Century Cures Initiative: HP&M’s Frank Sasinowski Testifies at First Congressional Hearing

    By Alexander J. Varond & James E. Valentine –

    On May 20, 2014, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C.’s Frank J. Sasinowski appeared on a panel before the House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health to present testimony at the first hearing on the 21st Century Cures Initiative.  The Subcommittee sought expert testimony about the proposals put forth in the 2012 “Report to the President on Propelling Innovation in Drug Discovery, Development, and Evaluation” by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ("PCAST") (see our previous post here).  The Subcommittee asked the panel to discuss how recommendations presented in the PCAST report could be used by FDA and drug sponsors to advance the mandate of the 21st Century Cures initiative to “ensure that the U.S. owns the discovery, development, and delivery cycle and thus, remains the world leader in innovation.”

    On behalf of the National Organization of Rare Disorders and himself, Mr. Sasinowski offered four recommendations:

    Proposal #1: FDA should consider the appropriateness of the Accelerated Approval process for every new therapy.

    Proposal #2: FDA and sponsors should use intermediate clinical endpoints ("ICE") more often to secure Accelerated Approvals.

    Proposal #3: FDA should increase its use of the statutory authority conferred by FDAMA to approve drugs with one adequate and well-controlled study with “confirmatory evidence” and by FDASIA to approve drugs via the Accelerated Approval pathway (Proposal #1) using a simple chart (see below).

    Proposal #4:  FDA should issue a guidance on cumulative distribution analyses of clinical study results as a way to help understand the clinical meaningfulness of a new therapy.

    Mr. Sasinowski’s written testimony provides greater detail for each of his four proposals, and includes findings from the Subpart H analysis (see our previous post here) he and Alexander J. Varond submitted on August 26, 2013, in response to FDA’s draft guidance entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions – Drugs and Biologics” (Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0575).  A press release is available online (here), and a video recording of the hearing will also be available online (here).

     Chart for Proposal #3:

    21stCChart
     

    Mainers and FDC Act Preemption “In”, and PhRMA and Foreign Commerce Clause “Out” in Dispute Over Drug Importation Law

    By Kurt R. Karst –      

    Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine came one step closer to a merits ruling in a lawsuit filed last September by two Maine pharmacists, three Maine trade associations (the Maine Pharmacy Association, Maine Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and Retail Association of Maine), and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) against Maine’s Attorney General (Janet T. Mills) and Commissioner of Administrative & Financial Services (H. Sawin Millett, Jr.) in an effort to stop implementation of a state law permitting the importation of drug products into the U.S. from licensed retail pharmacies located in certain foreign countries.  That state law, titled “An Act To Facilitate the Personal Importation of Prescription Drugs from International Mail Order Prescription Pharmacies,”  2013 Me. Legis. Serv. Ch. 373 (S.P. 60) (L.D. 171) (West) (the “2013 Act”), went into effect on October 9, 2013, and has been challenged as preempted by the FDC Act pursuant to the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2) and by the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Consittution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 cl. 3).  We’ve previously reported on the case here and here, so you can refer to those posts for additional background information. 

    The challenge to the 2013 Act is the topic of a fully briefed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (here, here, and here) and a fully briefed Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted (here, here, and here).  Both motions came under advisement late last October.  Several weeks later, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to file a Motion for Summary Judgment saying that the case can be resolved purely as a matter of law on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether the 2013 Act is preempted by federal law.  Summary Judgment motions have not yet been filed – and there’s been some dispute about that process, leading up to a recent Motion for Expedition and request to initiate summary judgment briefing – but before even going there, the Court must first dispense with the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, unless it is withdrawn). 

    Earlier this week, Judge Nancy Torresen issued a 17-page Order dispensing with Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  The outcome: trimmed down lists of Plaintiffs and claims.    

    In its Motion to Dismiss, the State contends that the Plaintiffs lack both constitutional and prudential standing to challenge the 2013 Amendment (and also argues that all claims against Commissioner Millett should be dismissed).  According to the State:

    This suit should be dismissed because no plaintiff has standing to assert violations of these constitutional provisions.  The 2013 [Act], which restricts the reach of the Maine Pharmacy Act, does not directly affect plaintiffs. . . .  In short, no plaintiff alleges that it has engaged or plans to engage in conduct covered by the 2013 Amendment.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of an amendment that does not apply to them. . . .  Moreover, plaintiffs purportedly seek to vindicate the interests of third persons. . . .  Finally, plaintiffs’ constitutional claims fall far outside the “zone of interests” protected by the constitutional provisions they invoke.

    Plaintiffs struck back, saying that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied in its entirety:

    The [2013 Act] exposes Maine patients to the exact risk of harm from unregulated imports of prescription drugs that Congress sought to eliminate in the FDCA.  The Law inflicts this injury by subjecting licensed Maine pharmacists to unlicensed foreign competition, stripping them of their exclusive right to dispense prescription drugs in Maine, and imposing significant obstacles to the discharge of their legal, ethical, and fiduciary duties to their patients.  The Law also threatens reputational harm to domestic drug manufacturers, who will lose consumer confidence and goodwill if Maine consumers receive from a foreign source adulterated, counterfeit, or expired prescription drugs purporting to be genuine.  And the Law has frustrated the mission of several trade associations and forced them to divert resources away from other purposes and toward advocating against the Law.

    Any one of these injuries in fact is sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction and to allow it to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.  Defendants’ motion to dismiss thus not only overlooks Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, but also fails to address the controlling case law.

    In her May 15th Order, Judge Torresen agreed that the Mainers in the case (i.e., the pharmacists and trade associations) have Article III standing under a theory of loss of market share, but tossed PhRMA from the case.  “PhRMA’s claims rest on a ‘chain of contingencies’ that amount to ‘mere speculation’ that it and its member companies may suffer reputational injuries arising out of physical injuries to Maine consumers who, following the 2013 Act, may be injured by unsafe foreign drugs associated with PhRMA member companies” (emphasis in original), wrote Judge Torreson.  Moreover, “PhRMA has no standing to assert harm to the public arising out of the 2013 Act’s dilution of [FDC Act § 801(d)(1)],” which generally prohibits reimportation into the U.S. of domestically manufactured drug products.

    Moving on to the Mainers’ prudential standing under the FDC Act (Supremacy Clause) and the Foreign Commerce Clause in light of the State’s claim that Plaintiffs lack standing because they are not within the so-called “zone of interests,” Judge Torresen made another split decision.  Relying on the First Circuit’s decision in Pharm. Research and Mfrs. of Am. v. Concannon, 249 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2001) aff'd sub nom. Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (2003) – a case in which PhRMA challenged, under the Supremacy Clause, a Maine statute requiring drug companies to participate in a rebate program or else have their products subject to the State Medicaid program’s prior authorization requirements – Judge Torresen ruled that the Mainers “are entitled under the Supremacy Clause to argue that the FDCA preempts the 2013 Act.”  But the Court declined to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ Foreign Commerce Clause claims (and dismissed Count II of the Complaint) not finding any “zone of interests.”  “The Plaintiffs have not identified any Foreign Commerce Clause case where the plaintiffs were United States citizens and the object of their complaint was a state law,” wrote Judge Torreson.  “The interest of certain Maine citizens in striking down a Maine law which addresses foreign trade does not logically fit within the zone of any interest the Foreign Commerce Clause seeks to protect. ”

    Judge Torreson also denied the State’s plea for Commissioner Millett to exit the case on the basis that he has no responsibility for enforcement or oversight of the 2013 Act, saying that it is at least plausible that the Plaintiffs’ requested relief will encompass his actions.

    FDA’s Proposal on Nutrition Labeling and Fiber

    By Riëtte van Laack

    FDA’s proposed rule regarding nutrition labeling (see our previous post here) will have far-reaching consequences that may not be obvious.  For example, FDA intends to make major changes in its approach to defining and measuring dietary fiber – changes that could have a significant impact on those who have a stake in the manufacture or use of fiber ingredients.  Those changes include:

    • FDA proposes to establish a definition for dietary fiber that is the same as the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) definition of total fiber and would include:

    1. soluble and insoluble non-digestible carbohydrates (with 3 or more monomeric units) and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants, and

    2. certain isolated and synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates (with 3 or more monomeric units).  However, these isolated and synthetic carbohydrates would qualify as dietary fiber only pursuant to FDA’s approval of a citizen petition or a health claim petition.  FDA proposes that the citizen petition must provide evidence of a physiological effect beneficial to human health. According to FDA, there are currently only two isolated non-digestible carbohydrates, ß-glucan and barley ß-fiber, that would meet the proposed definition of dietary fiber.  The vast range of other non-digestible carbohydrates currently marketed would not qualify as dietary fiber until FDA approves a citizen petition providing the “evidence of a physiological effect beneficial to human health” for that carbohydrate.  FDA does not provide further information as to the type of evidence required.  Although FDA states that it intends to publish a guidance addressing the type of evidence that will be required, the Agency does not indicate when it would publish this guidance.  Moreover, the Agency does not give any indication about the timing of the review of these citizen petitions.  Thus, FDA’s proposal potentially will call into question (at least temporarily) the status of various ingredients marketed as fiber. 

    • FDA also proposes to change the method of verification of dietary fiber content.  Because of limitations of analytical methods, for products that contain a mixture of non-digestible carbohydrates that meet the proposed dietary fiber definition and those that do not, FDA proposes to require manufacturers to make and keep written records to verify the amount of added non-digestible carbohydrates that do not meet the proposed definition of dietary fiber.  The amount of non-digestible carbohydrate measured analytically (by established AOAC methods) minus the amount of added non-digestible carbohydrate that has not been determined by FDA to have a physiological effect that is beneficial to human health would reflect the amount of dietary fiber lawfully declared on the label. 
    • FDA also proposes to increase the daily reference value for dietary fiber from 25g to 28g.  Consequently, products may need to contain more dietary fiber to be eligible for a nutrient content claim for dietary fiber.   Since the proposed dietary fiber definition excludes (at least until FDA’s approval of a citizen petition) certain non-digestible carbohydrates that currently are included in the calculation, a significant number of products may no longer be eligible for nutrient content claims for dietary fiber.

    The proposed changes concerning dietary fiber are likely to have a profound effect on the marketing of certain foods and many dietary supplements that frequently are formulated with “isolated and synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates” rather than “non-digestible carbohydrates that are intrinsic and intact in plants.”   Companies manufacturing and marketing these types of products would be well-advised to review FDA’s proposal and consider the potential ramifications.

    Unless FDA grants an extension, the comment period closes on June 2, 2014.

    FDA Scores an Initial Win in COPAXONE Litigation; When Will the Other Shoe Drop?

    By Kurt R. Karst –      

    In a May 14, 2014 Order following a hearing earlier that day, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted on ripeness grounds FDA’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit brought by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Neuroscience, Inc. (collectively “Teva”) alleging that FDA’s May 2, 2014 denial “without comment” of a December 2013 Citizen Petition (Docket No. FDA-2013-P-1641) concerning COPAXONE (glatiramer acetate injection) violates the FDC Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.  At the same time, Judge Huvelle denied as moot Teva’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

    As we previously reported, Teva filed the lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after FDA denied “without comment” several citizen petitions Teva submitted to FDA since 2008 concerning the approval of ANDAs for generic COPAXONE and considered by FDA under the citizen petition procedures added to the FDC Act at Section 505(q).  According to Teva, “FDA’s tactics make it virtually impossible for a court to provide aggrieved petitioners with meaningful relief before they are harmed irreparably.”  Each patent listed in the Orange Book for the 20MG/ML strength of COPAXONE is set to expire on Saturday, May 24, 2014.  After patent expiration, FDA could make ANDA approval decisions.

    The D.C. District Court almost immediately denied Teva’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order after it was filed, and scheduled a May 14th hearing on Teva’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.  Teva pitched its requested relief as follows:

    The relief Teva seeks could be structured in either of two ways.  First, this Court could simply enjoin the FDA from approving any purported generic version of Copaxone® until the Court has conducted an expedited trial on the administrative record defined by Congress and ruled on the merits of Teva’s petitions.  In the alternative, this Court could employ a variant of the procedure Judge Bates first crafted in the Hi-Tech case, permitting the Agency to finally offer its views on the issues Teva has raised on a negotiated timetable—though whatever views the Agency might offer would be, by the law’s plain terms, outside the administrative record and thus entitled to no deference—but enjoining the Agency from acting to approve any purported generic version of Copaxone® until this Court can provide meaningful judicial review of the critically important matters Teva has raised.

    The so-called “Bates procedure” in Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. v. FDA, Case No. 08-cv-1495, was established by Judge John D. Bates, who has been particularly critical of FDA’s handling of exclusivity decisions, to give the parties (i.e., FDA and a drug manufacturer) a chance to sit down in court where FDA would reveal an exclusivity decision, thereby allowing a potentially aggrieved generic manufacturer the opportunity to challenge that decision (see our previous post here). 

    FDA, in the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss, argued that Teva’s lawsuit should be dismissed for a litany of reasons.  According to FDA:

    Not only are Teva’s claims unripe and unjusticiable for want of standing, but Teva has not established that it will suffer certain, great, and irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction.  If Teva ever suffers the loss that it claims it will here, such loss will be a small percentage of its multibillion dollar portfolio of generic and brand drugs, and thus would not threaten or even seriously injure the business.  And finally, the balance of harms weighs against the entry of preliminary relief because Teva’s desire to further delay generic competition does not outweigh FDA’s interest in the thoughtful and careful exercise of its generic approval decisions without premature judicial interference.

    FDA’s efforts to get Teva’s lawsuit tossed were backed by briefs (here and here) filed by Intervenor-Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz Inc., and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which reportedly have ANDAs pending at FDA for generic COPAXONE. 

    After a hearing that went on for over three hours, Judge Huvelle rendered her decision: granting FDA’s Motion to Dismiss and denying Teva’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.  Her decision was grounded in previous decisions in Pfizer Inc. v. Shalala, 182 F.3d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1999), AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals v. FDA, 850 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.D.C. 2012), and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. FDA, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011), where ripeness was a central issue to deciding the cases.  Judge Huvelle also refused to employ the “Bates procedure;” however, she did ask for a 24-hour “heads-up” from FDA on ANDA action.  According to Judge Huvelle at the May 14th hearing:

    What we have here is a fact-specific complicated, complex scientific issue that has to be determined; and it hasn’t been determined yet.  To force them to decide the really difficult scientific issues at this time, I don’t have the power to do so, and it has to wait until there is a concrete application of the requirements for bioequivalency and sameness.  When that is determined, then Teva has the right to have a review of the administrative record and a speedy decision, and they can fight at that point about whether they're entitled to a preliminary injunction.  That is the only protective-window ability the court has.  Although if, in fact, we have an approval of an ANDA and this case comes back to this Court, I can assure you the FDA will have a matter of days to get together the administrative record because that is the only thing that holds us up. . . . 

    Your right here is to get a final agency action.  That doesn't mean that it has to be the final agency action on what you want.  They have said that we need to take it up in the context of a specific ANDA.  That is an action.  We haven’t got to that point yet.  You cannot force us to take a premature action on this.

    The Court rests on jurisdictional grounds and will grant the motion to dismiss, deny the [Preliminary Injunction].  To the extent that anything is going to happen, I am requiring the FDA . . . to give the Court notice so that we’re available to decide the difficult issues that come up here.  I’m not in the position of doing what Judge Bates did because you don’t have a deadline, you’re not in that position, but I certainly think that as a courtesy to all people, you should give us 24 hours’ notice before if you’re going to issue anything . . . just to let us know.

    The 24-hour notice from FDA is apparently intended to allow the Court to adequately prepare and schedule for what may be the next Teva lawsuit – this time challenging an FDA decision to approve ANDAs for generic COPAXONE.  That decision could come any time after May 24th.

    NOP Issues Final Guidance Concerning “Made with Organic” Claims

    By Riëtte van Laack

    In 2011, the National Organic Program (“NOP”) of the USDA announced the availability of a draft guidance for “Made with Organic” claims.  Of the four categories of organic claims (“100% organic,” “organic,” “made with organic,” “x% organic”), this category of organic claims appears to raise the most questions and further clarification was needed. 

    A “Made with Organic” claim may be used if a product contains more than 70% organic ingredients (excluding salt and water) and the remaining ingredients are either non-organic agricultural ingredients or (non-organic) nonagricultural ingredients included in the National List, 7 C.F.R. § 205.605.  Moreover, none of the non-organic ingredients (be they agricultural or nonagricultural) may be produced by excluded methods.

    In addition, although the category is often referred to as “Made with Organic” claims, a claim “Made with Organic Ingredients,” or “Made with x% Organic Ingredients” is not permitted.  Specifically, the claim must specify the organic ingredients or organic food categories, i.e., “Made with Organic [specify ingredients and or food categories].”  However, the claim may not list more than three ingredients or food categories, i.e., a claim “Made with Organic [list four ingredients and categories]” is not permitted.  In addition, the regulation specifies the food categories that may be used.   

    These are only the basic requirements, and certifiers and organic trade raised questions about possible % organic statements, claims when a product contains organic and non-organic ingredients in a food category (e.g., organic and non-organic vegetables), and other issues.  According to NOP, the guidance seeks to clarify such issues.  Concurrent with the final guidance, NOP issued a document summarizing its responses to comments to the 2011 draft guidance.  It also issued a separate document with examples of correct and incorrect “Made with Organic” labeling claims.      

    The guidance took effect on May 2.  As noted in the Federal Register notice of availability, the guidance is not intended to be binding, and alternative approaches that demonstrate compliance are acceptable.  However, “the NOP strongly encourages industry to discuss alternative approaches with the NOP before implementing them to avoid unnecessary or wasteful expenditures of resources and to ensure the proposed alternative approach complies with the Act and its implementing regulations.”

    Interoperably Exchanging Information with FDA: Agency Holds First DSCSA Public Workshop

    By Jessica A. Ritsick & William T. Koustas

    On May 8th and 9th, FDA got the ball rolling on the implementation of Title II of the Drug Quality & Security Act (“DQSA”), the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (“DSCSA”), by hosting a public workshop for interested parties.  The workshop was just that – a workshop – bringing together different members of the supply chain to collaborate on the potential challenges of exchanging Transaction Information/Transaction History/Transaction Statement (“TI/TH/TS” or “the three Ts”).  Supply chain members must start passing TI/TH/TS on January 1, 2015, and the DSCSA requires FDA to issue guidance on this no later than November 27, 2014, giving supply chain participants approximately six weeks to comply with whatever standards may be set forth in the guidance.  The purpose of this workshop was to get supply chain participants talking with each other, as well as with FDA, about which mechanisms would be best and most feasible to implement by the January 1, 2015, deadline.  The workshop participants were also asked to think about future interoperability, as the goal of the DSCSA is to move to a fully electronic interoperable system in 10 years.  FDA seemed very interested in getting all participants talking to each other:  every attendee was assigned to a table, and that table included various members from different areas of the supply chain.  Discussion was not just encouraged, but necessary.

    The meeting agenda and discussion topics (here and here) facilitated discussion of potential gaps in the DSCSA, such as definitions and requirements that required clarity, as well as the challenges of complying with the three Ts by January 1, 2015.  At the end of the first day of the workshop, each table provided a summary of what it considered to be the most feasible “tools” for exchanging the three Ts in an interoperable fashion by January 1, 2015.  Surprisingly, all tables’ preferences and suggestions were strikingly similar, and there were many areas of consensus throughout the room.  The overall consensus was that, by January 1, 2015, the most logical means to transmit TI/TH/TS would be the same means frequently used now to transmit certain transaction information:  paper packing slips and Electronic Data Interchange ("EDI"), including Advance Ship Notices ("ASN").  Web portals were also seen as a viable option for January 1, 2015, compliance.  Looking 10 years down the road, the ultimate goal would be to transition all parties to one electronic system, such as Electronic Product Code Information Services ("EPCIS").  Unsurprisingly, participants requested that FDA produce its TI/TH/TS guidance document sooner rather than later.  FDA seemed to hear the suggestions loud and clear. 

    Without an issued guidance, however, what are supply chain members to do in the meantime?  Perhaps the most important thing to do is to try to understand the DSCSA, and how different sectors of the supply chain are expected to interact, or “interoperate,” with each other.  Several resources are available, including some from FDA, as well as a fairly comprehensive DSCSA implementation timeline recently released by The Pew Charitable Trusts.  This timeline illustrates the requirements for each supply chain member, as well as how that supply chain member must interact with others in the supply chain.  As the FDA workshop made clear, the better the supply chain members understand their own responsibilities and challenges, as well as the responsibilities and challenges faced by the parties they work with in the supply chain, the better and more interoperable this new system could be.